Forum menu
You were talking about CCS in the UK. At least try to be consistent.
If we're going to dance on pinheads, then yes, you're right. In turn, I sad gas and coal. Gas is still 1/3 approx, isn't it, and won't go away in the near future.
I think your comment is fundamentally misguided, for the reasons I gave and Ed set out succinctly.
Now, if Ed (and Somafunk) had said something like that, then maybe they'd have got a better response.
I see this thread is still just negativity about everything and anything, sweet
That's on the Labour party - coming to power with the shoddiest first 100 days I can remember.
All they had to do was come with a great expansive plan to start to turn the country around. They didn't. They opened the gates for a load of deserved shit flinging.
Instead they babbled on about black-holes and misrepresented government finances, attacked pensioners and didn't remove the 2 child cap. Looks like they're going to mess up the VAT on private schools. We haven't even got to GB energy yet...
Game is up, they're shit and have given the right a ton of ammo.
Well done the grown-ups.
Centrism has been rumbled as not having any half-decent progressive ideas - but we all knew it didn't we. Not only that but Starmer and Reeves are rubbish at the politics.
Still time to turn it all around but I reckon it's downhill from here.
Iknew knew you'd slag off the links, pot kettle black.
my home is well insulated
Let's see, my house isn't even passive and I've got:
Floors: R=3 100mm of plyester wool
Roof/ 100mm wood fibre R2.8 crossed with 100mm cotton/lin/hemp R2.8 and 66mm polyurethane R=3 and in most of it there's 100 of rock wool in the ceiling tooat R=3
Walls: varaibale between R=3.2 and R=5.2 depending on material used. (a typical UK cavity wall with insulation in the cavity is R=1.5)
Windows: triple glazed uw 0.9 or 1.0
Check out the energy bills threads to see what people spend on gas to get an idea of the energy demand of what most people consider a "well insulated house" to be. But how many would give up 100mm of space and make the investment in money and time and inconvenience to properly insulate. Very very few on this forum.
Now yours.
You apparnetly know a lot about black holes. Well I published on the impact of atmosperic pollution in the journal of environmental management decades ago, have maintained an interest in pollution ever since, have the whole geological history of the planet in my head to make comparison with and haven't lost my geologist approach to science.
Don't continue the debate, or stick around and maybe you'll see that sometimes you just might have fallen for some clever greenwashing and oil industry propaganda.
Have a read of this thread, just my posts from the page I've linked if you want to see where I'm coming from. You'll note that STW was way more confrontational than it is now. Those of us still around are fairly thick skinned. I've got even older threads in my book marks but I covered most of the important points in the linked thread:
https://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/global-warming-update/page/3/
So what's everyones thoughts on the shakeup at No. 10 today?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cdenx2p32jxo
Overall it seems like a good move, probably inevitable too.
If we’re going to dance on pinheads, then yes, you’re right. In turn, I sad gas and coal. Gas is still 1/3 approx, isn’t it, and won’t go away in the near future.
Erm, this is a UK government initiative discussed in a thread about the UK government. Coal is not relevant in this context. If you want to talk about something else, please start that new thread you keep banging on about.
Now, if Ed (and Somafunk) had said something like that, then maybe they’d have got a better response.
I don't believe you responded to what I said, or Ed's succinct summary of why CCS should be low down the priority order.
a) I haven’t actually seen it.
It's half way down p59, you linked a Sam Coates twitter post and I asked for some clarification.
b) I don’t have a duty to respond to anyone. I have a life outside this forum and don’t spend all my spare time fretting over every single challenge.
You see, to me it's more like a pattern of behaviour where "find a critical article, post it maybe with some additional (and sometimes false) embellishment, and when called out on it, nowhere to be seen" If you're going to post an article be prepared to defend or justify it. Otherwise it feels a bit like flinging shit.
c) I might not be able to answer it.
If you don't understand it, why post it? Other than (b)
d) Go on then for laugh.
Sorry - don't follow?
Centrism has been rumbled as not having any half-decent progressive ideas – but we all knew it didn’t we. Not only that but Starmer and Reeves are rubbish at the politics.
Even centrist commentators have had enough: it's not often I agree with Will Hutton but his analysis of their political failures is interesting.
All they had to do was come with a great plan to start to turn the country around.
Oh, is that all? Well then, they must be utter shite.
They opened the gates for a load of deserved shit flinging.
This they did. And it was the one thing I thought I could at least rely on Starmer not to do.
Instead they babbled on about black-holes and misrepresented government finances
If 'misrepresentation' is a synonym for 'representing what 150+ other nations also believe' then yes. Otherwise no.
It's been a mixed bag.
Now, if Ed (and Somafunk) had said something like that, then maybe they’d have got a better response.
I would have directly linked to reports from folk with the education and background to refute what you posted but links are not embedding so I surmised what they wrote
I see this thread is still just negativity about everything and anything, sweet
no it isnt.
I think I'll pop into the thread another day.
I don’t believe you responded to what I said, or Ed’s succinct summary of why CCS should be low down the priority order.
I'm just "the easily fooled who believe the bollocks who has fallen for some clever greenwashing and oil industry propaganda" and would just be "parrotting information given to me by others", why are you interested?
I've made my opinion clear, even if they are based on info from others. That CCUS has a place in the transition strategy and investment into developing it is to be welcomed alongside all the other things we need to do. Just because it isn't efficient now - that's part of the purpose of the investment into development. You say it doesn't and won't work, other equally qualified people disagree.
Erm, this is a UK government initiative discussed in a thread about the UK government. Coal is not relevant in this context.
But gas is, isn't it?
Now yours.
Yep, you win on that. Can I retract or at least modify to 'by UK standards'. Rafter depth of blown cellulose and then 200mm rockwool laid over except for a boarded central area. Filled cavity walls. Triple glazing, 1w/m2. Floor is a solid slab, celings not done. 7yo gas boiler which will be replaced by ashp when it starts going wrong.
I would have directly linked to reports from folk with the education and background to refute what you posted but links are not embedding so I surmised what they wrote
and that came out as
Yeah it’s utter bollox this CC bullshit but when you see the Labour Party sucking from the lobbyists teets
and you really expect that to lead to reasoned debate?
and you really expect that to lead to reasoned debate?
It's exactly how I would phrase it if you were stood in front of me, don't see the issue.
Overall it seems like a good move, probably inevitable too.
I think it’s a very bad move. To me it signals a shift from no10 prioritising running the government, and in turn the country… to a focus on headline management and handling the press.
and I’d just shake my head and walk away as there’s no point arguing at that level.
Posted 1 minute ago
Ask Norway how its going with their carbon capture, dale Vince and others have ridiculed the idea.
spend 22b on insulating homes, a much greaterretrn
Ask Norway how its going with their carbon capture, dale Vince and others have ridiculed the idea.
You see, I could engage with that.
There was actually an interesting Dale Vince LI thread on it, but again the problem is that even there the anti- soon resort to "insults" - eg: Carbon capture is an absolute scam; My sisters out of tune recorder playing skills are more useful than carbon capture and storage; etc. Any reasoned responses are ridiculed or dismissed. Just ruining any serious debate.
and I’d just shake my head and walk away as there’s no point arguing at that level.
Pleeeeeze
Up to eight quotes from other members in one post with antagonistic replies
Completely ignores linked info and dismisses it as unreliable sources whilst treating official propaganda as gospel.
Makes claims on own lifestyle but fails to back them up
Constantly criticises other members attitudes and posting style whilst posting in a heavy-handed and arrogant manner.
Slags off the "level of argument" whilst using all the tricks in the STW book.
Accuses members of getting personal having already got personal.
Assumes other STW members are ignorant plebs unworthy of arguing with him
We can see what you're doing, man. Anyhow it's getting late and I've just had to remind myself, "don't feed the troll".
Sleep tight.
to a focus on headline management and handling the press.
But all the headlines and press focus was due to an internal Labour Party battle. The victor has now claimed his prize so presumably there will now be less reasons for Labour apparatchiks to brief against each other, a good thing, no?
What I would like to know is whether like Sue Gray Morgan McSweeney will be paid more than the Prime Minister. Since McSweeney is probably doing most of Starmer's thinking for him it seems reasonable that he should.
Although unless another clash of personalities occurs and they start briefing against each other I suppose we will never know.
I’m just “the easily fooled who believe the bollocks who has fallen for some clever greenwashing and oil industry propaganda” and would just be “parrotting information given to me by others”, why are you interested?
You're right: I'm intensely uninterested in you playing the victim, and likewise, you've made it clear that you're not interested in my opinion.
But gas is, isn’t it?
Absolutely. So why were you talking about coal?
You say it doesn’t and won’t work, other equally qualified people disagree.
Is it possible to store CO2? Yes. Is it something we should be prioritizing? No.
Yeh, you're right it's all on me.
sorry - just read Ed's post and WTF
Up to eight quotes from other members in one post with antagonistic replies
Like this one. But if you raise lots of points it's easier to answer them line by line
Completely ignores linked info and dismisses it as unreliable sources whilst treating official propaganda as gospel.
Not ignored and not dismissed but I think it's reasonable to show who the source is and if they have a position or not.
Makes claims on own lifestyle but fails to back them up
I did. Maybe not as good as you, which I recognised.
Constantly criticises other members attitudes and posting style whilst posting in a heavy-handed and arrogant manner.
Yep, fair. But again, it was your "easily fooled who believe the bollocks" that started the annoyance.
Slags off the “level of argument” whilst using all the tricks in the STW book.
Yep, also fair probably.
Accuses members of getting personal having already got personal.
You started it, expect it back.
Assumes other STW members are ignorant plebs unworthy of arguing with him
Maybe. That started with an Ernie challenge and then festered. I'll try not to.
We can see what you’re doing, man. Anyhow it’s getting late and I’ve just had to remind myself, “don’t feed the troll”.
Not a troll. Not a sealion either which has also been levelled - I just think if someone posts something that is incorrect, or vague/misleading then they should be expected to answer to it. Maybe others are OK with that, but it's a pattern among some posters on politics threads in particular.
it was your “easily fooled who believe the bollocks” that started the annoyance
Which was in reply to a quote from another member's post not you. It was absolutely not aimed at you personally as others have realised and pointed out to you. It's a specific aspect of carbon capture I reacted to.
It really is getting late now on this side of the chanel.
Assumes other STW members are ignorant plebs unworthy of arguing with him
Maybe. That started with an Ernie challenge and then festered. I’ll try not to.
So your behaviour is my fault now?
And I have never challenged you about anything. I posted a link to a Guardian article about Thames water quality, with I think a one sentence comment from me . You decided to challenge both the article and my comment, I ignored your challenge which apparently really wound you up and you repeatedly demanded that I answer some question or other accusing me of being either a liar or ignorant.
Two weeks later you were still banging on about it and now yet again a week or two later and you are still referring to it, what is wrong with you?
And on the question of "ignorant plebs" I have repeatedly told you that I claim no expertise on any subject other than how to swing a hammer. So I frankly couldn't give a monkeys if you dismiss everything I say as nonsense.
Hope that helps and please carry on having your bad tempered argument with Ed and ransos without involving me. :thumbs:
And I have never challenged you about anything.
Sorry Ernie, but that is false. You're not even referring to the right incident.
End of Aug (I can only tell because you actually made the effort to message me about it, and the messages are still there), I said there was lots of good stuff going on in gov but I'm not at liberty to say what, and you said words to the effect of "why should I believe you, to me you're just a random cyclist on the internet"
So, possibly against my better judgement I posted my LI. And as i said to you -
I've never actually hidden who I am / who I work for behind an obtuse pen name and if I'm going to claim a level of expertise or knowledge in a subject then I'm happy to back that up.
And when others turn up claiming a level of expertise and then say stuff that doesn't sound right, or make assertions that don't match my experience - then yes, I wonder why they aren't held to the same scrutiny. If that comes across as
Assumes other STW members are ignorant plebs unworthy of arguing with him
then I don't mean it to, but to paraphrase Ernie, you're just random internet personas.
I frankly couldn’t give a monkeys if you dismiss everything I say as nonsense.
You see I do care (maybe too much, about my credibility) - but if you post an article or make a claim I think you need to be able to speak to it / justify the comments, and that might include some idea of whether you actually know what you're talking about. When TiRed talks about vaccines, or DrP about medical, or AA about teaching - their opinions carry weight because of who they are. Others.... not so clear.
I posted a link to a Guardian article about Thames water quality,
That's long gone, stop bringing it up 😉
@theotherjonv - for the record - my sealion comment several pages back wasn't aimed at you 🙂
It was absolutely not aimed at you personally as others have realised and pointed out to you. It’s a specific aspect of carbon capture I reacted to.
I read it and still read it as a comment on those who see CCUS as a future transitional need worth investing in, but if that was not the intent then I apologise for that. It wasn't clear.
If you want then to be honest - my response to that comment wasn't actually that unfair. I said there are plenty of scientists that believe it and I align more with them, (and my own colleagues who I spoke to on Friday) than (and I should have chosen better words at the time) general comment on the internet.
Then things escalated and I take my fair share of the blame for that - but also to be fair others started piling in at that stage including a couple that seem to have a problem with me (and in fairness me with them) and that is what then ensued.
I shoulder responsibility for my part but I'm not accepting it's all of my own making and your (Ed's) 'assassination' and accusation of trolling I think also needs review. I'll leave that with you, if you want to.
thanks, I wasn't sure but I'm being accused of all sorts recently, best I plead on everything and anything 😉
Talking about the current discussion, not individuals posting in it.
I think it's easy to lose perspective on STW, particularly on the political threads as all the posters on here want a better country (and world) and understandably are pretty passionate about it. Passionate about the best way of achieving it too and so hills are chosen to die on and a perma-war kicks off.
I've chosen a few humdingers (hills) myself over the years. Hell, I'm a veteran of the Ling Wars™ thread. I was there man, I was there. 😉
Something I've never admitted to but I lost sleep over that thread. I'd never been subject of a real STW pile on and it was not a great place to be. Still, it was the hill I chose and that's *entirely* on me.
However...
It's worth remembering that behind the usernames there are real people with real lives and all the complexities that go with that.
Very few people on here are empirically correct, it's all mired in opinion and bias whether we like it or not, whether we see it or not. Anyone that thinks otherwise? Well, herein lies the problem and I am part of that problem on occasion for sure.
Yours, Poopscoop. Veteran of the Ling Wars™ thread. I was there man, I was there.
(Also available for group therapy, hypnotherapy and electroconvulsive therapy on Tuesday evenings, by appointment only.)
End of Aug
Jeezus. Do you never let anything go? Yes you are just some random punter on a MTB forum to me. You can make claims that you have inside knowledge which you can't divulge about the government, and which you claim is positive, but it's up to me whether I think that is a convincing argument or not for me.
I didn't challenge you beyond saying that I wasn't convinced by a claim based on mysterious information that can't be divulged, I think it is my prerogative what I believe, don't you?
Try using a different tactic if you want to convince people that the current government is going in the right direction. According to polls most voters think it is going in the wrong direction - should Starmer be saying "listen we have secret spending plans which we can't divulge but everything is going to be great, trust me, I'm the prime minister" ?
And I completely fail to understand why you apparently care so much what I or anyone else thinks anyway. I am completely relaxed if everything I post is dismissed as nonsense, why should it bother me?
Jeezus. Do you never let anything go?
When you refer to the wrong event in a claim that you haven't ever challenged me on anything, I should just let it ride? Even if it was a few weeks ago.
I think it is my prerogative what I believe, don’t you?
Absolutely. It's mine to challenge when I think people are not being entirely truthful.
should Starmer be saying “listen we have secret spending plans which we can’t divulge but everything is going to be great, trust me, I’m the prime minister” ?
Put like that, then no. However - when phrased as 'there's currently a budget and SR process ongoing and you should judge once the plans are announced' - then personally, I think so.
And I completely fail to understand why you apparently care so much what I or anyone else thinks anyway. I am completely relaxed if everything I post is dismissed as nonsense, why should it bother me?
Lucky you. I'm not wired that way. Doesn't make you right and me wrong, or v/v, we are just different.
I’m really trying so I’ve reported my post and asked the Mods to ban me, until my subscription lapses anyway. Getting into arguments like this is affecting my mental health – or maybe my mental health is getting me into these arguments
No you don't you daft beggar!
Take a step back from the thread, you aren't allowed to "self terminate" your membership as Cougar once put it when he was going to step away from the forum.
Do what I do on occasion, enact the H.F. Protocol.
The Honourable Flounce. I do it all the time in the political threads. Make a post, if it's challenged (highly bloody likely! Lol) perhaps make a counter argument in one post (two if you are feeling brave) then move on saying that's its ok to disagree. Job done and have a read of the other less contentious threads on here and pop back in another time to see what hill is being fought over that day. It'll likely be a different one.
Yeah, the Honourable Flounce, I highly recommend it! 😀
That escalated quickly......
You see, to me it’s more like a pattern of behaviour where “find a critical article, post it maybe with some additional (and sometimes false) embellishment, and when called out on it, nowhere to be seen” If you’re going to post an article be prepared to defend or justify it.
As I said to you before, you are taking this WAY too seriously. If people reply to you it is up to them, it is not their job, they can choose to spend whatever time they want answering whatever questions they want and positing whatever they want. Just look back at the this page and see how much you are demanding.
I do think 'discussions' on forums can take their toll when taken too seriously not helped by the nature of delayed response to questions that would not happen face to face.
DrP about medical
DrJ is the real doc who is quite handsome, drives a... and rides a... and lives in... with... X having...
DrP is nearly my age, not so handsome and we have some other things in common. He likes spartan modern furnishings or did in his last place anyhow. Now back in the UK after... drives a...
Just teasing, but seriously anyone taking a minimum of notice soon builds up a mental profile of the people on here, I could sit down with a pen and write more than a A4 page on some without thinking too hard. I've even been accused of stalking and having files on you all - I did make a quip to that effect but have infact only have kept one record or rather two, lists of in and out when the original Brexit thread was running, long since binned. It's just the way my memory works (and sometimes doesn't) that seems to surprise people. I bookmark some pages too when I make predictions to see how they hold up.
People post about their medical issues, private lives, holidays, passions, problems and all sorts of wonderful shit, and some of remains in my head, I can't help it. I know more about at least 20 people here than I know about the club members who I've ridden an MTB with on a Saturday mornings for 20 odd years and who've invited me into their homes.
So to me anyhow you're not Internet Randoms, you're a bunch of people I like enough to virtually hang out with. You can't get on with all the people all the time and as in real life I know those I share values with and those I don't. I have a lot of respect for some I don't share all values too. In disputes I sometimes stay out of the playground gangs it but sometimes as in yesterday dive in - Ernie is one hell off a sharp carpenter and wields a political banner with just just as much precision as his hammer - he doesn't deserve the "attention" he's getting. He's visibly been trying to diffuse rather than escalate but even ignoring the provocation has been provocative apparently.
Vive STW and all who sail in her !
Signed a ex Welsh Water scientist who enjoyed reading the Thames Water article that apparently started all this. 🙂
I think we should all do a little "descriptor" of ourselves- here's mine
Looks - pound shop Al Murray crossed with Shrek (not as green)
Interested in - pointless political discussion and obsessed with 20th century social history.
Likes - Red wine Beer and Pork scratchings
Dislikes - Reform, Tories and any **** with no social responsibility
Social status - externally middle class internally Northern working class scumbag.
Drives - Nissan Navara (baby Robin killer) but I do live in the sticks..
Ailments - way too many to list.
Pet hates - ****s on ebay who don't put measurements on listing's.
Employment - cyber security
Marital status - she hates me
Time away when you get into the posting/mental health spiral is wise, but doesn't need to be a permanent thing. The forum would be a worse place without jonv, he's been a voice of reason on many issues in the past.
Maybe we need a posting limit, per thread/day or something.
Surely best answer is don't invest too much personality into the discussion that you'd be bothered if someone says something you don't like.
It's so simple to just put your phone down and deal with all the real stuff going on around you.
Forum discussion is optional and way too ad-hoc to be bothered about too much.
It's nice to kick ideas about and challenge stuff - and read others opinions, try and make sense of stuff.
That's about it. Dib in dib out.
Real life - as in visiting hospitals and dealing with money is so much more challenging.
And ultimately I'm more bothered about Labour making material changes than I am a discussion about it.
Dunno but that's my way of dealing with it. Like many, 2024 has been terrible for me but sharing with the internet would accentuate it rather than help fix it.
It's handy to have some limits where you sign off.
But everyone's different.
I’m really trying so I’ve reported my post and asked the Mods to ban me, until my subscription lapses anyway.
So we're back to flouncing because people disagree with you? The problem is that all your posts come across as 'I'm too clever to talk to you' or 'don't you know who I am'? Posting your LI profile only exacerbates that. You may well have a lifetime of professional and academic experience in some of these matters but don't expect the respect you garner in professional circles to count for anything here. This is an internet forum, not a professional forum or serious thing where you will be held to account for anything. People here don't care who you are or what you do, and they can respond to your posts in whatever way they like as long as they don't break the forum rules. Instead though you expect everyone to defer to you because that's what they probably do IRL. Think of this place as a leveller and then accept that you're no more important than anyone else, and you might start to have a bit of fun or amusement, which ATEOTD is all that this place is for.
Employment – cyber security
Drives – Nissan Navara (baby Robin killer) but I do live in the sticks..
My God man.
You. Are. A. Monster!!
Audi know where you live. They*will* find you and they*will* kill you.
rone
Full Member
Surely best answer is don’t invest too much personality into the discussion that you’d be bothered if someone says something you don’t like.It’s so simple to just put your phone down and deal with all the real stuff going on around you.
Forum discussion is optional and way too ad-hoc to be bothered about too much.
Just quoting you as it's a handy segue.
The thing is, we all handle life in different ways and the same applies to the little extensions of our lives that play out on STW. Most members on here can probably shrug off the more heated exchanges but not everyone can.
Add in the red mist of, "but I'm right, you aren't!" and it's easy to get sucked into a discussion even when your logical brain says walk away.
We also dont know what's going on in most members personal lives. We cant just assume that because someone decides that posting personal stuff on here is not for them that they aren't facing challenging circumstances in the real world. I tend to back away from the forum on my bad days as I know it can creep into my posting on here.
The inherent issue with the political threads is that they often cross an ever moving line where it becomes all about winning the argument and the actual point of contention becomes a side issue. The problem is, everyone reaches that point at a different time or dont even realise they've crossed that line.
I'm not pointing fingers at anyone, I'm guilty off all this too.
Nice idea Oldman but I've posted much more info than that already and I'm sure everyone is sooo interested in what I post they've retained every bit of it. I'll be soo disappointe if they haven't.
Anyhow, the governement, 10 000 more kids have fallen into poverty under Labour thanks to the 2-child cap says a Guardian title. ****s.
Most members on here can probably shrug off the more heated exchanges but not everyone can.
Maybe I've got an iron mental shield or something but I don't think I've ever been affected by anything anyone has ever posted on here about me or something I've said. I exchange opinions (some quite strong) regularly on here with people like binners, TJ, nickc and a few others who I have met IRL or know quite well and funnilly enough what we say on here never comes up in real conversations. What's said on the forum, stays on the forum is probably a good rule to live by. I'm pretty sure most people who know me IRL would agree I'm very different to what I'm like on here (I'm far more polite and easy going than my internet persona of 'argumentative tw*t with a chip on his shoulder') so no one should take anything too seriously.
We also dont know what’s going on in most members personal lives. We cant just assume that because someone decides that posting personal stuff on here is not for them that they aren’t facing challenging circumstances in the real world.
We have absolutely no way of knowing accurately about anyone on here. Someone could be a trooper on here but having melt-down in real life. There is no practical solution other than forum rules, and even then people add their spin to the rules.
I'm not one to push personal responsibilty Tory-style too much (the world is too hard for that) but ultimately if you join in a discussion chances are you're going to get some kick back at some point.
How on earth would we police what we say based on how it might throw someone we don't know?
Anyhow, the governement, 10 000 more kids have fallen into poverty under Labour thanks to the 2-child cap says a Guardian title. ****.
Yeah. Material conditions again - in the face of doing something.
Labour all over. There's gonna be loads more of this. Labour didn't inheret terrible government finances like they say- (that's technically impossible because they can do all the fiscal they need to from a default position - remember other than inflation, things are arbitrary) but they did inheret dire economic and real-world circumstances of many of the country.
So we’re back to flouncing because people disagree with you?
Hey, no need for the aggressive response. It is clear that Jonv gets genuinely upset when people challenge him, or don't answer his questions. No I don't understand it either but I don't know what's going on in his life, the only thing that seems certain to me is that it is genuine.
I agree with others that a short time away might recalibrate priorities/put a better perspective on things. Jonv has been posting on stw for as long as I can remember, it is only in about the last month or so that I have noticed this apparent hypersensitivity, never before, which suggests that something might be out of kilter.
Hopefully a break away will help. He seems to feel that it will.
Back on topic, the most significant takeaway from the Sue Gray debacle for me is that all the claims on here and elsewhere that the one thing we could all be absolutely sure of was that Starmer is an extremely competent and experienced manager and leader. Given all the reports of the dysfunctionality of the No 10 operation from infighting between advisors to ministers not having clear direction on what the PM wanted, the assumption of managerial competency seems very far from the reality. We appear to have a PM who is politically naive, operationally incompetent and economically illiterate. It's like a holy trinity of uselessness. 🙂
It's interesting - because Starmer came loaded with amazing character traits that he was all these things.
Based on what?
They should have done the budget earlier like i was saying a while back - this was the first mistake. To drip-drop random economic ideas with a bit of fag chaos in the middle set the alarm bells ringing.
TalkTV and GBnews have overloaded recently - not to mention Tommy Robinson's so-called announcement on the 26th. I thought Starmer was courting the 'right'.
We appear to have a PM who is politically naive, operationally incompetent and economically illiterate. It’s like a holy trinity of uselessness. 🙂
But he has only been PM for n months. Give it another year or so and he will be none of those things, unless he still is (which he will be)
Thread has died now that jonv is no longer here. :-/ Funny isn't it how people complain of petty bickering but then when it stops you get no posts about the actual subject. It's almost like forum threads aren't here to be serious places of discussion.
Anyway, I note in the news today there are reports that McSweeney is going to be 'radical' in his shake up of govt. Kind of ironic that we now have a labour version of Boris and Dom. I suspect it'll end the same way. I hope McSweeney got some savings, I give him less than a year.
that we now have a labour version of Boris and Dom.
The same thought occurred to me when I read the headlines this morning.
Thread next stop Budget, and finding the magic 57bn. Sorely needed.
I suspect and hope that with the battering Labour are getting they will find it.
Unless Reeves is totally wedded to the dark side.
ernielynch
Full Memb https://twitter.com/LukeTryl/status/1843536642445062622
/blockquote>
That has to be pretty good news for labour?
Thread has died
Maybe those previous supporters/apologists for Starmers poor decisions have realised that they backed the wrong horse unless they are just waiting to come back to thread in 3 years time to say I told you so after Starmer has emerged as a progressive hero.
Maybe those previous supporters/apologists for Starmers poor decisions have realised that they backed the wrong horse
Maybe people - disappointed with Starmer or not - are fed up of posters coming on with that kind of constant whining to show how edgy they are
Isn't whinig to come across as edgy a bit of an oxymoron?
Maybe those previous supporters/apologists for Starmers poor decisions have realised that they backed the wrong horse unless they are just waiting to come back to thread in 3 years time to say I told you so after Starmer has emerged as a progressive hero.
I've not noticed much issues in the way they've governed, some positives in terms of updates to policies, some negatives on what i would like to see, but then, i'm not seeing behind the curtain on why these changes aren't being made.
Overall, pretty steady, nothing amazing, but neither anything horrific.
Isn’t whinig to come across as edgy a bit of an oxymoron?
Certainly moronic. Wink emoji
I’ve not noticed much issues in the way they’ve governed, some positives in terms of updates to policies, some negatives on what i would like to see, but then, i’m not seeing behind the curtain on why these changes aren’t being made.
Overall, pretty steady, nothing amazing, but neither anything horrific.
My view as well - some obvious gaffes, some disappointments, some unexpected progress in other areas. With my civil service hat on, more stable and responsible feel to what filters down here to the shop floor.
The budget will determine whether disappointment outweighs the progress. Show me the details, not soundbites floated via the media.
Anyway – I said I was done here and then like an addict I came back.
I’m really trying so I’ve reported my post and asked the Mods to ban me, until my subscription lapses anyway. Getting into arguments like this is affecting my mental health – or maybe my mental health is getting me into these arguments (Poopscoop, dead right) and what I’m getting from this place now isn’t worth the effort.
I’m sure you’ll be back to say I’ve said it already, hence the need to ask for the ban. To those that have helped over the years; thanks. I apologise to anyone I’ve annoyed, particularly recently.
This makes me profoundly sad. 🙁
That has to be pretty good news for labour?
Yup, let's hope that Labour maintain a lead after the Tories after they have finally elected their new leader.
This makes me profoundly sad. 🙁
The celebratory tone of some of the posts on this page as a result makes me feel pretty angry and sad too, if I'm honest.
Maybe those previous supporters/apologists for Starmers poor decisions have realised that they backed the wrong horse
im sure they deeply regret not voting for rishi sunak /s
I am sure they don't but that doesn't mean who they have voted for is a bit of a disappointment. I wanted Labour to be in power but I can at least admit to seeing they are not exactly doing a great job and other than not being not massive ****s not really making a lot of difference.
Let's take the winter fuel payment that has come back up in the news, a decent government would firstly setup drop in centres for older people to walk into and get a quick assessment of whether they could claim more benefits and if it looks like they could they could be walked though how to do it. Once that is done and people who are rightfully entitled to benefits are getting them then withdraw the winter fuel payment. The money would be about even but the right people would be getting it.
Not difficult to do stuff properly and with compassion is it...
Its not the thread that's the issue it's damned government.
Trying to pretend it's all going just okay is just simply ignoring reality. And if you think it's going okay you were probably one of the folks that did alright under the Tories which is why you're picking through the scraps of nothingness now.
Acid Test - if the Tories had done any of these dope arse things would you have been critical? Come on - be honest. That would cover about 75% of you.
It's a fail as a start of government.
Basically it's just a matter of time until a consensus forms on a government and it's going to take some serious budget magic tricks to over turn that.
The budget is making its way through another failing Tory institution - the OBR now (it's forecasting record is a sham) Don't ya just love all those undemocratic checks and balances that don't work in your favour?
Last time I checked there were at least 5 prominent financial institutions all commenting on how the budget should pan out.
They're all unnecessary in terms of benefit to the wider well-being of society.
We don't need more institutions telling us to spend less because of some messed up monetarist nonsense.
The winter fuel payment will come back to bite them time and time again.
Economically it was ridiculous. It doesn't 'save' much in reality because it's impossible to save money as opposed to just reduce a paper budget. But in the real world is that's less money in the economy.
That is the opposite of growth.
Also to do it as part of an unstructured official budget was political suicide and awful timing.
Basically there was no need.
Not to mention just randomly attacking a certain group of people was just terrible.
No blinkers here.
TBH, the thing I'm most surprised about is Starmer's apparent lack of political nous.
Take the freebies. His indulgences will always pale into insignificance next to rampant, end of times Tories having one last fill of the pockets. Rules-wise, Starmer has done nothing wrong. To political wonks, it is a series of nothings. But the majority of the electorate do not take an active interest in politics - they hear "they're all the same" and believe it.
For Starmer not to realise this smacks of a naivety that I didn't think we would see. Does he not understand the dangers of a disillusioned electorate?
The cynicism that the likes of McSweeney (aka Dom Cum's leftie cousin) will bring will not help at all.
Starmer has burned way more political capital than he would have if he'd been a tiny bit more savvy. For me, it is too early by far to tell in terms of real-world effects. But for a country that seems to, in large part, do politics as soap opera, his gaffes so far have been eye-rollingly stupid.
The celebratory tone
Think you've imagined that. No one wanted or forced jonv to flounce, he did it all on his own. I still don't really know why to be honest, but if you're going to set yourself up as the arbiter of truth on a thread that is inherently about opinions and political gossip then you're probably going to get a lot of push back.
Back on topic, I see now that Reeves has seen the light and decided to change the fiscal rules to remove her self-imposed straitjacket, the tory press and financial establishment are starting to talk up the prospect of the markets reacting negatively. Not really a surprise really, and another result of Starmer and Reeves political naivety. Had they declared their intentions from the outset and held an early budget to implement it all no one would have batted an eyelid, but now after chaos in Downing St and various u-turns at the treasury it looks like it's going to be the next problem for Starmer. They really don't know what they're doing do they?
The Sue Gray move disappointed me a little, it just harks back to how the media have ruled the government over the last generation or two by making stories out of very little and then having the government change due to perceived opinion. Should anyone care that Sue Gray earned more than the PM, if she's worth the money then why care, there are literally hundreds of civil servants earning more than the PM, but that's not the story, it's because it's Sue Gray, and now she'll just go somewhere else out of sight, earn the same and be less effective.
This is why the whole public opinion thing is an annoyance for me, it's running a country, not x factor, same with the budget, it's about what's best for the country as a whole, not what is palatable by the public, or whatever negativity the media can muster around it.
As for the winter fuel allowance, honestly, it's just an allowance that should have been better controlled for a long time, the current generation are being forced to save more for their retirement and being made to wait longer to take it, yet some folk want them to continue to subsidise the current pensioners even more, no matter if they're millionaires or not!
Think you’ve imagined that.
Obviously.
No one wanted or forced jonv to flounce, he did it all on his own.
Of course he did.
Even using the word 'flounce' to describe jonv's last post is telling. I'd suggest re-reading it and trying to apply the word 'flounce' to it without feeling a bit grubby.
But, in any case, if certain folk are happy with how things have panned out then there's very little else to say.
But in the real world is that’s less money in the economy.
It’s a real worry for companies selling cruises.
Deliberately flippant. My mum is one of those not on pension credits, and she hasn’t been on holiday in this century.
But it’s time to tax rich pensioners more. Stopping a universal hand out for pensioners is just the start of it. Yes, that one “hits” more than just the richest pensioners, but no one losing the WFP is really worse off as the state pension is increasing faster than the earnings of our youngest workers. What all those pensioners need is a working NHS, and that means paying staff properly. The right decision, poor communication. You can’t leave it to journalists to explain this stuff, they want their elderly audience to stay engaged… stay angry… keep reading/clicking/listening.
And don’t give us the “taxes don’t pay for stuff” line, spending without considering taxation isn’t an option in the real world.
But, in any case, if certain folk are happy
Who's happy? Certainly not me, I welcome all posts and discussion unlike many others here who always want to shut other people down or prevent any sort of debate or disagreement. The more disagreement the better as far as I'm concerned.
They really don’t know what they’re doing do they?
I think they're damned if they do, six of the other. Reeves manifesto pledges were; 1. day to day spending matched by tax receipts, this she's sticking too despite it being reasonably hard in the current climate, and 2 debt falling as share of the economy, which is where all politicians can eff about as "define debt" becomes the catch. I think both Tories and Labour were looking at the same wiggle room pre-election, and are spinning it to meet their own needs.
The risk of the Truss-alike market reaction is partly why Reeves is treading carefully I think, but the current fiscal rules look to be discreated by just about everyone, and that a bit of headroom to boost investment is now seen as sensible. I can imagine however that post budget headlines of "Runaway Inflation Fears" and "Interest Rates Set to Soar" from the usual suspects are probably keeping her awake.
No one wanted or forced jonv to flounce, he did it all on his own.
Well - he didn't. Reading back over the last few days, there's an increasing spiral of condescension and vehemence, a sense of a "pile-on", if you will, and it's a real shame you can't see it. Where this place becomes a hot mess is when threads become point-scoring exercises - we're adults, we can hold different opinions and admit mistakes, but genuine attempts to hold good faith discussions so often get dragged down into this morass of pointless, infuriating division.
Should anyone care that Sue Gray earned more than the PM, if she’s worth the money then why care, there are literally hundreds of civil servants earning more than the PM, but that’s not the story, it’s because it’s Sue Gray, and now she’ll just go somewhere else out of sight, earn the same and be less effective.
I think there is more to it than that. The average voter probably doesn't know who Sue Gray is and doesn't care. That could have easily been left to blow over but she 'resigned' anyway.
WFA is different as the average voter is aware of that and doesn't generally agree it should have just been stopped. See my simple solution up there on stopping it properly by ensuring those who genuinely need it get it via entitled benefits. Maybe doing it properly would have meant removing it next year with a years notice to ensure those entitled to additional benefits get them. It was not an emergency to sort out by any stretch of the imagination and was simply cocked up.