Westminster Politics 2024-2029

Giggsyking said:


From day one I said his dream is to be a second cheap copy of his idol, the WMD liar and war criminal piece of s**t Blair. It took him 2 weeks to participate in bombing the middle east.
Click to expand...

It’s not exactly a surprise though? Starmer never pretended that he would change the status quo re Britain’s military output.

Israel has been an ally (one that I personally hate, but an ally none the less) for decades, escorting their warplanes isn’t exactly weird. It would be a huge story if we refused to cooperate.
 
Spark said:
It’s not exactly a surprise though? Starmer never pretended that he would change the status quo re Britain’s military output.

Israel has been an ally (one that I personally hate, but an ally none the less) for decades, escorting their warplanes isn’t exactly weird. It would be a huge story if we refused to cooperate.
Click to expand...

Exactly, because we were told by people in this very thread he is nothing like previous UK PM's. Hence my post that he is just like any other slimeball politician that would sign on anything to be a PM.
 
Giggsyking said:
Exactly, because we were told by people in this very thread he is nothing like previous UK PM's. Hence my post that he is just like any other slimeball politician that would sign on anything to be a PM.
Click to expand...

Don't think anyone told you that Starmer would support Palestine in this conflict.
Do I think he should? Yes.
Do I think that despite that he's still a better option than the tories? Yes.

What I find funny here is that certain posters only find their humanity when they can use it to attack labour.
 
Giggsyking said:
Exactly, because we were told by people in this very thread he is nothing like previous UK PM's. Hence my post that he is just like any other slimeball politician that would sign on anything to be a PM.
Click to expand...

What are you on about, this is the same Starmer who couldn’t call for a ceasefire, sacked a number of Labour MPs for taking a very moderate line and took a hit from Muslim voters over Gaza.

Literally no one - in this thread/across social media/in MSM comment pieces - has said Labour would not back their ally Israel. My point here is that your example proves absolutely nothing. Escorting Israeli fighter jets is par for the course for UK foreign policy, he’s not emulating Blair but every British PM that’s ever existed.

The only point of difference between labour and tory administrations so far is a subtle change in diplomatic tone via Lammy. To choose not to escort Israeli fighter jets in a bombing run against an enemy that we have actively been bombing ourselves would be a drastic shift that only Corbyn would be capable of.
 
11101 said:
What's commercially viable changes over time. We are drilling wells now that were once considered untouchable.

Contingent and prospect resources all have a degree of uncertainty and the plays are an unknown unknown based on best estimates. 25b is just the governments guess of whats left. Over time those reserves become viable and get developed.

However you want to chop and change the figures, there is a shit load of oil still left in the UKCS.
Click to expand...
There is no way those reserves are worth (estimated reserves * oil price) when there is a fast growing, bottomless alternative energy resource whose price is halving every four years.
 
Spark said:
What are you on about, this is the same Starmer who couldn’t call for a ceasefire, sacked a number of Labour MPs for taking a very moderate line and took a hit from Muslim voters over Gaza.

Literally no one - in this thread/across social media/in MSM comment pieces - has said Labour would not back their ally Israel. My point here is that your example proves absolutely nothing. Escorting Israeli fighter jets is par for the course for UK foreign policy, he’s not emulating Blair but every British PM that’s ever existed.

The only point of difference between labour and tory administrations so far is a subtle change in diplomatic tone via Lammy. To choose not to escort Israeli fighter jets in a bombing run against an enemy that we have actively been bombing ourselves would be a drastic shift that only Corbyn would be capable of.
Click to expand...

I am not talking only about Gaza, of course Gaza was a given, everybody knows that (except some of his followers who said he can change nothing because he is not the PM at the time), but I am talking from the UK foreign policy point in general toward the ME. There were voices here and on social media expressed views that they dont think he will nod his head for everything that the US and Israel ask for.
 
Eplel said:
Don't think anyone told you that Starmer would support Palestine in this conflict.
Do I think he should? Yes.
Do I think that despite that he's still a better option than the tories? Yes.

What I find funny here is that certain posters only find their humanity when they can use it to attack labour.
Click to expand...

This is not clear, do you mean labour as (labour leaders) or anybody associated with labour even ordinary people? I have nothing against people who feel associated with the party. My opinions are strictly on the party leaders and some members. My only concern is the continuous cycle of death in the ME that multiple UK PM's had participated in. I hope one day a UK government that have some backbone and work really for peace instead of fueling wars.
 
nickm said:
There is no way those reserves are worth (estimated reserves * oil price) when there is a fast growing, bottomless alternative energy resource whose price is halving every four years.
Click to expand...

Passenger transport accounts for roughly 40% of oil consumption. Even if you moved all passenger cars on the planet to renewable sources (which is not going to happen any time soon) there is still significant demand for oil as the remaining 60% of shipping, aviation, heavy haulage etc is a long way off being able to move to renewable energy.
 

Unis told to manage own budgets after call for bailouts​

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpd9mgk028lo

Universities should put their own finances in order before looking for help from the taxpayer, the education secretary has told the BBC.

Speaking to Radio 4's Today programme, Bridget Phillipson said there was an expectation universities should “manage their budgets”, as independent institutions.

It follows a call from the Universities and College Union (UCU) for bailouts for those universities struggling financially.

Ms Phillipson said Labour recognised universities as a “public good” and would seek a firmer financial footing for the sector in the long term.

Jo Grady, general secretary of the UCU, warned over the weekend that universities faced "catastrophe" without an emergency rescue package from the government.

In its most recent assessment of university finances, the higher education regulator the Office for Students (OfS) said 40% of universities were predicting deficits.

---

Something is going to give by the end of the year. This position, by both HE institutions, the Office for Students, and the government, is unsustainable.
 
Frosty said:

Unis told to manage own budgets after call for bailouts​

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpd9mgk028lo

Universities should put their own finances in order before looking for help from the taxpayer, the education secretary has told the BBC.

Speaking to Radio 4's Today programme, Bridget Phillipson said there was an expectation universities should “manage their budgets”, as independent institutions.

It follows a call from the Universities and College Union (UCU) for bailouts for those universities struggling financially.

Ms Phillipson said Labour recognised universities as a “public good” and would seek a firmer financial footing for the sector in the long term.

Jo Grady, general secretary of the UCU, warned over the weekend that universities faced "catastrophe" without an emergency rescue package from the government.

In its most recent assessment of university finances, the higher education regulator the Office for Students (OfS) said 40% of universities were predicting deficits.

---

Something is going to give by the end of the year. This position, by both HE institutions, the Office for Students, and the government, is unsustainable.
Click to expand...
Frankly; good. Universities are notorious for wasting money, especially when it comes to their IT. I've seen lecture halls where they've spent £250k on IT and AV installs, whereas other places would be expected to provide the same solutions with 10% of that budget. And the other places manage to do it because they don't outsource their work externally and have to use their brains and actually think about the challenge instead of chucking bottomless pits of money at it. What's the difference between a Yealink ceiling mic system and the one from Sennheisser? About £5k per room, and that's it. Guess which one the uni will buy because they think "more expensive = better"?

My second favourite is the uni that operate two separate MDMs for their Apple devices, and they're like kids who build a PC using the most expensive components at the bottom of the drop down menus. Add ons bought at £10k a year each that they never use. Absolutely zero thought put into it, causes them mountains of conflicts each update, but it's fine because they also pay an external company to administrate it all so the IT techs, who they have an army of, have bugger all to do all day except get bored.
 
Last edited:
Mr Pigeon said:
Frankly; good. Universities are notorious for wasting money, especially when it comes to their IT. I've seen lecture halls where they've spent £250k on IT and AV installs, whereas other places would be expected to provide the same solutions with 10% of that budget. And the other places manage to do it because they don't outsource their work externally and have to use their brains and actually think about the challenge instead of chucking bottomless pits of money at it. What's the difference between a Yealink ceiling mic system and the one from Sennheisser? About £5k per room, and that's it. Guess which one the uni will buy because they think "more expensive = better"?

My second favourite is the uni that operate two separate MDMs for their Apple devices, and they're like kids who build a PC using the most expensive components at the bottom of the drop down menus. Add ons bought at £10k a year each that they never use. Absolutely zero thought put into it, causes them mountains of conflicts each update, but it's fine because they also pay an external company to administrate it all so the IT techs, who they have an army of, have bugger all to do all day except get bored.
Click to expand...
It is depressing that, once again, mismanagement by people paid more by the PM is paid for by academic and administrative staff losing their jobs, and students receiving a decidedly worse experience and poorer education.
 
Frosty said:
It is depressing that, once again, mismanagement by people paid more by the PM is paid for by academic and administrative staff losing their jobs, and students receiving a decidedly worse experience and poorer education.
Click to expand...
Completely agree
 
nickm said:
There is no way those reserves are worth (estimated reserves * oil price) when there is a fast growing, bottomless alternative energy resource whose price is halving every four years.
Click to expand...

Not to mention the cost of production for the North Sea reserves is the most costly method in the whole world. Demand is forecast by everyone to plummet to a fraction of what it is now, it certainly won't be north sea reserves used going forward.

There just isn't a usable supply beyond what's already been licensed. Even then I'd wager most of the projects will be cancelled. They'll no doubt be a brief period of high oil prices where supply is cut closer to actual demand but new extraction will still be too expensive.
 
Mr Pigeon said:
Frankly; good. Universities are notorious for wasting money, especially when it comes to their IT. I've seen lecture halls where they've spent £250k on IT and AV installs, whereas other places would be expected to provide the same solutions with 10% of that budget. And the other places manage to do it because they don't outsource their work externally and have to use their brains and actually think about the challenge instead of chucking bottomless pits of money at it. What's the difference between a Yealink ceiling mic system and the one from Sennheisser? About £5k per room, and that's it. Guess which one the uni will buy because they think "more expensive = better"?

My second favourite is the uni that operate two separate MDMs for their Apple devices, and they're like kids who build a PC using the most expensive components at the bottom of the drop down menus. Add ons bought at £10k a year each that they never use. Absolutely zero thought put into it, causes them mountains of conflicts each update, but it's fine because they also pay an external company to administrate it all so the IT techs, who they have an army of, have bugger all to do all day except get bored.
Click to expand...
I have been pinged by agencies for a couple of senior technology roles in Universities. The pay is abysmal. No wonder they are getting rinsed by the tech providers.
 
Mart1974 said:
I have been pinged by agencies for a couple of senior technology roles in Universities. The pay is abysmal. No wonder they are getting rinsed by the tech providers.
Click to expand...
It's a big problem. Treat professional services staff like an afterthought and then wonder why you're providing a poor service. That's not even saying that they people they have are bad at their jobs, because they're not, but they're barely given any opportunity to flourish.
 
Mr Pigeon said:
It's a big problem. Treat professional services staff like an afterthought and then wonder why you're providing a poor service. That's not even saying that they people they have are bad at their jobs, because they're not, but they're barely given any opportunity to flourish.
Click to expand...
It doesn't help that academics are promoted beyond their incompetence until they run the institutions. They inevitably defer to 'expert' consultants, who give the same advice to many places.

I am aware of one institution making plans to cut £7m from the staff budget, despite spending twice that on consultants in the last three years.
 
11101 said:
Passenger transport accounts for roughly 40% of oil consumption. Even if you moved all passenger cars on the planet to renewable sources (which is not going to happen any time soon) there is still significant demand for oil as the remaining 60% of shipping, aviation, heavy haulage etc is a long way off being able to move to renewable energy.
Click to expand...

What an absolute load of nonsense (that post is)! You’re suggesting we shouldn’t be making an effort with passenger transport because it’s just under half of the oil consumption?

That’s a MASSIVE reduction! And would be the start of an ‘energy revolution’ as freight operators are already using renewable sources for freight rail and shipping, it just needs scaling up.

What would the ‘great alternative’ be?
 
Jericholyte2 said:
What an absolute load of nonsense (that post is)! You’re suggesting we shouldn’t be making an effort with passenger transport because it’s just under half of the oil consumption?

That’s a MASSIVE reduction! And would be the start of an ‘energy revolution’ as freight operators are already using renewable sources for freight rail and shipping, it just needs scaling up.

What would the ‘great alternative’ be?
Click to expand...

Not sure what any of that has to do with a discussion about how much oil we're going to need.

Railfreight makes up something like 0.1%. The big users are aviation, shipping, and heavy haulage, and none of them are anywhere near being able to use renewables. So whilst it's good to use renewables where we can there will be significant demand for oil for a long time to come.
 
Jericholyte2 said:
What would the ‘great alternative’ be?
Click to expand...

Mounting a windmill power source on the top of small (lightweight) cars, adjustable of course, to aid navigation/direction, it would provide power to internal directional seeking onboard computer.
Windless days would be a problem to be overcome and all roads would have to be straight (same principle as the Romans used for Watling street).... Or... alternative responses of less than one paragraph, posted on the Red Caf please. ;)
 
Maticmaker said:
Mounting a windmill power source on the top of small (lightweight) cars, adjustable of course, to aid navigation/direction, it would provide power to internal directional seeking onboard computer.
Windless days would be a problem to be overcome and all roads would have to be straight (same principle as the Romans used for Watling street).... Or... alternative responses of less than one paragraph, posted on the Red Caf please. ;)
Click to expand...
Think of all the weight saved by not having to have turn indicators and lights :lol:
 
Maticmaker said:
Mounting a windmill power source on the top of small (lightweight) cars, adjustable of course, to aid navigation/direction, it would provide power to internal directional seeking onboard computer.
Windless days would be a problem to be overcome and all roads would have to be straight (same principle as the Romans used for Watling street).... Or... alternative responses of less than one paragraph, posted on the Red Caf please. ;)
Click to expand...

You've just invented a railway...
 
11101 said:
Not sure what any of that has to do with a discussion about how much oil we're going to need.

Railfreight makes up something like 0.1%. The big users are aviation, shipping, and heavy haulage, and none of them are anywhere near being able to use renewables. So whilst it's good to use renewables where we can there will be significant demand for oil for a long time to come.
Click to expand...

It's actually not true. You're going to find a lot of short haul haulage and small planes electrifying sooner than you think (along with use of drones potentially). Shipping will likely go to methanol or ammonia within a couple of decades which could either power existing engines or new solid oxide fuel cells or similar. Oil power stations will basically be a thing of the past if they aren't becoming already. Long haul trucks could well largely go to fuel cells within 10-20 years, agriculture will increasingly look to electrify too as the cost of electricity comes down and battery performance goes up...

People will still be using oil for sure in 50 years, but look how much is under the Middle East and easily extractable, they won't be buying it from new wells in the North Sea.
 
11101 said:
Passenger transport accounts for roughly 40% of oil consumption. Even if you moved all passenger cars on the planet to renewable sources (which is not going to happen any time soon) there is still significant demand for oil as the remaining 60% of shipping, aviation, heavy haulage etc is a long way off being able to move to renewable energy.
Click to expand...
Not going to happen anytime soon? 18% of global new car sales in 2023 were EVs and China, which is becoming the home of EV production, 20% of all cars in China will be EVs next year. The global annual compound growth rate is 10%. It going to be a fast declining % of oil consumption.

And yes, of course there are other areas which will be slower to switch, or may never be able to. But you bet on the trend, on the growth of an industry, and that trend is obvious.

Oil is done, man, it's just a question of when.
 
Last edited:
@11101 is definitely over leveraged in oil stocks and trying to justify it to himself in here
 
Rado_N said:
Plus, what, £4bn or so in corporate fraud via furlough claims they wrote off, plus the double digit billions of bullshit PPE contracts handed out to their mates.

But the real cause of the countries economic issues is people claiming benefits.
Click to expand...

Yes exactly. And we should all be demanding to be told what measures are being taken to attempt to recover those billions of corporate fraud and as much as possible from the failed Rwanda scheme.
 
Rado_N said:
Plus, what, £4bn or so in corporate fraud via furlough claims they wrote off, plus the double digit billions of bullshit PPE contracts handed out to their mates.

But the real cause of the countries economic issues is people claiming benefits.
Click to expand...
You're just bitter you didn't set up a fictional shell company in the pandemic and defraud the NHS of billions.

It is that entrepreneurial spirit that made Britain great.
 
Frosty said:
You're just bitter you didn't set up a fictional shell company in the pandemic and defraud the NHS of billions.

It is that entrepreneurial spirit that made Britain great.
Click to expand...

I can only wish I’d made more of my 24 hours.
 
TwoSheds said:
It's actually not true. You're going to find a lot of short haul haulage and small planes electrifying sooner than you think (along with use of drones potentially). Shipping will likely go to methanol or ammonia within a couple of decades which could either power existing engines or new solid oxide fuel cells or similar. Oil power stations will basically be a thing of the past if they aren't becoming already. Long haul trucks could well largely go to fuel cells within 10-20 years, agriculture will increasingly look to electrify too as the cost of electricity comes down and battery performance goes up...

People will still be using oil for sure in 50 years, but look how much is under the Middle East and easily extractable, they won't be buying it from new wells in the North Sea.
Click to expand...

Aviation is miles away. Lead times on new technology is in the decades (30 years to introduce CFRP on the 787) and manufacturers have all but given up on battery powered aircraft, the energy density is just not there, hybrid power is what they're looking at and you're still talking a 5-10% reduction in jet fuel use at best.

In shipping virtually none of the solutions involve reducing oil usage. They're talking about going from heavy fuel oil to marine gas oil or LNG, because ships are in usage for decades and new tech like hydrogen is still in the nascent phase. Methanol requires exclusion zones its so hazardous and it still needs mixing with petroleum products to burn. Ammonia as far as i know is nothing more than theory at this point.

Meanwhile BEV adoption has stalled in the West. PHEV is the one showing the strong growth.


Do we want to be reliant on another region for fuels when we have a readily available domestic source? No other country on the planet is doing so and recent experience tells us we shouldn't be either.
 
11101 said:
Aviation is miles away. Lead times on new technology is in the decades (30 years to introduce CFRP on the 787) and manufacturers have all but given up on battery powered aircraft, the energy density is just not there, hybrid power is what they're looking at and you're still talking a 5-10% reduction in jet fuel use at best.

In shipping virtually none of the solutions involve reducing oil usage. They're talking about going from heavy fuel oil to marine gas oil or LNG, because ships are in usage for decades and new tech like hydrogen is still in the nascent phase. Methanol requires exclusion zones its so hazardous and it still needs mixing with petroleum products to burn. Ammonia as far as i know is nothing more than theory at this point.

Meanwhile BEV adoption has stalled in the West. PHEV is the one showing the strong growth.


Do we want to be reliant on another region for fuels when we have a readily available domestic source? No other country on the planet is doing so and recent experience tells us we shouldn't be either.
Click to expand...

Solid oxide fuel cells can actually crack ammonia directly, it's coming. And the Norwegians don't seem to have got your memo about small planes yet: https://www.ch-aviation.com/news/139465-norways-scandinavian-seaplanes-to-electrify-its-fleet

There's a bunch of startups and small projects there and the power trains and batteries only get lighter every year...

It won't be quick for the big planes that's for sure, but they'll start chipping away at it soon enough. I don't know how old you are but I'd get your shares out of any of the oil companies that aren't taking renewables seriously within the next 5 years personally.
 
Keir Starmer indicates he will consider scrapping two-child benefit cap

PM endorses earlier comments by Bridget Phillipson amid brewing rebellion on policy among Labour MPs

https://www.theguardian.com/society...ducation-secretary-bridget-phillipson-poverty

Phillipson told Sky News the government would “consider [lifting the cap] as one of a number of levers in terms of how we make sure we lift children out of poverty”.

Starmer backed Phillipson during a press conference at Farnborough international airshow, saying: “What the education secretary said this morning, I agree with … We will make sure that the strategy covers all the bases to drive down child poverty. No child should grow up in poverty.”
 
You must log in or register to reply here.