c-a-r-f-r-e-w
Member
A step on the way toward the demise of the liberal elite? Or just a blip…
Posts: 6,721
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Nov 3, 2024 14:41:27 GMT
lens So to summarise: - to use your preferred option of the grid, need to take into account not just benefits but the associated costs of the upgrades - And then take into account not just the costs of producing hydrogen, but the potential revenue of selling it given projected demand (rather than just using it as an energy store) - Then you can compare. If hydrogen works out rather more lucrative when you have taken all that into account, guess what may happen… - But it’s possible we may see a mixture: some of the leccy put into the grid, some making hydrogen, some making hydrogen derivatives that are less onerous to store, and some might be used for things like capturing carbon from the air or something (Of course if they start building nuclear SMRs etc. that could complicate things…)
|
|
|
|
Post by colin on Nov 3, 2024 14:45:24 GMT
JiB: "Wow! And to think sone on here defend the CAP through their rose tinted glasses."Rich people invest in big farms. And big farms have big receipts. Shock, horror! A less credulous reader than JiB would ask the question: so what share of four years' worth of farm subsiies is the €3.3bn quoted by the Guardian (which notably chooses not to puts its story into that sort of context). A quick bit of digging shows that EU27 direct CAP payments in 2021 were €37.879bn. It's a reasonable guess that over the preceding three years, 2018-2020, with the UK included, annual payments were similar or higher. So a total of €151.5bn over the period during which those 17 billionaires received €3.3bn. Or just under 2.2%. 2.2%! A bit of a non-story, then, unless your critical faculties are attenuated by obsessive hatred. However, one 'revelation' is perhaps worthy of note: one of those dastardly investors in farming was arch-brexiteer James Dyson
Well, here's an article on The Guardian web site ‘Welfare for the rich’: how farm subsidies wrecked Europe’s landscapes This is one of those times where jib is actually right. The CAP has always been a disaster. First we had butter mountains and wine lakes, because farmers were just paid on the basis of how much they could produce, and when they finally fixed that problem they ended up destroying the environment. Those floods in Germany and Spain were partially attributable to farming practices as the article shows. Another lobby group here making a similar criticism :- www.slowfood.com/blog-and-news/unfair-share-how-europes-farm-subsidies-favor-big-money-over-small-farmers/ |
|
|
|
Post by jib on Nov 3, 2024 14:56:36 GMT
Wow! And to think sone on here defend the CAP through their rose tinted glasses. "The European Union gave generous farming subsidies to the companies of more than a dozen billionaires between 2018 and 2021, the Guardian can reveal, including companies owned by the former Czech prime minister Andrej Babiš and the British businessman Sir James Dyson." "Billionaires were “ultimate beneficiaries” linked to €3.3bn (£2.76bn) of EU farming handouts over the four-year period even as thousands of small farms were closed down, according to the analysis of official but opaque data from EU member states." www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/nov/03/revealed-billionaires-ultimate-beneficiaries-linked-to-eu-farming-subsidies A little misleading. The CAP money is given to all equally. It's just that there has been a massive consolidation in farm ownership. The issue is not with the CAP money but with there being very little local legislation to protect smaller farms being targets for bigger ones. I accept that is a real issue. Large and intensive farms are seldom good for the environment. Hopefully, now that CAP no longer applies in the UK and the very real tax disincentives, we shall see greater support for the smaller, environmentally conscious farmer and the organic farming industry. |
|
|
|
Post by shevii on Nov 3, 2024 14:58:23 GMT
Well, here's an article on The Guardian web site ‘Welfare for the rich’: how farm subsidies wrecked Europe’s landscapes This is one of those times where jib is actually right. The CAP has always been a disaster. First we had butter mountains and wine lakes, because farmers were just paid on the basis of how much they could produce, and when they finally fixed that problem they ended up destroying the environment. Those floods in Germany and Spain were partially attributable to farming practices as the article shows. The CAP can of course be wrong but our system even worse which was the point I was making about environmental protections. |
|
|
|
Post by somerjohn on Nov 3, 2024 15:01:03 GMT
LeftieLiberal; "Well, here's an article on The Guardian web site ‘Welfare for the rich’: how farm subsidies wrecked Europe’s landscapes"
Again, this is a Guardian article that needs to be read with critical faculties in use.
It's an article remarkably short on hard figures and long on unsubstantiated opinion.
For example, how exactly does it justify the central claim that "farm subsidies wrecked Europe’s landscapes"?
Well, it essentially says that while since 2000 an objective of the CAP has been to protect the environment, the resulting policies haven't in practice worked.
As the article says:
Since the early 2000s, changes to Europe’s farming practices and subsidy regime – the common agricultural policy (CAP) – have been geared explicitly towards protecting the environment, as well as supporting farmers and food production.
Those policies may not have worked as effectively as intended, but ineffective protection is a long way from being the same as active "wrecking".
Essentially, the EU has tried to hold back the destructive tide of modern farming practices, but has failed to do so. Or more positively, it may have mitigated the damage but that's all.
But the CAP does have some positive environmental achievements to its credit. It was the switch from production-based to area-based payments that made the Knepp rewilding project possible. The rewilding of huge chunks of formerly game estate land in the Highlands by one of those 17 billionaire landowners likewise. And the vast majority of the six million farmers receiving CAP payments are small. The worst horrors of US-style megafarming have been held at bay.
|
|
|
|
Post by guymonde on Nov 3, 2024 15:03:49 GMT
There's also been some movement in the betting markets over the last few days. Polymarket now have the likely chances of winning the race at: Trump 55% Harris 45% Trump had a 30% advantage about a week ago. Also here in the UK, Oddschecker have the odds for each candidate back to practically Evens: Trump 5/6 Harris 6/5 For the first time in while they also have the most likely outcome for Trump's EC votes as 240-269 (below 270). This is 11/4, and rhe shortest of all EC vote options. Yes. A number of bookies now have it as evens for Kamala (though Trump still odds on for all of them). I am very scepptical about Oddschecker after the referendum but the move to Kamala over the last couple of days has been staggering |
|
|
|
Post by leftieliberal on Nov 3, 2024 15:10:52 GMT
Well, here's an article on The Guardian web site ‘Welfare for the rich’: how farm subsidies wrecked Europe’s landscapes This is one of those times where jib is actually right. The CAP has always been a disaster. First we had butter mountains and wine lakes, because farmers were just paid on the basis of how much they could produce, and when they finally fixed that problem they ended up destroying the environment. Those floods in Germany and Spain were partially attributable to farming practices as the article shows. The CAP can of course be wrong but our system even worse which was the point I was making about environmental protections. Our system has hardly changed from the CAP, that is the principal argument against it. Leaving the EU gave us the freedom to make it much more environmentally friendly but the Tory Government didn't take advantage of it, and so far the Labour Government hasn't either (although I can understand that such changes take time; I'm not judging them on their failure in their first one hundred days). |
|
|
|
Post by shevii on Nov 3, 2024 15:12:47 GMT
colinI'm not sure if you are simply highlighting an alternative viewpoint or actually in favour of "Restore the Trust" but direct from the Wiki page: "Restore Trust is a British political advocacy group which seeks to change policies of the National Trust.[1][2] The group has aimed to bring resolutions to the National Trust AGM in an effort to restore the trust to what it sees as "its core purpose",[1] and has criticised the National Trust's work on rewilding and social inclusion which Restore Trust's organizers consider to be "woke".[3] They have encouraged their supporters to join the Trust's membership." So potentially against rewilding and focused on buildings. The Wiki page also makes reference to the Good Law Project identifying "hidden connections to political lobbying groups". I'm sure this would include stuff like pro fox hunting groups etc. There's also a lot of fake news items that Restore the Trust engages in that have been strongly rebutted by the National Trust. www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/jan/28/national-trust-captured-by-well-funded-fake-grassroots-group-restore-trustOf course there's a debate to be had about the balance between historic buildings and nature but not via a murkily funded pressure group with hidden agendas. Mostly I go to a National trust site to experience nature and the historic buildings are a little bonus.
|
|
|
|
Post by leftieliberal on Nov 3, 2024 15:15:05 GMT
LeftieLiberal; "Well, here's an article on The Guardian web site ‘Welfare for the rich’: how farm subsidies wrecked Europe’s landscapes"Well, it essentially says that while since 2000 an objective of the CAP has been to protect the environment, the resulting policies haven't in practice worked.
Says it all. If something hasn't worked for more than two decades and the rigidity of the EU prevents you from fixing it, that is a problem. Like jib says you are looking at the CAP through rose-tinted spectacles. |
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,392
Member is Online
|
Post by neilj on Nov 3, 2024 15:19:09 GMT
Surprised we've not heard any announcements about the new Badenoch cabinet, atleast for the major roles
|
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,573
|
Post by pjw1961 on Nov 3, 2024 15:22:39 GMT
There's also been some movement in the betting markets over the last few days. Polymarket now have the likely chances of winning the race at: Trump 55% Harris 45% Trump had a 30% advantage about a week ago. Also here in the UK, Oddschecker have the odds for each candidate back to practically Evens: Trump 5/6 Harris 6/5 For the first time in while they also have the most likely outcome for Trump's EC votes as 240-269 (below 270). This is 11/4, and rhe shortest of all EC vote options. Yes. A number of bookies now have it as evens for Kamala (though Trump still odds on for all of them). I am very scepptical about Oddschecker after the referendum but the move to Kamala over the last couple of days has been staggering I think it was the earlier massive betting on Trump that was staggering, and possibly just a tad suspicious. Arguably the betting is now back to reflecting the polling, i.e. an even race with Trump the slight favorite due to his advantage in the electoral college. |
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,573
|
Post by pjw1961 on Nov 3, 2024 15:24:02 GMT
Surprised we've not heard any announcements about the new Badenoch cabinet, atleast for the major roles cabinet, I'm relieved to say  |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,364
|
Post by Danny on Nov 3, 2024 15:31:58 GMT
Hopefully, now that CAP no longer applies in the UK and the very real tax disincentives, we shall see greater support for the smaller, environmentally conscious farmer and the organic farming industry. You do realise that the reason why the French insisted on maintaining farm subsidies was to support their many much smaller farmers than exist in the UK. It was DESIGNED to support small farmers. Whereas the Uk would have scaled it back because our much more efficient large scale farmers didnt need it. Most likely outcome in the UK will be steady removal of all farm subsidies. They were justified originally to maintain home grown food supply, but conservatives certainly wouldnt have retained them, already planning to scale them back. And I dont think it likely lab will want to subsidise faremers either. Nowadays we feel rich enough to buy food on the world market, no longer having an empire we are no longer concerned eg whether there is enough food in India. It seems pretty likely global warming will disrupt world food supplies. Large farms tend to lead to monoculture in massive fields. Locally in Sussex this hasnt happened so much because the geography is full of hills and valleys leading to natural edges, and the land is pretty rubbish anyway. It seems likely the areas which have changed to big farms are the ones which suit big farms, and it isnt much to do with subsidy. A fallacy relied upon by planning officers is to create a policy such as 'may not build on the best land'. Ignoring the fact there is NO good land in Sussex. A sensible plan might have said no building in Norfolk or Suffolk, or in the rather fertile plane upon which London was built. |
|
|
|
Post by turk on Nov 3, 2024 15:32:06 GMT
What is going on with Labour at the moments still reeling from thousands of pounds worth of bungs to the PM and his front bench, we then have a drunk MP battering a member of the public to the ground and then continuing to punch him and the latest Dawn Butler MP retweeting the most appalling nonsense about Kemi Badenoch.
Couple with an appalling budget which is unraveling day by day.
Blimey I know they have been out of power for years but given they have only been in power for a few months that’s quite a start even for Westminster MP’s. What’s that old Labour battle cry “things can only get better”. Let’s hope so.
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,364
|
Post by Danny on Nov 3, 2024 15:39:52 GMT
LeftieLiberal; "Well, here's an article on The Guardian web site ‘Welfare for the rich’: how farm subsidies wrecked Europe’s landscapes" While the EU has banned neonicotinoid pesticides because of harm to bees, the UK has carried on using them regardless. A fair example of our post EU farm policy. |
|
|
|
Post by somerjohn on Nov 3, 2024 15:40:31 GMT
LL: "Like jib says you are looking at the CAP through rose-tinted spectacles."
No. I'm looking at in realistic terms. You and JiB are the ones whose rose-tinted spectacles allow you to envisage an achievable alternative.
What you appear to demand of the CAP is that it puts an end to modern farming practices. Whereas what it tries to do is control the worst excesses and make improvements where it can. For instance, banning Neonics.
Personally, I would love to see the EU ban non-organic farming. But in the real world, that would mean a massive drop in production, huge price increases for consumers, a flood of imports from less scrupulous areas and probably real food shortages. Plus, it just isn't politically possible.
As we're seeing in the UK, it's one thing to blame the CAP for modern farming and the consequent environmental decline. Quite another to come up with something better, implement it and achieve the desired results.
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,364
|
Post by Danny on Nov 3, 2024 15:42:41 GMT
Our system has hardly changed from the CAP, In the last rounds of CAP reform where we were participating, it was agreed different countries could create subsidy schemes to suit them. The same schemes were NOT used in every country. We chose how we wanted to allocate the money. Nope. We already had that, but had chosen not to. Funny how so much got blamed on the EU which was really UK government policy, and you are still doing it. |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,364
|
Post by Danny on Nov 3, 2024 15:50:07 GMT
Mostly I go to a National trust site to experience nature and the historic buildings are a little bonus. Im all for an organisation to preserve historically important buildings. I am much less convinced we should have an organisation somehow preserving large areas of the countryside. Thats very different. Though if global warming does get going and food shortages start to bite, public pressure will demand turning all that land back to farming. Could also see us cutting down the forests planted to capture carbon to release more land for farming. |
|
|
|
Post by colin on Nov 3, 2024 15:51:34 GMT
Of course there's a debate to be had about the balance between historic buildings and nature Well I'm not sure debate is freely available in the NT governance is it ? But I'm not a paying member now ( too expensive ) so dont have direct experience of the AGM procedures. I do visit with family and enjoy historic houses as well as gardens and natural heritage. Actually I think volunteers may be the driving force of change. THey are absolutely key to the House experience as any visitor knows. There was an enormous army of them-70k + I think. They had been drifting away after a variety of complaints and upsets at their treatment, but apparently the NT ( like the UK workforce !!) has seen a permanent absenteeism following the Pandemic . If there is an agenda to move away from Built Heritage a reduction in volunteers will be just what they want ! |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,364
|
Post by Danny on Nov 3, 2024 15:54:42 GMT
Says it all. If something hasn't worked for more than two decades and the rigidity of the EU prevents you from fixing it, that is a problem. Like jib says you are looking at the CAP through rose-tinted spectacles. The CAP has only been reformed where people want it reformed. It is NOT intended to aid nature, its job is to subsidise european farmers so they stay in business in the face of cheap food imports from abroad. The drive to environmental measures was a ruse to get around GATT rules on subsidy, ie you arent supposed to subsidise crops but you can subsidise hegecutting. Amounts to the same thing though, if the farmers were always going to trim their hedges, they still get the money as before. |
|
|
|
Post by colin on Nov 3, 2024 16:00:50 GMT
the latest Dawn Butler MP retweeting the most appalling nonsense about Kemi Badenoch. "A now-deleted repost on X shared by Ms Butler suggested Ms Badenoch was a “prominent member of white supremacy’s black collaborator class”, The Telegraph reported." "In a so-called ‘tips for surviving a Kemi Badenoch victory’, the post stated that “Badenochism” was “white supremacy in blackface,” and that a victory for the Tory party leader was a “once inconceivable victory for racism”. The post reshared by Ms Butler was posted by Nels Abbey, a London-based writer." www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/kemi-badenoch-dawn-butler-tweet-conservative-party-leadership-b1191674.htmlWhat an absolutely awful women she is. Full of hatred and bile and riddled with colour prejudice herself. |
|
|
|
Post by laszlo4new on Nov 3, 2024 16:02:58 GMT
Surprised we've not heard any announcements about the new Badenoch cabinet, atleast for the major roles Didn't you hear all the screams "No! Don't pull me! I'm not going to the first row!" 😀 |
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,573
|
Post by pjw1961 on Nov 3, 2024 16:08:29 GMT
There was one outstanding local by-election result from last week's batch, because it counted Friday - Hampshire CC, Bishops Waltham. I described it as a completely safe Conservative division, as indeed it should have been. The result is a reminder that the Tories have a long way to go to recover:
LD 2210 52.2% (+28.6)
Con 1431 33.8% (-23.1)
Grn 477 11.3% (-1.9)
Lab 115 2.7% (-3.6)
Lib Dem gain from Conservative - swing 25.8%
|
|
|
|
Post by laszlo4new on Nov 3, 2024 16:14:59 GMT
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,364
|
Post by Danny on Nov 3, 2024 16:16:18 GMT
Couple with an appalling budget which is unraveling day by day. Seems to me its rather a good budget. And equally to the point, its a budget which the nation needed and which the conservative party needed. A party with a policy of cutting taxes and government services absolutly has to share power with a party which will do the reverse, because otherwise the cutting policy becomes so obviously bad for everyone in the country that they end up with no support. As has just happened, and as happened to the rump of the last period of conservative government. While conservatives hate this, the plain fact is that modern states need massive centralised services, which is the only way to deliver them cost effectively. Its fascinating to see how the private sector is desperate to privatise the NHS so it can enjoy profits on the scale of the US medical industry. Would likely double or more all our medical bills. But it is horrendous how much privatisation of water and energy utilities has cost the Uk public. Ditto, railways and likely buses (though there what has mostly happened is the service collapsing). And yet the public doesnt really see this. |
|
|
|
Post by mark61 on Nov 3, 2024 16:32:29 GMT
As a National Trust member I have made a point of voting over the last few years mainly to vote against Restore Trust partly because their agenda is somewhat backward looking, but also as Shevi points out there are questions about the opacity of their backers, there is to my mind a whiff of the Culture war about Restore Trust. I don't see anything objectionable in referencing that the Money for some of these great Estates came from the Slave Trade it is simply recording a historical fact, to be silent on the subject would rather let down a proportion of the population that trace their ancestry to that part of the World. It is The National Trust after all, it should try to be inclusive.
There is a balance to strike between being the Custodian of the Great Houses which probably appeals a bit more to the older Members and the Rewilding and Nature Conservation that maybe appeals more to families and the young. I thoroughly enjoy the Houses and as a keen gardener particularly the Gardens, you can usually get a nice Cake and cup of tea as well!
I think membership is good value for money if you visit 5 or 6 times a year, if I'm travelling by Car on a long Journey I try to Schedule a stop for Lunch at A NT House/Garden along the way, Much better for the Soul than a Motorway services.
|
|
|
|
Post by bardin1 on Nov 3, 2024 16:32:37 GMT
Surprised we've not heard any announcements about the new Badenoch cabinet, atleast for the major roles Truss for agriculture, I've heard, though only in the short term   |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,364
|
Post by Danny on Nov 3, 2024 16:35:43 GMT
the latest Dawn Butler MP retweeting the most appalling nonsense about Kemi Badenoch. "A now-deleted repost on X shared by Ms Butler suggested Ms Badenoch was a “prominent member of white supremacy’s black collaborator class”, The Telegraph reported." "In a so-called ‘tips for surviving a Kemi Badenoch victory’, the post stated that “Badenochism” was “white supremacy in blackface,” and that a victory for the Tory party leader was a “once inconceivable victory for racism”. The post reshared by Ms Butler was posted by Nels Abbey, a London-based writer." www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/kemi-badenoch-dawn-butler-tweet-conservative-party-leadership-b1191674.htmlWhat an absolutely awful women she is. Full of hatred and bile and riddled with colour prejudice herself. And you really do not think there is a reason why the conservatives picked the leaders they did, why they picked the first woman leader, why they picked Cameron and indeed Johnson? Because they believed all of them would present an acceptable face to the public masking actual policies? |
|
|
|
Post by alec on Nov 3, 2024 16:38:30 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by jib on Nov 3, 2024 16:40:37 GMT
As we're seeing in the UK, it's one thing to blame the CAP for modern farming and the consequent environmental decline. Quite another to come up with something better, implement it and achieve the desired results. I agree the proof will be in the pudding. I'd like to see a lot more involvement for the likes of the RSPB and Woodland Trust in agri-environment schemes and an encouragement for landscape scale multi-farm delivery rather than farm by farm. Central Government is seldom effective in delivering much beyond bureaucracy. |
|
