Stop voting for fucking Tories

[Sandstorm]

Nuclear is 20th century tech. Move on people; if you're building new, it's got to be renewables going forward.

Cost, emissions, waste, public safety, maintenance, training, etc, etc. On all these fronts, nuclear is a loser.

[inactionman]

Nuclear is 20th century tech. Move on people; if you're building new, it's got to be renewables going forward.

Cost, emissions, waste, public safety, maintenance, training, etc, etc. On all these fronts, nuclear is a loser.

How else do you make a nuclear warhead?

[Sandstorm]

Nuclear is 20th century tech. Move on people; if you're building new, it's got to be renewables going forward.

Cost, emissions, waste, public safety, maintenance, training, etc, etc. On all these fronts, nuclear is a loser.

How else do you make a nuclear warhead?

[Biffer]

https://x.com/Sam_Dumitriu/status/17475 ... 88660?s=20

Found this thread interesting. Korea produces nuclear plants at speeds we can only dream of, at wholesale prices a quarter of ours. Being able to achieve this would have an astonishing impact on our industrial costs and personal costs of living.

This is essentially ‘catch up growth’ - it’s not that hard with political will. The starting point has to be accepting the ego hit of how badly we’re managing things, and that we should look externally for solutions.

I can only speak in a very limited context, but I take all this with a large pinch of salt. South Korea isn't the wild west but I have seen cases where H&S and corporate responsibility isn't as intrinsic as it should be.

As example*, the Scottish Government gave tax incentives for wind turbine manufacture in Helensbrough a few years back, taken on by a south Korean company. Workers raised all sorts of issues about errant health and safety practices that were simply not dealt with by the Korean management as they would add to production cost. The plant remained in business only as long as the financial incentive remained in place. I appreciate this incentive hunting is pretty common, and many companies will shift sites arounds the UK and abroad to chase subsidies,, but the real issue was that they couldn't economically make these in Scotland, or - more accurately - they could make them more cheaply where they weren't held to the same standard of site safety (i.e. back in South Korea).

There are, sensibly, very stringent safety and planning restrictions on nuclear. Quite what is just red tape and what is essential safety checks isn't clear, but we cannot make mistakes and I'd rather go too far than not far enough. I'd also be very reluctant to follow the leads of other countries who have different risk appetites or approaches to governance (e.g. Japan, whose regulator knew flood defences of key infrastructure at Fukushima were inadequate given the risks). We've had a nuclear accident at windscale and the chief engineer hadn't insisted on filters on the top of the chimney stacks we could have had a very, very bad time of it indeed.

Apols if this seems snarky, not my intent- it's just to raise the point that things aren't equivalent in all places and we can admire the results but not necessarily want to replicate the appraoches.

(*apols, I cannot for the life of me lay a hand on the article I read on this, if I find it I'll insert a link - I'm also going from memory which isn't what it once was)

This might be of interest wrt nuclear and Korea

https://www.samdumitriu.com/p/how-to-ge ... ilt-faster

[Paddington Bear]

https://x.com/Sam_Dumitriu/status/17475 ... 88660?s=20

Found this thread interesting. Korea produces nuclear plants at speeds we can only dream of, at wholesale prices a quarter of ours. Being able to achieve this would have an astonishing impact on our industrial costs and personal costs of living.

This is essentially ‘catch up growth’ - it’s not that hard with political will. The starting point has to be accepting the ego hit of how badly we’re managing things, and that we should look externally for solutions.

I can only speak in a very limited context, but I take all this with a large pinch of salt. South Korea isn't the wild west but I have seen cases where H&S and corporate responsibility isn't as intrinsic as it should be.

As example*, the Scottish Government gave tax incentives for wind turbine manufacture in Helensbrough a few years back, taken on by a south Korean company. Workers raised all sorts of issues about errant health and safety practices that were simply not dealt with by the Korean management as they would add to production cost. The plant remained in business only as long as the financial incentive remained in place. I appreciate this incentive hunting is pretty common, and many companies will shift sites arounds the UK and abroad to chase subsidies,, but the real issue was that they couldn't economically make these in Scotland, or - more accurately - they could make them more cheaply where they weren't held to the same standard of site safety (i.e. back in South Korea).

There are, sensibly, very stringent safety and planning restrictions on nuclear. Quite what is just red tape and what is essential safety checks isn't clear, but we cannot make mistakes and I'd rather go too far than not far enough. I'd also be very reluctant to follow the leads of other countries who have different risk appetites or approaches to governance (e.g. Japan, whose regulator knew flood defences of key infrastructure at Fukushima were inadequate given the risks). We've had a nuclear accident at windscale and the chief engineer hadn't insisted on filters on the top of the chimney stacks we could have had a very, very bad time of it indeed.

Apols if this seems snarky, not my intent- it's just to raise the point that things aren't equivalent in all places and we can admire the results but not necessarily want to replicate the appraoches.

(*apols, I cannot for the life of me lay a hand on the article I read on this, if I find it I'll insert a link - I'm also going from memory which isn't what it once was)

This doesn’t read as snarky at all, all fair points. I’m not suggesting shipping over the entire Korean nuclear industry, and won’t pretend to be an expert.

I would say that when a first world democracy with similar income levels can build at a quarter of the cost and a fraction of the time to us, it has to be worth examining why. If the answer comes back ‘they take massive h&s shortcuts’ then we can disregard it, for the reasons you outline.
With that said, British projects suffer from enormous cost disease even when they have lower h&s implications than nuclear plants. My guess would be that there’s a combination of things that explain their performance vs ours, h&s being one, but also accompanied by:

- Better procurement
- Clearer and more streamlined planning
- Coherent political decision making
- ‘What works’ rather than ‘world beating’
- fewer consultants and contractors

None of which skimp on h&s per se. If we took on board the good bits of what e.g Korea are doing whilst ignoring lax h&s rules, we might not get down to a quarter of the current cost, but speeding up building and substantially reducing costs would in itself be an enormous win.

[Hal Jordan]

This is the UK we're talking about. We would take on all the bad practices, add a few of our own, spaff money on consultancy fees for companies mysteriously close to MPs and Ministers, take five times as long to start as we originally stated as the time frame, and then junk the whole lot to win some votes and shut the backbench lynch mob up.

And we'd still have a fucked energy supply policy.

[Sandstorm]

This is the UK we're talking about. We would take on all the bad practices, add a few of our own, spaff money on consultancy fees for companies mysteriously close to MPs and Ministers, take five times as long to start as we originally stated as the time frame, and then junk the whole lot to win some votes and shut the backbench lynch mob up.

And we'd still have a fucked energy supply policy.

Spot on and really annoying too!

[_Os_]

They're useless, the UK hasn't been governed for years now. But you have to laugh at these fucking morons.

Brendan Clarke-Smith and Lee Anderson "resigned on principle". Anderson has the piss taken out of him by Labour MPs when he votes no, so instead abstains on his resigning matter. Clarke-Smith votes for the thing he resigned over.

Some Tory Lord blames Tony Blair for immigration in 2024, "this is the result of the laws put in place by Tony Blair". Blair was last PM in June 2007, there's been 6 PMs since! The Tories invented the lie that "New Labour opened the floodgates", when migration switched from net emigration to net immigration under Thatcher's structural reforms of the UK economy. It pre-dates and now post-dates New Labour.

This is the platform they're building for an election in the mid-2020s, immigration with Rwanda as their solution and blame Labour/Tony Blair for the Tory record on immigration. Presumably the election is going to be really vile. They would be better off not talking about immigration at all. Telling that Starmer has led with Rwanda two PMQs running.

[_Os_]

The Tories are heading back into Truss levels of support, she was posting numbers like this in October 2022. One year for them to turn it around, or they will potentially become a Lib Dem level party.

[Margin__Walker]

This tickled me this morning.

[I like neeps]

They're useless, the UK hasn't been governed for years now. But you have to laugh at these fucking morons.

Brendan Clarke-Smith and Lee Anderson "resigned on principle". Anderson has the piss taken out of him by Labour MPs when he votes no, so instead abstains on his resigning matter. Clarke-Smith votes for the thing he resigned over.

Some Tory Lord blames Tony Blair for immigration in 2024, "this is the result of the laws put in place by Tony Blair". Blair was last PM in June 2007, there's been 6 PMs since! The Tories invented the lie that "New Labour opened the floodgates", when migration switched from net emigration to net immigration under Thatcher's structural reforms of the UK economy. It pre-dates and now post-dates New Labour.

This is the platform they're building for an election in the mid-2020s, immigration with Rwanda as their solution and blame Labour/Tony Blair for the Tory record on immigration. Presumably the election is going to be really vile. They would be better off not talking about immigration at all. Telling that Starmer has led with Rwanda two PMQs running.

To be fair to Lee Anderson he resigned because he doesn't have quite such a lucrative gig at GB News when he loses his seat. Clarke-Smith I presume was also positioning himself.

Great clip of Coffey, is there a clip of the rebuttal?

[Insane_Homer]

[dpedin]

This tickled me this morning.

I love the quiet giggle from the Labour bench - as I have said before all Labour have to do is stand back and let the morons keep digging!

[dpedin]

All this Rwanda shite is more about keeping immigration and 'stop the boats' in the headlines rather than all the real shit flying about for which the Gov can be blamed. This is the one and only issue they want the election to be fought on, it is all they have and they are desperate to appeal to the ex UKIP/Reform party voters. It is all about 'look we can be shitty racists too!' image for Little Englanders to admire. Utter bastards every single one of them, I share Phillips's utter contempt for them.

[Slick]

They're useless, the UK hasn't been governed for years now. But you have to laugh at these fucking morons.

Brendan Clarke-Smith and Lee Anderson "resigned on principle". Anderson has the piss taken out of him by Labour MPs when he votes no, so instead abstains on his resigning matter. Clarke-Smith votes for the thing he resigned over.

Some Tory Lord blames Tony Blair for immigration in 2024, "this is the result of the laws put in place by Tony Blair". Blair was last PM in June 2007, there's been 6 PMs since! The Tories invented the lie that "New Labour opened the floodgates", when migration switched from net emigration to net immigration under Thatcher's structural reforms of the UK economy. It pre-dates and now post-dates New Labour.

This is the platform they're building for an election in the mid-2020s, immigration with Rwanda as their solution and blame Labour/Tony Blair for the Tory record on immigration. Presumably the election is going to be really vile. They would be better off not talking about immigration at all. Telling that Starmer has led with Rwanda two PMQs running.

To be fair to Lee Anderson he resigned because he doesn't have quite such a lucrative gig at GB News when he loses his seat. Clarke-Smith I presume was also positioning himself.

Great clip of Coffey, is there a clip of the rebuttal?

There was an even funnier clip of him being interviewed outside Parliament when he looked like he might cry as he said "they laughed , pointed and giggled at me"

[Margin__Walker]

Yep. You're not really a serious politician if you abstain rather than vote against something because people were laughing at you.

Poor bairn

[SaintK]

This tickled me this morning.

Christ!!!! Thick as mince

[inactionman]

I'm not keeping count, but I think she's close to overtaking Boris on the gaffe-o-meter

[Slick]

I think you can see her face redden as she realises what she has done as folk shout it out

[dpedin]

This tickled me this morning.

Christ!!!! Thick as mince

Strange person indeed - has a PhD in Chemistry but was Liz Truss's campaign manager during Tory Party leadership election. More worryingly she is only 52, that must have been a hell of a paper round!

[tabascoboy]

This tickled me this morning.

Christ!!!! Thick as mince

If it was a trap laid by Cooper then it was a good 'un!

But this is the main mopus operandi this government and its minsters has now in exchanges, to try for one-upmanship and point scoring to evade the actual issue. Same with Sunak in PMQ yesterday

[sockwithaticket]

It's funny until you realise how much money we've paid the moron as a cabinet member and MP.

[SaintK]

Sunak's press call going down like a cold cup of sick!!! There were far more than these.

[Hal Jordan]

The Tories are heading back into Truss levels of support, she was posting numbers like this in October 2022. One year for them to turn it around, or they will potentially become a Lib Dem level party.

No wonder they're letting "ex-pats" vote these days (and of course, the lovely foreign donor money that comes with it).

Meanwhile on Xhitter, the Corbyn rump appear to have accepted that Starmer may well win the next election and are feverishly writing him off as the one term Red Tory who failed socialism and let his good friends the Conservative Party back in 5 years from now.

[dpedin]

The Tories are heading back into Truss levels of support, she was posting numbers like this in October 2022. One year for them to turn it around, or they will potentially become a Lib Dem level party.

No wonder they're letting "ex-pats" vote these days (and of course, the lovely foreign donor money that comes with it).

Meanwhile on Xhitter, the Corbyn rump appear to have accepted that Starmer may well win the next election and are feverishly writing him off as the one term Red Tory who failed socialism and let his good friends the Conservative Party back in 5 years from now.

My mate who left Scotland for Belgium in 1997 has been told he is eligible to vote in next GE and has completed his paperwork online. He gets to vote in the last constituency he voted/lived in apparently? Fortunately, as a Fifer, he has a simmering hatred for all things Tory so will vote accordingly.

[Insane_Homer]

I think you can see her face redden as she realises what she has done as folk shout it out

how could you tell?

no_diff.png (93.79 KiB) Viewed 2531 times

[Paddington Bear]

The Tories are heading back into Truss levels of support, she was posting numbers like this in October 2022. One year for them to turn it around, or they will potentially become a Lib Dem level party.

No wonder they're letting "ex-pats" vote these days (and of course, the lovely foreign donor money that comes with it).

Meanwhile on Xhitter, the Corbyn rump appear to have accepted that Starmer may well win the next election and are feverishly writing him off as the one term Red Tory who failed socialism and let his good friends the Conservative Party back in 5 years from now.

Giving ex-pats permanent votes was a Cameron era policy. Pre brexit they overwhelmingly leant Tory. Now, probably a smallish further nail for the coffin

[fishfoodie]

Yeah; I can just imagine the kind of helpful, ideas, the Wankers will have to improve valuations, now that the UK isn't bound by any of the EU regulations.

Jeremy Hunt has called in Britain’s largest banks to discuss why they remain so poorly valued compared with global peers, as ministers seek feedback on how to help boost the sector and the competitiveness of the City of London.

The meeting arranged by the UK chancellor will be held on Tuesday and will include top executives from Barclays, HSBC, Lloyds, NatWest, Santander UK and the London Stock Exchange Group, according to three people with knowledge of the plans.

Franck Petitgas — the former London-based Morgan Stanley executive who was appointed as Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s business and investment adviser in April — will also attend the meeting, two of the people said.

Hunt and Petitgas will ask the executives how ministers can help them improve their perception among international and domestic investors and boost market valuations, they said.

.....

https://www.ft.com/content/b35e0516-765 ... cef9f7dea2

If a Bank needs fucking Tory Ministers to improve, "perception", they are truly fucked !

[dpedin]

Yeah; I can just imagine the kind of helpful, ideas, the Wankers will have to improve valuations, now that the UK isn't bound by any of the EU regulations.

Jeremy Hunt has called in Britain’s largest banks to discuss why they remain so poorly valued compared with global peers, as ministers seek feedback on how to help boost the sector and the competitiveness of the City of London.

The meeting arranged by the UK chancellor will be held on Tuesday and will include top executives from Barclays, HSBC, Lloyds, NatWest, Santander UK and the London Stock Exchange Group, according to three people with knowledge of the plans.

Franck Petitgas — the former London-based Morgan Stanley executive who was appointed as Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s business and investment adviser in April — will also attend the meeting, two of the people said.

Hunt and Petitgas will ask the executives how ministers can help them improve their perception among international and domestic investors and boost market valuations, they said.

.....

https://www.ft.com/content/b35e0516-765 ... cef9f7dea2

If a Bank needs fucking Tory Ministers to improve, "perception", they are truly fucked !

For 'perception' read impact of Brexit!!! I hope one of the bankers, I use that term advisedly, tells Hunt that this is the Brexit impact that they and everyone else with a brain was telling them was going to happen ... and now it is happening!

[SaintK]

Man of the people laughs in their face

[Slick]

I've seen this on a couple of social media feeds. To be honest I don't really get what the big deal is beyond him being incapable of talking to a serf

[fishfoodie]

I've seen this on a couple of social media feeds. To be honest I don't really get what the big deal is beyond him being incapable of talking to a serf

Hey it's a service neither he nor any of his family will ever use; why'd he give a shit ?

Make exclusive use of State provided services, for the holder & their families, a requirement for membership of the Cabinet, & watch miracles happen !

[sockwithaticket]

I've seen this on a couple of social media feeds. To be honest I don't really get what the big deal is beyond him being incapable of talking to a serf

Well as he says, without strikes some progress can and has been made with waiting lists. And she rightly points out that it's within his power to stop the strikes.

As with the rail strikes previously it's been calculated that the government's intransigence on health care workers demands has now cost more than just giving them what they were asking for.

[sockwithaticket]

Yeah; I can just imagine the kind of helpful, ideas, the Wankers will have to improve valuations, now that the UK isn't bound by any of the EU regulations.

Jeremy Hunt has called in Britain’s largest banks to discuss why they remain so poorly valued compared with global peers, as ministers seek feedback on how to help boost the sector and the competitiveness of the City of London.

The meeting arranged by the UK chancellor will be held on Tuesday and will include top executives from Barclays, HSBC, Lloyds, NatWest, Santander UK and the London Stock Exchange Group, according to three people with knowledge of the plans.

Franck Petitgas — the former London-based Morgan Stanley executive who was appointed as Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s business and investment adviser in April — will also attend the meeting, two of the people said.

Hunt and Petitgas will ask the executives how ministers can help them improve their perception among international and domestic investors and boost market valuations, they said.

.....

https://www.ft.com/content/b35e0516-765 ... cef9f7dea2

If a Bank needs fucking Tory Ministers to improve, "perception", they are truly fucked !

For 'perception' read impact of Brexit!!! I hope one of the bankers, I use that term advisedly, tells Hunt that this is the Brexit impact that they and everyone else with a brain was telling them was going to happen ... and now it is happening!

Indeed. My understanding was that part of the reason the City of London finance sector had become so big and profitable is that being English speaking and part of Europe that London firms were particularly well set to operate as the link between the EU and the rest of the world. Brexit has rendered that null.

[Hal Jordan]

Sunak does this all the time, he's not been accustomed to hearing criticism or the word no as his path to the top has been a procession, blessed by school contacts, working for absolute cunts and the power his wife's family brings. When anyone questions him in any way he reacts like a spoiled child.

[Uncle fester]

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... dApp_Other

Thousands of jobs being lost in South Wales and the Tories are subsiding the move that is making them redundant without having the cop on to ensure that jobs are being protected.

[fishfoodie]

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... dApp_Other

Thousands of jobs being lost in South Wales and the Tories are subsiding the move that is making them redundant without having the cop on to ensure that jobs are being protected.

If Tata Steel had a USP, it would be bleeding Governments white, supporting operations they know they kill as soon as the money runs out.

Ispat, another Indian Steel company did the same thing down on Cork.

[Uncle fester]

In tandem with what's going on at scunthorpe, Britain will be the only g20 country that doesn't have any steel making capability.

[Paddington Bear]

In tandem with what's going on at scunthorpe, Britain will be the only g20 country that doesn't have any steel making capability.

And it’s the direct result of government strategy. They want them gone for net zero commitments, and they’ve forced them out with the highest industrial energy prices in Europe. Good job the global order is so secure we can just buy it on the open market.

[petej]

https://x.com/Sam_Dumitriu/status/17475 ... 88660?s=20

Found this thread interesting. Korea produces nuclear plants at speeds we can only dream of, at wholesale prices a quarter of ours. Being able to achieve this would have an astonishing impact on our industrial costs and personal costs of living.

This is essentially ‘catch up growth’ - it’s not that hard with political will. The starting point has to be accepting the ego hit of how badly we’re managing things, and that we should look externally for solutions.

I can only speak in a very limited context, but I take all this with a large pinch of salt. South Korea isn't the wild west but I have seen cases where H&S and corporate responsibility isn't as intrinsic as it should be.

As example*, the Scottish Government gave tax incentives for wind turbine manufacture in Helensbrough a few years back, taken on by a south Korean company. Workers raised all sorts of issues about errant health and safety practices that were simply not dealt with by the Korean management as they would add to production cost. The plant remained in business only as long as the financial incentive remained in place. I appreciate this incentive hunting is pretty common, and many companies will shift sites arounds the UK and abroad to chase subsidies,, but the real issue was that they couldn't economically make these in Scotland, or - more accurately - they could make them more cheaply where they weren't held to the same standard of site safety (i.e. back in South Korea).

There are, sensibly, very stringent safety and planning restrictions on nuclear. Quite what is just red tape and what is essential safety checks isn't clear, but we cannot make mistakes and I'd rather go too far than not far enough. I'd also be very reluctant to follow the leads of other countries who have different risk appetites or approaches to governance (e.g. Japan, whose regulator knew flood defences of key infrastructure at Fukushima were inadequate given the risks). We've had a nuclear accident at windscale and the chief engineer hadn't insisted on filters on the top of the chimney stacks we could have had a very, very bad time of it indeed.

Apols if this seems snarky, not my intent- it's just to raise the point that things aren't equivalent in all places and we can admire the results but not necessarily want to replicate the appraoches.

(*apols, I cannot for the life of me lay a hand on the article I read on this, if I find it I'll insert a link - I'm also going from memory which isn't what it once was)

This doesn’t read as snarky at all, all fair points. I’m not suggesting shipping over the entire Korean nuclear industry, and won’t pretend to be an expert.

I would say that when a first world democracy with similar income levels can build at a quarter of the cost and a fraction of the time to us, it has to be worth examining why. If the answer comes back ‘they take massive h&s shortcuts’ then we can disregard it, for the reasons you outline.
With that said, British projects suffer from enormous cost disease even when they have lower h&s implications than nuclear plants. My guess would be that there’s a combination of things that explain their performance vs ours, h&s being one, but also accompanied by:

- Better procurement
- Clearer and more streamlined planning
- Coherent political decision making
- ‘What works’ rather than ‘world beating’
- fewer consultants and contractors

None of which skimp on h&s per se. If we took on board the good bits of what e.g Korea are doing whilst ignoring lax h&s rules, we might not get down to a quarter of the current cost, but speeding up building and substantially reducing costs would in itself be an enormous win.

We have a management culture that is unsuitable for infrastructure and engineering. Undoubtedly the huge number of people in support roles who seem to not add any value are paid surprisingly large quantities of money. We do not have the people and the structures to do civil nuclear quickly or cheaply. The people who built the last plants are all dead and retired. An example is that a plant had a 50 million budget for maintenance and repair and spent 25million because there just aren't the people to do the work to spend 50million.

Better procurement-a management response to this is always to layer more management. Good luck getting better procurement with bugger all supplier options. I had fun running a competition when there was a single supplier and there was a 10% added cost going to a consultancy to run the competition. Waste of time for me and the supplier.

Clearer and more streamlined planning- haha tack this with the political decision making. The limp wristed short termist butt lickers are the wankers who add the most cost and love commissioning parasitic consultants. If you want stuff to move ignore the squeals and careening shopping cart of management. Being responsive to management is good for your career but almost always bad for the project technically. We got fed up with increased reporting to management told them and they just added more reporting.

Nothing is world beating beyond PR and support function bollocks. They try to spend the bare fucking minimum on everything. The effort and cost in doing this is probably more than getting the initial engineer specified part/material.

Edit- Uk nuclear is a small world so people talk to each other and it is a sector both I and my wife work in or have worked in. The technical challenges are more frequently is it okay to store this steel pipe/vessel outdoors on a beach in Somerset and is the rust on it from being stored outside acceptable. Indoor storage cost too much money. There is a lack of mechanism for cost savers/wankers and said departments to have the costs incurred due to them.