leicsmac

I'm sure there are more economical renewable options, but in the midst of that discussion it's probably better to remember that the option chosen has to be renewable.

Smith is a bit of an enigma for me - his Test average is about 40 which isn't bad at all for a reasonably dedicated no.7, but then you do wonder if he could do better than he's doing, as well. Foakes clearly the better keeper but evidently England haven't picked based on that merit for a long time.

Welcome to the show, Jofra. Brutal lifter.

https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/china-urges-south-korea-not-take-sides-blames-us-policy-korea-tensions-2026-08-20/ China speaking their piece on current Far Eastern matters.

238 lead, decent shout at an innings victory here.

Very good read. Brook has always been special - as Aggers said, easily the most naturally talented bat England have had since KP and someone every other team should be made to fear - it's just the hope now that he can combine that talent with with nous necessary to move him from magnificent to one of the legends of the game.

Oh, Elon. Honestly, what happened to make you fall so far, mate?

Simple answer is, you don't, except out of some ridiculous idea of parochial sentiment. It certainly appears to be a very sorry tale where no one involved ends up looking in any way good at all.

You would think so, and it will no doubt result in more legal eagling from both sides.

In other news, one Nathan Cofnas, an advocate of...questionable ideas regarding the inherent qualities of race and the man who began the furore over Jason Arday, looks like he's about to get the boot from his own university.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3ekl74jnk5o I hope you know what you're doing, Mr Carney. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c80nzdjgmk3o I'm reasonably sure that this doesn't cover half of the "duties" that Ms. Harp fulfills for Felon#47.

Well, some judges appointed by the Dear Leader have refused to carry out his direct bidding before... we'll see what this one does in this case.

Annoying, he's been suffering from a failure to convert 50s to tons for a while now. Something of a collapse now, but the hard work has already really been done, don't expect this one will last much beyond tomorrow.

England pretty much in a position where they can win as they please now.

Platform for Brook and Co to go berserk here.

I'm thinking at least the balance of probability suggests that it does - at least more of a benefit than a cost. But then I'm of the opinion that the cost of applying these ideas to improve the environment - if only "very small" - practically always pay for themselves in time by preventing much, much bigger future costs of various types anyway. Unfortunately, there's far too much short-term thinking still abound there.

Fair enough. I disagree on the "little environmental benefit" (tell the people involved in the depicted study that, and as per above there appeared to be more benefit in the chosen zones than elsewhere) and while cost-benefit is naturally important from a logistical perspective, it's rather more difficult than perhaps thought to put an actual material price on human and other life and health. Edit: again, as per above, that "wider government policy" on the matter is a bigger issue right now anyway when a reasonably big contender for the next GE considers all such environmental measures - local or central - bunkum and intends to scrap them.

I get the feeling here that a point is being driven at, but not actually arrived at, so please go ahead and make it.

Might be a bit tricky logistically tbh, another reason why doing such things at a local level over time may be more effective.

I'm talking about both - I do think that local policy decisions like ULEZ do have a place in the overall picture here, alongside central government decisions. Every little bit helps on this one.

On a broadly similar topic, decent Internet talking head find today: "This is the consequence of mass immigration and a failure to plan and to build infrastructure. A prosperous country should not have to turn the taps off in the summer. This is the consequence of the Tories importing 12 million people over fourteen years, placing huge strain on our infrastructure." Populism in politics today, both in the UK and in many places across the civilised world, leans down a very right wing path. While all populism has its root in division, the current flavour du jour in most nations shares the same basic traits; call out an obvious problem, ignore the complexities that cause it, offer a simplified ‘solution’ to the masses and point to a scapegoat as the cause. And, with most right wing populism, that scapegoat is always an ‘other’ - migrants, those with a different coloured skin, even those from a far away nation that might choose to attack us. Tell simple people that you have a simple way to fix something, despite the fact the proposed solution in no way addresses the problem, and they’ll love you for it. More so if they can also point a finger at a group they dislike as being the cause. In the UK this sort of populism is following the same path as that which has torn America in half. Those promoting it have immigrants as their main targets, subtly shifting the ‘others’ framing from the more general ‘outsiders’, which was a fantastic success for Brexit. Unfortunately those that voted for the UK leaving the EU, and cheered Brexit every inch of the way because they saw us escaping those ‘others’ that were apparently the cause of all our problems, have started to very slowly realise that their lives have in no way improved. In fact their standards of living, their income, their opportunities are all worse now than they were ten years ago. The populist policies of Brexit, such as they were, have all failed to lead us to the sunlit uplands that were promised. But the people behind Brexit still need the money, the power and the influence they gained during that period. They still want to manipulate and influence the gullible to ensure that they, and those who finance them, continue to get richer. Which brings us to Reform/Restore/Regurgitate and all the other right wing groups today, and their current swathe of populist policies. Well, we say “policies” in the very broadest sense because all of their promises have to be delivered on the back of keeping people focused on those ‘others’. How do Reform plan to solve the housing crisis, and get the country back to a point where younger people can even consider the property ladder? Stopping small boats. How do Restore plan to reverse the downward trend in international trade? Stopping small boats and mass deportation. How do Reclaim plan to address the increasing threat of climate change? Stopping small boats and forcing Billie Piper to move back in with Laurence Fox. None of these parties offer any practical, achievable solutions to the complex issues in front of the UK over the coming decades beyond nurturing and feeding the innate racism that may live within the hearts of those with fewer opportunities, poorer education and a narrow world view than they would ideally have. Those people at the very bottom of the socio-economic ladder that need the most help to improve their lives and feel they have no chance of getting it. Those angry, dissatisfied and frustrated people that just want someone in power to tell them they will fix it. And yes, Brexit fixed it for none of them despite Nigel Farage telling everyone that ridding ourselves of the world’s largest trading block would somehow magically make everyone richer and happier, but THIS TIME he must be on to something, right? This time he’ll have some policies that will work once all the pesky brown people are gone, surely? Those sunlit uplands are just around the corner. Yesterday’s comments in a Reform release to the press show you exactly how the man currently under financial investigate can quickly pull a thread to make those very same Brexit voters believe just that. A new populist and completely throwaway promise that will absolutely resonate with his core voter - a way to address the current hosepipe bans across much of the UK. Nige and his party have a way to fix all of this and make everyone feel better. And, yes, it does of course involve immigrants. The UK is suffering from the driest period in over 190 years of record keeping. July offered some areas of the country less than 3% of the expected average rainfall. Some regions have gone more than 50 days without seeing a single raindrop. In fact the driest UK summers across the last 25 years have been 2018, 2022, 2025 and now 2026. This is not normal by any definition and the reasons behind this climate shift are complex and wide ranging. They are not addressed by any simple solution or single action. They are a world wide issue that requires alignment and action by world leaders across the globe. Any national policies that are proposed to address this are going to need to match those actions undertaken by other nations trying to solve the same thing. We in the UK live on an island that has an abundance of locations for the placement of renewable energy. Wind and wave power are perfect installations for the UK - and yes, even solar despite our yearly climate and sunshine index - and this shift towards renewables and away from CO2 generating fuels would be a policy that could address the larger climate change issue. A policy that is much longer term, and will yield greater benefits, than any simple short fix. But the masses don’t want a long term plan. They want to turn on their hosepipes whenever they choose, and Nigel knows that. He wants people to love him for giving them their hosepipes back. He and his party also want the electorate to grow to hate “net zero” policies, and vote for the party that opposes them, because those funding Farage and his cronies make there fortunes from oil and gas. Do any of Reform’s policies look to address climate change? To find someway of trying to combat the man-made damage being done to the planet and potentially slow, if not reverse, the slide into hotter drier summers and colder, wetter winters? Well, here’s four ways in which they want to address the issue. - Scrap Net Zero: Abolish the 2050 net-zero carbon emissions target to reduce household energy bills and stop what the party terms economic harm. - Fossil Fuel Expansion: Issue fast-track licenses for North Sea oil and gas extraction and revive UK shale gas. - Target Renewables: Remove government subsidies for new large-scale solar and wind energy projects. - Axe Local Green Schemes: Ban Clean Air Zones, Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (LTNs), and delay mandates on electric vehicle sales. Yes, you are correct - every single one of these policies will in fact exacerbate the climate change problem. None of them fix anything tangible or useful to those whose votes they are chasing. Removing renewables, increasing reliance on CO2 producing fuels, establishing policies that reverse the push towards net zero are all likely to lead to an increase in hotter, drier summers. To more hosepipe bans. To more frustration about not being able to water your garden or fill up a pool for the kids. And NONE of these actions will ultimately lead to lower household energy bills. But it’s a complex problem. People don’t want a complex, long term solution. They want to use their hosepipes now. And Nige wants to let them know he’ll solve this for them. He’ll do this by . . . stopping small boats. Of course. Those damned brown people are the reason we haven’t had much rain this summer. Ridiculous, right? Well, apparently not. See the bottom of that news item in the firt image? Nine privately owned water companies have restricted water supplies to the people who rely on them. Of those nine companies, two of them have paid their shareholders no dividends over the past few years (Welsh Water and Southern Water), and with the exception of Thames Water, the rest have generated upwards of almost a billion pounds of shareholder revenue. Thames is the standout exception, of course. It has not paid a single external shareholder one penny in the last ten years, but has offered up around £200m to its internal owners, including a high profile £1m incentive bonus to a new employee report a week or so ago. Welsh and Southern Water are ploughing what profits they make back in to the company and trying to improve their services. The others? Not so much. So what policies to Reform have to grasp this particularly thorny issue? Well, they initially went down the populist route of nationalising at least 50% of all water management across the UK. Since then they have back-pedalled entirely (presumably because someone with money from these companies has filled Nige’s pockets). They are no longer planning to take this route and have instead highlighted “foreign owners and investors” as the crux of the issue. They haven’t said what they’ll do to address this though. If those companies were run well then some of the lack of rain wouldn’t be such a huge problem. We’d have better storage facilities, more reliable delivery to homes, more customer-first initiatives. Instead we see almost three billion litres of water lost through leaking pipes every single day, 500% more than normal hosepipe usage would generate. Three quarters of this loss through leakage is controlled by the privately owned water companies. Those banning hosepipes. Will Reform put more pressure and apply more penalties to water companies that fail to deliver to their customers? Well, not in any meaningful way. They have no written policy for this, but have said that they will “focused demands on executive accountability, such as calling for the resignation of utility bosses overseeing severe infrastructure or supply failures”. That is, of course, unless those utility bosses are avid donors to Reform UK. You know that this is the Get Out of Jail Free card these individuals can and will play. Look over at the US for how this lack of accountability works. Just because you might have missed it, Reform also plan to kill off the government current plans for finding manageable ways of reducing water consumption by 20% by 2038. Very little research has been done by Reform in to this, but it’s part of their attack on green energies/red tape/bureaucracy that always lands well with those who don’t understand any of it. So what other actions will they take to address the nation’s inadequate water supply that doesn’t involve small boats? Reservoirs, they say. The UK has not delivered a single new reservoir in almost 35 years. We have increased the population of the country by 20% since then, so clearly this is an area of huge neglect. And governments that promise the people long term infrastructure improvements get to kick the can as far down the road as they need to, so Farage has this covered too. But he does it with the sort of added gloss that appeals to those screaming for a short term fix AND someone to blame. His promise is to build more reservoirs and do so by “slashing red tape and environmental protections” - blaming unnamed bureaucrats and woke, lefty tree huggers in the process. At best this will reduce the planning process, leaving around 10-15 years of construction and commissioning ahead. And, just to give you an idea of how it might work, this will likely result in a massive spend of public money with an end goal of an asset which will be run by private ownership. Do you think this will, in any way, improve the lives of those angry people who can’t turn on their hosepipes this summer? Or is it easier just to blame immigrants? I think we know Farage’s answer to that one.

Well, if someone wants to be a money grubber about it, it could be pointed out that it's saving the NHS quite a bit in future costs of treatment, too. I also guess whether a person wants to put a £ value on actually making that future a cleaner and more pleasant place for everyone, not just themselves.

Well, that it's had an impact cannot be denied, in any case. The outcome of that study is very clear there. And yet now the UK apparently has a challenging party with a good sized polling share that wants to undo all of that legwork - both at a local level like ULEZ and at central government level too. Interesting times.

If that were the most important factor, the trend would be felt more evenly outside the cities ULEZ was implemented in, rather than apparently more tangibly in the cities it has been.