SOMETHING FOR THE WEEKEND: Green Deal - Good For us? by Wiggia

The inevitability of Boris coming out with his (is it his?) green deal whilst the virus farce continues was bang on schedule.

Bold headlines promised much; all are to be spared the ravages of climate change, electric is good everything else bad, jobs for everyone, endless investment and soon, just soon, we will all be living in those sunlit uplands so often promised but still eluding us.

A state of nirvana will blanket us, joy will flood our lives as driverless EVs transport us to wherever we wish after a call to Alexa, energy will be clean to assuage any lingering doubts on its source, it will also be so cheap everyone will have access and will bathe in a warm and comfortable environment, strolling through the Elysian Fields and thanking Boris for his wonderful gift to us all. Bollox: for entry into the Elysian Fields one had to be virtuous, well that leaves out Boris and most of the incumbents of the HoC.

Never, since the last one, has such a statement gone so unchallenged, announced as the country goes into free-fall and enormous debt. He hoses billions of our money in the direction of a goal that cannot be reached, not just in the time scale laid out; it is unachievable, "as any fool no." Why and how are they allowed to get away with it?

Progress and change go hand in hand. They cannot be forced without consequences; there will always be resistance to change, often unfounded but equally justified. This green deal is neither justified or desirable in the form set out. Even its basic assumptions are flawed: 'massive increase in jobs for British workers as we lead the world in this technology' - what part of this technology is he talking about? The technology we sold off and failed to take advantage of the first time, like nuclear; or the manufacturing at home of his beloved windmills?

Even now the Chinese, already the biggest suppliers of batteries, are going ahead with an enormous plant in France to supply Europe; Tesla are building a giant complex to do the same here. Nothing British about any of that, we currently only spend 29% of the money on wind farms here in this country; the 50% of the £50 billion promised to the wind farm industry has already been earmarked for spending abroad.

How is doubling the wind farm capacity going to make any difference on cold windless days, as we have had lately? On one the contribution by wind to the total energy output was just over 1.5%; spending billions will give us on the same days 3% and unless we have adequate backup eg nuclear we will have rolling blackouts - California has shown the way in this.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-08-17/california-blackouts-highlight-challenges-of-going-carbon-free

Does no one here ever read the news? It beggars belief that anyone would think it would be different here and it will get worse.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2020/10/14/lack-wind-sparks-national-grid-energy-alert/

The demand that will be created if we change to EVs and replace gas with electric heat pumps alone will require huge changes, most of which have not been costed; although as with all things, like it or not the consumer will pay. This document from the National Grid lays out many of the proposed solutions and problems but is very short on feasibility and costs to the user.

https://www.nationalgrideso.com/document/180471/download

The NG has quite a lot to say about hydrogen, which is more than Boris has; there is obviously a long way to go before hydrogen is pumped through the disused gas pipe system, so there will be no relief for some time yet, even if it is viable.

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2020/11/28/what-is-the-real-cost-of-green-hydrogen/#more-47646

What we do know is the cost of replacing gas boilers with electric heat pumps, which themselves could be replaced by hydrogen/electric hybrid pumps, if we ever get that far, is astronomical compared with the gas boilers. Who will or can afford to pay between £10-15k for a replacement? If the government coughs up subsidies then again the taxpayer will have it added to his bill for going green.

Are there enough raw materials for all the batteries that will be needed? Another silence from those advocating the change. The lithium and cobalt needed is sourced from a tiny number of countries and one is the Congo, hardly a stable trading partner. The only answer I have seen to this question is that we must trust that battery technology will change, alleviating the need for these rare earths.

But battery technology has largely reached the end of the road with current types. Any new forms are in the experimental stage and have been for some years.

The disposal of these batteries at end of life has not even started, yet the business of scrapping millions of large batteries is another problem yet to be solved. The whole battery conundrum is itself anything but green from start to finish.

And they are not quite the panacea that climate change activists claim them to be:

https://uk.reuters.com/article/autos-electric-hyundai-motor-lg-chem/factbox-battery-fires-put-automakers-in-hot-seat-over-evs-idUKL4N2HY28J

What I think everyone has to ask is not whether all these things are possible - technological advances will always come up with an answer eventually - but why the rush? A cleaner, greener world is universally to be desired, but you cannot junk what has been the driving force of energy since the industrial revolution overnight. Also, why the narrow band down which this change is advancing? Coal and gas are plentiful as is oil; clean use of all three should surely be possible, while the other forms of energy production are refined or abandoned or discovered; it should not be one or the other. Wind in most cases is a dead end: any power supply that needs permanent stand by back up because of its reliance on a variable source by nature makes it expensive, you are running two parallel systems, but now we have the lunacy of going forward with wind and solar with little or no back up; unless more nuclear stations are to be commissioned, and that is a long term project with little sign of enough being done.

We are currently set in an anticyclonic condition for the best part of a month. The wind power today 29/11was just one gig, and we have been reliant on French imports at maximum for a part of this period. It doesn’t exactly fill one with hope that things will change when we go full-on for sustainable energy, and full electric everything; our own backup cannot cope with the shortfall now.

Boris also proudly boasted we would be leading the world in sustainable energy. He's a little late with that piece of malfeasance, the Danes are way ahead of us and are the leaders worldwide in the use of wind power.

At first glance they seem to have cracked it, but as with all in the land of eco believers not all you see is true. Several large pieces of information are missing; for a start they are the world's biggest wind turbine manufacturers which puts a dent in anything Boris claims about leading the way in this field; and of course, they are on our doorstep.

It is worth reading this as underneath the headline-grabbing 'Denmark has 100% energy powered by wind' several actualities are revealed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Denmark

For a start the Danes have never reduced their traditional power stations, they have enough interlocker connections to import electricity by up to 40% so the reliance on wind is offset by stand by power stations and imports when needed. There is very little information as to when the wind does not blow, that item seems to missing in all the hype about when it is, and the Danes pay the highest prices in the EU for energy, some is taxes and some is the subsidy for wind power.

It would be churlish to pretend that nuclear does not receive subsidies, but the difference is nuclear does not need a back up system, wind does and the indirect cost of that in Denmark or anywhere that has a significant amount of wind power is difficult to quantify.

Any counter arguments to the green ideology are reduced to little-read blogs and articles in small group papers, few get aired to the general public; this is one such article by Ruth Lea in 2019:

https://www.thegwpf.org/carbon-policies-are-futile-gesture-politics/

and

https://www.wnd.com/2017/07/study-blows-greenhouse-theory-out-of-the-water/?utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=PostTopSharingButtons&utm_campaign=websitesharingbuttons

Phrases like ‘futile gesture politics’ are seized on and discounted because they go against the climate change narrative, rather like the answer to not locking down for Covid - ‘but if it saves one life...’ There really appears to be no balance allowed in any argument on the subject despite the fact you cannot beat nature anyway: if an ice age appears what are we going to do to stop it happening. There isn’t anything that can be done, there never has been, so why the difference over global warming which is also a recurring event over the millennia?

And at the other side of the argument we have scare tactics like this….

https://endcoal.org/about/why-coal/

Coal is a dirty fuel, but why has there been no effort to use clean coal methods of energy production? It beggars belief that clean coal is not possible seeing the billions thrown at other unreliable energy projects.

The costs of clean coal are argued about but with sustainable energy having huge hidden costs that one day will come home to roost. In a sane world, clean coal has to be worth more experimentation, not just shoved in the 'don’t use' drawer.

https://youtu.be/0Fxrs1a7fD0

One of the many problems climate change scientists activists and believers have, is their predictions of global meltdown. Their apocalyptic scenarios have all come to naught, so why should anyone believe them? At this moment in time I am looking out of my study window and we have heavy snow; remember this from that centre of all things climate change in the UK, the UEA in 2000? -

According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”.

“Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said.

He must be an associate of Professor Ferguson, who has never got a prediction right.

One of several abandoned wind farms in California: a blot on the landscape and a sign of the future?

And how much would any of those same scientists likely to actually bet their house on this actually happening; any?

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/frightening-climate-change-map-shows-21333264

Mind you, if that phone monstrosity should ever go beneath the waves it would do us all a favour.

The figures for the extraction of rare earths and metals for battery production are shrouded by the mists of those who don’t want you to know. So many conflicting ‘studies’ have been published it is impossible to pin down how much of these materials, lithium and cobalt in particular, are actually available and over what time frame.

 https://junkscience.com/2020/12/boris-johnsons-electric-vehicle-fantasy/

Currently we have not even started to feed the monster that battery production will become if the way forward laid out by the likes of Bojo comes to fruition.

https://blog.energybrainpool.com/en/is-there-enough-lithium-to-feed-the-need-for-batteries/

The bottom line from that piece, according to Argonne National Laboratory, is that “the available materials will not be depleted in the foreseeable future. … Known lithium reserves could meet world demand to 2050.”

If correct 2050 is when we all go total electric and the demand for batteries will be immense as will the demand for the materials to build them. Alternative types of battery have been in the pipeline for some time but are yet to see the light of day, and meanwhile the lithium ion battery has nearly reached its limit in development.

New battery technology needs to come on stream much earlier than predicted, lithium batteries being inherently unsafe as they use a flammable liquid as a conductor, and when new batteries start being used, who will want vehicles with the old lithium ones? And will the current price of between 30-50% of an EV that is the battery component come with the advent of solid state and the like. If it is expensive technology EVs will remain out of reach for many in the foreseeable future.

https://www.pocket-lint.com/gadgets/news/130380-future-batteries-coming-soon-charge-in-seconds-last-months-and-power-over-the-air

Another problem with current EVs is battery size equates to range, but that brings with it weight and safety issues plus an increase in costs that far outweighs those of conventional ICE vehicles.

And the cost of replacement? The price is coming down, the guarantees on the batteries vary quite a bit at the moment, assuming your car is a Nissan Leaf you have guarantee for the battery to retain 75% of its charge for five to eight years depending on battery size and /or 100,000 miles which is actually not bad, though the older ones are only to 66%, which in a car with a limited range is a big drop in mileage that can be covered. If you keep the car beyond those dates and you have to replace, the cost from a dealer is just under £5k which for a small car of that age would mean junking it rather than replacing the battery as it would be uneconomic. The hope would be that as in the USA third party batteries would appear at much lower costs.

 If you have a Tesla S you are in for a shock (electric joke) as the cost is around £40k, so those bigger batteries have to come down in price to make economic sense; the old adage 'wait till the technology is sorted' stands well here.

Tesla’s warranty conditions can be seen here and are similar apart from the caveat that brought about a class action lawsuit, updates can alter your battery in a negative way and there is no warranty cover. That may change but would be an expensive worry to a prospective purchaser.

https://electrek.co/2020/02/02/tesla-model-s-x-warranty-70-capacity-150k-mile/

What would stymie the third party battery business is if as with other items like cameras you end up with certain manufacturers making the micro chip technology unavailable to third party manufacturers. If that were to happen there is a problem as there would be nowhere else to go other than an official dealer and you would pay the going rate. That already happens with some standard batteries now, you can get third party ones but an official dealer will charge you to reset the onboard computer so it is useable and then charge for that on top of the battery costs. This is a contentious area.

Range in these cars, particularly the smaller ones, is optimal in summer conditions and day time running, but winter, lights, heater, windscreen wipers all make big inroads into the range available. I read somewhere that in colder climes owners fit diesel heaters to extend the range, which rather defeats the whole point of EVs.

Man has a way of finding solutions and no doubt will re batteries and powering of items from phones to EVs. The real problem, at the moment unsolvable, is the production of energy using ‘sustainable' wind and solar: if that sort of production becomes mainstream the demand for back up becomes even more imperative, which leads us to question why we are going on this uncertain and costly route; it is not to save the planet, our efforts even at the maximum predicted won't even scratch the surface. No wonder people think the climate change scam is a conspiracy.

Michael Bentine Blows It

 From Harry Secombe's autobiography 'Arias and Raspberries'

Mike was always good company, so when one Sunday, early on in our acquaintance, he invited me to spend the day with him at the house of a recently-acquired girlfriend, I accepted readily.

She lived with her family in the outer suburbs of London, and as neither of us had a car, we took the train. It was a lovely summer afternoon, and the house was quite grand. The company consisted of the girl's mother and father and an aunt, who were all dazzled by the brilliance of Mike's conversation.

Throughout a beautifully cooked meal he regaled us with stories of his days in repertory with Robert Atkins, and when it came to playing a spot of croquet on the lawn he beat everybody, performing wonders with his mallet. At tea, which was sumptuous and extremely filling - especially after our huge lunch he enthralled us with tales of his adventures in the Air Force. By the end of our visit everyone, including myself, was captivated by Mike's wit and eloquence.

Farewells were said, and then the three ladies decided to walk us to the station, leaving the father behind. Mike enlivened the short walk with descriptions of ballets he had seen,and as we walked on to the gravel leading to the station platform, he decided to show us Nijinsky's famous leap as performed in The Spectre Of The Rose.

He took a little run and leapt into the air. Unfortunately, the amount of food Mike had consumed throughout the day - the roast beef and apple tart at lunch and the pastries and the boiled ham at tea - proved too much and as he took off he gave vent to a blast from his nether regions. It was gargantuan, and had it been properly harnessed it would have propelled him over the roof of the railway station. It seemed to me that the shock of it actually delayed his return to earth, exactly like Nijinsky's celebrated leap.

I immediately collapsed in hysterics against the wall of the station, and the three ladies, who were standing watching arm in arm, abruptly turned round and began to walk off without a backward glance. Mike followed them for a few steps, making little raspberry sounds with his mouth in a vain attempt to convince them that he had made the sound from that end. But their retreating backs offered no forgiveness. He turned to where I lay, kicking my heels in the gravel in helpless, uncontrolled laughter, and, seeing the funny side of the incident himself, he joined in the hysteria.

FRIDAY MUSIC: Lockdown special edition, by JD

No more lockdown! 

Still a lot of wit and creativity in the world I'm pleased to say. This is just a small sample of all the mocking videos that are appearing:

 

... add a few of your own choices if you wish :)

Richard Burton gives a lesson in de-escalation

To be Welsh and in show business is to belong to a rather exclusive club. We all know each other - indeed we seek each other out - and when we get together we become even more Welsh than ever. Our veneer of sophistication is only finger-nail deep in most cases and we flaunt our working-class backgounds like battle flags.

Stanley Baker and I were great mates and another good friend was Donald Houston, with whom I first worked in a radio play called This Vale Of Tears by Cliff Gordon. Geraint Evans and I performed together several times and the harpist Ossian Ellis was a frequent member of the Goon Show orchestra.

It just so happened that one year the five of us were recording a Christmas television show from the ABC studios at Elstree and, in between takes, we got chatting about Richard Burton and his affair with Elizabeth Taylor. What incensed us was the cavalier way that Richard was treating his wife, Sybil, a Welsh girl we all knew. It was the time when the affair was at its height, and Stanley knew that Richard and Elizabeth were filming at the MGM studios in nearby Borehamwood.

The recording took quite some time and in the intervals we availed ourselves of the generous hospitality of the ABC management. As the hours went by, we got more and more 'tanked up' and our determination to tell Richard exactly what we thought of him for what he was doing to Sybil grew to such an extent that Stanley made a phone call to the MGM studios. He discovered that Richard and Elizabeth would be in the pub next door and that the media were not around.

It was decided that we would drive there as soon as our recording was finished and have it out with our recalcitrant fellow Welshman. Recording over, we piled out to the car park. I had a Thunderbird in those days which only took two passengers, but somehow five of us managed to fit in.

Together we stood uncertainly outside the pub and then we burst in. There was no one in the bar except, at the end of the room, Richard Burton and Elizabeth Taylor, who was drinking a pint of beer.

'This is it,' said Stanley, who was the bravest of us, and began to move forward.

Richard watched him coming and suddenly burst into song with the opening lines, in Welsh, of 'Counting the Goats.'

We all stopped in our tracks and joined in with him. Two hours later, after we had sung ourselves hoarse and Burton had silenced Elizabeth's attempt to join in with 'Sing your own bloody songs,' the party broke up amid back slappings and mutual expressions of good will.

Outside again, I turned to Stanley and said, 'We never did mention Sybil, boyo.'

'We didn't, did we? Bloody shame,' said Stanley. And that was that.

_____________________________________________________

From Harry Secombe's autobiography 'Strawberries and Cheam.'

Are 'fact-checkers' biased? Sackerson's latest on The Conservative Woman

I give below the text of my latest post on The Conservative Woman, titled there 'Fact-checkers should check their fact-check bias.' There may be (often are) some useful nuggets in their comment thread.

___________________________________________________________________________________

ON November 7, 2020, the Sunday Express published an article by Patrick Basham, an American conservative, entitled: ‘Stalin said it’s not important who votes, but how they are counted.’  

The piece alleged ‘widespread ballot fraud’ in the US Presidential election. The Express’s link to the piece now returns a 404 message – page missing – but a copy is still available on Basham’s own Democracy Institute think-tank website. 

Two days later, a fact-checking organisation called Full Fact published a debunk of Basham’s claims. Under the heading: ‘Express opinion piece wrong to allege evidence of widespread voter fraud in US elections,’ staff writer Pippa Allen-Kinross claimed to have established that there was no evidence of widespread fraudulent ballots, widespread invalid votes, or widespread ballot fraud. 

Two days after that, Allen-Kinross updated her piece to say: ‘The Express has now deleted the comment piece from its website.’ A triumph! 

As confidence in news organisations declines and excited rumour and misinformation spread across the internet, fact-checking outfits have sprung up like daisies.  

It is very tempting to use their findings as shortcuts to the truth, so that it seems hardly worth turning on the television or opening a newspaper – why not go straight to a trustworthy, unbiased and authoritative source such as Full Fact? 

Except, if my experience is anything to go by, these oracles are reluctant to accept any correction to their own claims. 

On Sunday last, I used Full Fact’s online contact form to challenge two aspects of Allen-Kinross’s post: Her use of the term ‘President-elect’ in relation to Joe Biden, and her judgment that there was ‘no evidence’ of ballot fraud. 

Firstly I pointed out that though the media were quick to call Biden ‘President-elect’ to date he has not been officially confirmed as such. In a letter dated November 13, a member of Congress’s Sub-Committee on Government Operations (SGO) instructed the General Services Administration (GSA) not to use the term and quoted both law and the precedent of the 2000 Presidential election (in which Al Gore delayed conceding victory to George W Bush until December 13.) 

This is not a dry academic point: Constant repetition of the term in the media could be seen as pushing a narrative designed to use popular emotion and ignorance of the Constitution to override the legal-electoral challenges still ongoing from Mr Trump’s team. 

I supplied Full Fact with the link above, plus a Word document transcript of the body of the letter. A team editor replied (Monday a.m.): 

‘The letter you cite is now irrelevant following the GSA’s decision on 24 November to start the Biden transition: Regardless, the term “President-elect” has no constitutional definition and so the GSA does not have authority over how that term is used. The GSA does have a legal role in determining the winner of the election, but that doesn’t mean we are wrong to use the term “President-elect” with justification.’ 

I responded: ‘Preparation for handover is “just in case”; there has been no concession of victory. My point is therefore not irrelevant and to date, still stands.’ 

In fact the General Services Administrator made her reasoning quite clear in her letter to Biden why she had decided ‘to make certain post-election resources and services available to assist in the event of a presidential transition’. She also stated that she strongly believes ‘that the statute requires that the GSA Administrator ascertain, not impose, the apparent president-elect . . . GSA does not dictate the outcome of legal disputes and recounts, nor does it determine whether such proceedings are reasonable or justified. These are issues that the Constitution, federal laws, and state laws leave to the election certification process and decisions by courts of competent jurisdiction’.

These legal challenges continue, the incumbent has not conceded and the Electoral College has not yet met to determine the issue.  

It seems that Full Fact does not understand the difference between an heir presumptive and an heir apparent; and I see nothing in the team editor’s reply to convince me that he had actually read either the SGO or the GSA letter. 

Secondly I pointed out on the contact form that Ms Allen-Kinross states ‘He (Basham) also repeatedly speaks of ballot fraud, which there is no evidence of.’ (My emphasis). A fact-checker, I wrote, should know the difference between ‘evidence’ – and I understand there are over 200 sworn statements – and ‘conclusive proof’.

The editor replied: 

‘On your second point, I think again you’re claiming that certain words have undeniable definitions, which I don’t accept. In my eyes, unsubstantiated claims do not deserve the label of ‘evidence’, irrespective of whether they are sworn to be true or not.’ 

To which I responded: ‘Everyone understands that evidence is what is presented to put a case whether in court or elsewhere, and is not the same thing as proof. Mr Trump made ‘claims’ but that is not what I am referring to – there is lots of ‘evidence (whether reliable or not).’ A review of some of that evidence can be found here.

This is where it gets Lewis Carroll-ish: ‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.’ 

On the question of evidence, there are at the very least grounds for suspicion. Notwithstanding the Sunday Express’s (cowardly, in my view) takedown of his November 7 piece, Patrick Basham returned to his theme in the American edition of The Spectator (‘Reasons why the 2020 presidential election is deeply puzzling’ – a subscription site, but a copy of the piece is also available on Zero Hedge). 

One could quibble about the word ‘widespread’, used perhaps incautiously by Basham himself in his first piece and repeated in the triple debunk by Allen-Kinross; but remove it from each of her findings and they begin to look shaky:

1. ‘… There is no evidence of widespread fraudulent ballots in the US election’. 

2. ‘… There is no evidence of widespread invalid votes’. 

3. ‘… There is no evidence of widespread ballot fraud’. 

‘Widespread’ is an ambiguous term – does it mean distributed over a wide geographical area, or on a scale large enough to affect the outcome of the electoral returns? This post by a Sharyl Attkisson lists enough to suggest both. 

Dilbert comic strip creator Scott Adams, a Trump supporter and expert in persuasion techniques, issues a daily podcast and has been arguing that since the Democrats have spent the last four years characterising the President as little better than a Nazi dictator, why wouldn’t they attempt – even, feel morally obliged to try – to remove him by any means possible? 

What is so implausible about electoral fraud? It is such an issue here in the UK that Parliament has studied the vulnerabilities of the system, both in respect of postal voting and otherwise – Sir Eric Pickles, the Government’s anti-corruption champion, has made 50 recommendations. 

A Californian blogger says: ‘An absentee ballot is a certificate that you receive and can be sold to a third party. This new concept of absentee voting allows people to abuse the system. Your ballot can be turned into cash. $200 to $1,000 I have heard.’ 

So English 18th century, eh! At least you could get a jolly good drink out of your MP in those days. 

These interesting issues aside, the main question for me here is, amid the fog of lies, can we trust the fact-checkers to be impartial and accurate? I ended my riposte to the Full Fact’s team editor by saying: 

‘The news media have already failed to be accurate and impartial. If your organisation is to fulfil the role of independent fact-checker, your claims and language need to be particularly scrupulous; unless you are simply a referee who has joined one team to play against the other.’ 

No further reply, so far; so other questions arise in my mind: who funds these outfits? How are the staff and writers recruited? What formal or informal links do they have with political parties and factions? 

I’m reminded of an apocryphal tale about when the England cricket team played a friendly against a rural Australian side. A local was appointed umpire and the home team opened the batting.  

When the ball thumped a shin pad, the fielders’ appeal was turned down; the same happened when a slip caught the ball off a thick edge.  

The fast bowler snorted, took a long run up and delivered a meteor that blasted the middle stump into the sight screen and the bails into orbit. ‘Owizzee?’ was the cry. ‘Noddout,’ drawled the umpire again, adding in conciliatory tone: ‘Bloody close, though.’ 

________________________________

Update (htp: 'JD') -

As I say elsewhere, my main point in this article is about fact-checkers' questionable independence and accuracy, BUT readers still wondering about possible ballot fraud may be interested by this presentation:

In the video, Dr Ayyadurai says that voting machines in some states including Arizona have within their programming architecture something called a 'weighted race feature' which can increase or reduce the value of a cast vote (which is not stored as a single digit but a variable digital fraction.) His modelling of the Arizona returns suggests to him that the results as reported are 'extremely implausible' on the basis of one person, one vote. His computer having tried thousands of ways to re-create the overall voting curve, the closest match suggests that either third party voters voted very heavily for Biden, or that the machines multiplied Biden votes by 1.3 and reduced Trump votes accordingly; or, of course, some degree of both.

He says that this weighting feature has been known about since 2002. The way to check whether it has been employed in practice is to examine the ballot-paper images stored on the system, but when he ran for office in Massachusetts access to the images was denied to him and the images were deleted.

On the face of it, there seems to be a way to fudge election results without having to postulate truckloads of fake ballot papers, large-scale 'dead people voting' etc; and unless the software and data are opened to inspection, they offer a great way to hide or destroy the evidence. If Dominion (for example) dig their heels in, they may be able to block audits on the ground that their software is copyright: https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/11/03/2020-election-recount-ballot-machine-technology-law-433871

This is a quite different suggestion from the one about Trump votes being simply deleted, which the NYT claims to have debunked. https://www.nytimes.com/live/2020/11/11/technology/election-results-trump-biden

Arcadia: told you so

From Broad Oak Magazine, September 19, 2009:

BBC economic journalist Robert Peston recently professed himself "nauseous" on reading of the paltry £9 million per head earned by the hapless Rover Four; yet when I read his book "Who Runs Britain?" this year, I failed to see him confess a similar gut reaction to Sir Philip Green's £1.2 billion dividend raid on Arcadia Group. (Actually, the money went to his wife, who is domiciled for tax purposes in Monaco, but that hardly improves the flavour.) 

At the time, this monster cash extraction (done with freshly borrowed money) was more than three times Arcadia's operating profits, but I'm sure the banks that (expensively) approved the loans didn't care. And it was legal.

However, if, in the economic downturn, turnover and profits are savaged, and tangible assets decline sharply in value, and Arcadia becomes very weak, or even goes bust, what will Peston say then? Arcadia Group employs 27,000 people; was it really OK, other than in a strictly legal sense, to put such a heavy yoke around its neck? Had the dividend not been paid - and especially, not been funded by humungous bank loans - what more might the group have achieved? The consolidated balance sheet for 31 August 2008 is here; what will the 2009 one look like? 

What are the implications for our so-called democracy when captains of industry become so gigantic, and the rest of us become relatively as insignificant as crablice?

___________________________________________________________________________________

11 years later, we can ask whether Arcadia would have been more resilient (1), and in due course Mr Green and hs wife much richer (2), if instead of financial extraction there had been reinvestment, expansion and diversification.

(1) 'The group’s brands had been suffering from years of underinvestment before the Covid pandemic and had failed to keep up with the switch to online selling and digital marketing':   https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/nov/30/philip-green-arcadia-group-collapses-into-administration

(2) https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/dec/01/philip-green-wealth-arcadia-fortune

Fact-checking the fact-checkers

 A message from me to Full Fact, sent via their contact form https://fullfact.org/about/contact/ Sunday c. 16:15:

Article: https://fullfact.org/news/express-trump-election-voter-fraud/

1. Ms Allen-Kinross says 'We do know that many polls that predicted a landslide for President elect Joe Biden were out in their predictions.' Mr Biden is NOT yet 'President-elect' and should not be described as such; a Congressional committee woman wrote on 13 November to the General Services Administration to correct this error and explain why the claim is factually incorrect; text reproduced in this article: https://www.politicalite.com/usa/exclusive-us-congress-officially-tells-biden-campaign-hes-not-president-elect/ and transcribed as attached:

2. Ms Allen-Kinross says 'He also repeatedly speaks of “ballot fraud”, which there is no evidence of.' A fact-checker should know the difference between 'evidence' - and I understand there are over 200 sworn statements - and 'conclusive proof.'

This is sloppy work echoing the radio news reports e.g. from Global News (Classic fm etc) that immediately qualified Trump's claims as 'without foundation.' I can't imagine that Full Fact would wish to be written off as partisan activists.

Please amend - I would appreciate the courtesy of your advising me when you have done so.

Let's see how whether these independents are. Quis custodiet etc.

Reply from Full Fact (today, 09:00):

Thanks for your email.

The letter you cite is now irrelevant following the GSA's decision on 24 November to start the Biden transition: https://edition.cnn.com/2020/11/23/politics/transition-biden-gsa-begin/index.html

Regardless, the term "president-elect" has no constitutional definition and so the GSA does not have authority over how that term is used. The GSA does have a legal role in determining the winner of the election, but that doesn't mean we are wrong to use the term "president-elect" with justification.

On your second point, I think again you're claiming that certain words have undeniable definitions which I don't accept. In my eyes, ​unsubstantiated claims do not deserve the label of "evidence", irrespective of whether they are sworn to be true or not. 

To which I reply:

Dear Xxxxx

1. Preparation for handover is 'just in case'; there has been no concession of victory. My point is therefore not irrelevant and to date, still stands.

2. Everyone (I would have said) understands that evidence is what is presented to put a case whether in court or elsewhere, and is not the same thing as proof. Mr Trump made 'claims', but that is not what I am referring to - there is lots of 'evidence' (whether reliable or not).

Your ripostes therefore fail. The news media have already failed to be accurate and impartial. If your organisation is to fulfil the role of independent fact-checker, your claims and language need to be particularly scrupulous; unless you are simply a referee who has joined one team to play against the other.

So I still say that your writer's piece needs a degree of amendment, or a statement of correction.

__________________________

FURTHER COMMENTS:

Basham's article appeared in the Sunday Express on 7 November and Allen-Kinross' 11 November update said it had been pulled off the SE site, where it it now returns a '404' message: https://www.express.co.uk/comment/expresscomment/1357379/us-election-2020-donald-trump-joe-biden-pollster-fail 

However the article was also reproduced here and remains up:

https://democracyinstitute.org/patrick-bashams-sunday-express-article-assesses-us-election-pollingtemp/

and a piece by him on the same theme appears in the American Spectator for 27 November:

https://spectator.us/reasons-why-the-2020-presidential-election-is-deeply-puzzling/

At this juncture I have to stress that I don't know what to think about the claims, but surely there is enough 'evidence' to raise the issue. Why, among other things, does there seem to have been a coordinated suspension of vote-counting in several swing constituencies? Has this happened in previous Presidential elections?

Returning to Full Fact's reply to me from the team editor I would further comment:

1. When he says 'The letter you cite is now irrelevant' I see no evidence that he has read it, for if he had he would see that to use the term 'President-elect' implies either a formal concession by the opponent, which has not yet happened, or a decision by the Electoral College, not due until next month. Further, the 'it's too late' argument could be read as an admission by 'Ed.' that at the time Allen-Kinross originally published her piece, she was in fact using the term inappropriately, or in other words, the implication of her usage was in fact untrue.

2, In a manner reminiscent of Humpty Dumpty*, the team editor wishes the English language to mean what he wants it to mean, but however shaky, there is indeed evidence for the claims about ballot fraud - see Basham's 27 November article linked above - and the courts have not finished their consideration. So I think I could be justified in saying that on this point the piece was misleading, if not positively untrue.

Now both those two assertions have been echoed in many places across the media; the reason for my criticism is that when public feeling is so febrile, we should be able to depend on fact-checking organisations like Full Fact to deliver cool, accurate, objective and politically unbiased assessments. Otherwise, they risk becoming 'media influencers' themselves, both by

(a) the targets they select (do they do this more to the 'right-wing' than to the 'left-wing', and if so, are 'right-wing' articles - in mainstream news such as the Express, we are not talking about social media here - more frequently wrong or inaccurate?)

(b) the sloppy and tendentious way that they attack those targets.

'Untrue'... 'misleading'... Just the things that fact-checkers are there to find and correct. Quis custodiet ipsos custodies?

Who funds fact-checkers? Who recruits their staff, and how? Are they members of political parties or organisations that have links with political factions?

______________________

* 'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.'

  'The question is,' said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

  'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master—that's all.'

The Bombers Are Back

Barack O'Bomber and his co-pilot

The Presidential election debates seemed careful to avoid letting Trump talk about foreign relations. 

It's left to anti-neocon dissident Paul Joseph Watson to  explain what America has let itself in for.

In a way, it's understandable. It's not just the concerted complicity of the MSM, but the fact that America is so vast that it's difficult for the people to look up from domestic issues to realise what the US is doing in the rest of the world. Less than half the population even has a passport.

And now - it seems likely - Bomber Biden is in. 'A turkey is for four years, not just for Thanksgiving.'

SOMETHING FOR THE WEEKEND: 'Classic Cars' - or not? by Wiggia

I have lived long enough and had a decent exposure to a few decent cars and even raced for a brief very expensive period during the Sixties, that of course does not make me the go-to for advice or solid opinion on automobiles but it does give me some credence in what follows.

During this long period on Earth I have seen the good, the bad and the ugly on two and four wheels and have even owned (briefly) one of the ugly despite it being revered by what seems everyone else - my awful 1300 Beetle. The reasons for my ire with that car I have written about before, what I want to show here is what I call the faux classic car movement.

There was a time when a classic car had to have certain credentials: rarity, but not without some merit, advanced engineering, ahead of its time style-wise, and sheer quality; some have or had all that and more.

Yet if you go by today's various programs such as the auctioneers in Yorkshire or some of the cars on Bangers and Cash for instance, and even the various magazines devoted to the subject, all appear to have lost their integrity on what constitutes a classic car. Now pages and programs are devoted to cars that never had a reputation for anything but appear to have become ‘classic ‘ simply because an example has been found in a shed and restored; with many of them I ask myself why?

Naturally there are some cars restored by people because they owned one in the past and the vehicle reminds them of a good period in their lives or a special person, these can be discounted. What I am getting at is the glorification of certain vehicles that when new were considered a pile of junk or something approaching that level, and cars don’t improve with age just because someone decides they are ‘classic’.

Whatever I write here will inevitably bring forth the ‘you are wrong ‘ response from some and they are entitled to their opinion, but so am I.

I can only mention cars that were made here or Europe, no doubt people in the USA and elsewhere could compile similar lists as the desire to own a ‘classic’ car has no boundaries.

I haven't driven all of these so it would be easy to say ’you don’t know what you are talking about’ all though I have had more than a passing interest in and also first-hand owner accounts at the time.

Some cars fail the classic car title in my eyes not because they were not good cars in respect of design and execution, but because of the atrocious build quality and reliability. A classic example, that word will crop up here more than I wish, is the Alfasud, a delightful early hot, for the time, hatchback. I did drive one of these in its earlier incarnation and it was a peach regards handling and response, a flat four OHC engine, four wheel disc brakes and design feature from the Lancia Flavia. It sold in large numbers. Its Achilles heel was rust, big-time: poor quality Russian steel was stacked outside the factory in all weather and completed bodies ditto; this also applied to other Alfa models during the ‘nationalised’ period and all suffered the same fate, the advance of rust was so rapid many were rust buckets in five years max. Sadly no car however meritorious that would never see even middle age because of rust and poor quality assembly should ever be a classic car, but as with all these here some of these rot boxes now fetch quite good money.

All Alfa models during the nationalised period, like BL here in the UK, also suffered from poor workmanship and build quality, which was sad as some models deserved a better fate.

Triumph, renowned for its TR sports cars which do attract classic status in the TR2-4 models, also have the Herald which I can only describe as a waste of space, and that was about its only redeeming feature: the whole front bonnet lifted to give great access to a very dated engine, the car shared suspension with the Spitfire (another would be classic), neither had handling that could be considered adequate even in those long ago days, it was rubbish as was the build. A six cylinder engine version of both gave some improvement but the basics remained poor.

It was unusual in that it was built on a chassis when unitary construction had become the way forward, which allowed various body types to be easily affixed to the ladder chassis. If you read the classic bumf on the car they omit that the handling was dire and that the chassis rusted and the old engines were a pre war design with little grunt.

The rear suspension was transverse leaf spring and they had the cheek to call it independent suspension. A friend at the time had an ex works Le Mans Spitfire in which he was lucky to escape serious injury when the back end drifted out of control at the old Crystal Palace circuit and crashed heavily; the car was designed for Le Mans which is not exactly twisty, the modifications on the works car were shall we say extensive and it was still no good. Oh, and the Spitfire had raised welded ridges on the bonnet that they claimed were a design feature but looked like the factory could not afford proper welding equipment. Classic? I don’t think so.

Triumph also had the disaster that was the Stag. Any car that had the engine problems this one did - overheating, corrosion, aluminium heads on an iron block, timing chains broke and water pumps burst, poor quality engine construction compounded it all - should have been withdrawn from production until the problem was solved, but no, they ploughed on, replacing God knows how many engines, many that didn’t make it to six months. It was so bad that many had Ford V6s inserted in them, nice-looking but didn’t go far. A classic? Yet there is a thriving classic car club for the model; amazing.

The disastrous story is here in all its glory:
https://www.aronline.co.uk/cars/triumph/stag/

Typical ending to a day out for a Triumph Stag.

Injecting a bit of humour into this is the Peel Trident, not really a car though it claimed to be the world's smallest. Why anyone would want to buy one of these let alone collect them is beyond comprehension; the only thing guaranteed with them was that in hot weather you could bake potatoes in them and similar for the unfortunate driver.

And yes there is an owner's club, who consider it a collectable classic.

The NSU was the car that broke the firm, who before they got involved with cars were the biggest motorcycle producers in Europe. The car for the time was gorgeous, advanced with four wheel disc brakes, semi auto transmission, and a low drag coefficient. The problem was its engine, a twin rotor Wankel rotary design. Beautifully smooth as later Mazda owners would attest to, it had an enormous double whammy: the rotor tips wore very quickly if the engine was revved at all and it simply drank petrol. That didn’t stop it being voted, prematurely, as car of the year in ‘68, but the engines were being replaced at an alarming rate even then. The tip wear was finally overcome to a large degree after different ceramics were used but the fuel consumption was never addressed as the later Mazda owners of rotary models found out.

NSU ended in a parlous financial state and were purchased by VW I ‘70 and subsumed into Audi. The Audi 100 model 15 years later had a remarkably similar body shape. The NSU should have been a classic but like the Triumph Stag the engine relegates it to an interesting try, and as with that many had Ford V4s implanted in them, not the greatest of lumps but the only one that would fit.

Trabant: the name conjures up visions of Stasi and razor wire borders. People actually seek these out. The construction alone was so poor very few have survived and the Duraplastic body had an attraction for pigs that ate them. Certainly the people who purchased them and drove them had no choice, but that doesn’t change the fact this was an abomination of a car, why bother? When the Wall came down the Trabant should have been buried under it. Another attraction was the fact it had no brake lights! Or indicators. Still, you always knew were it was as it left a trail of smoke everywhere.

Giving one a two-tone paint finish is frankly taking the proverbial.

The De Lorean: what can one say? Back to the Future may have made it a collectable cult car, but the reality was it never became more than a poor attempt at a sports car. The gull wing doors may look cool but if you park anywhere you can’t get out unless you have a car's width each side. It was also painfully slow for a sports car and the stainless steel finish produced comments such as 'saucepan' though it did have the advantage that small scratches could be removed with a Brillo pad, but on the other hand small iron particles in the steel gave the appearance of surface rust; and it cost a fortune for what it was, the people of Northern Ireland where it was built named it the 'con car' in some circles for obvious reasons after huge sums were given to the factory to build the things. Even bringing in Colin Chapman of Lotus fame who almost completely redesigned the car could not save it.

Another of similar ilk was the absolutely gorgeous in many people's eyes, others more 'meeh', yet always striking: the Aston Martin Lagonda (1976). Sadly Aston Martin in their haste to make this a car of the future put all their faith in digital electronics before their time; employing Joseph Lucas, a company renowned for failure to ever produce anything reliable and known as Lucas the Prince of Darkness, was an error on a catastrophic scale.

Hugely expensive, fuel economy (mpg) down in single digits and totally unreliable because of the electronics, it amazingly staggered on in small production in various editions until 1989. The latter versions were more reliable to a degree but the body shape was emasculated and by that time no longer cutting-edge.

The Allegro represents everything that was wrong with the British motor industry at the time: atrocious build quality - a fault not just reserved for the Allegro - anaemic engines, a flexing body that meant in certain conditions the rear windows fell out, doors that would not open because of the flexing, poor interior space... it was a dog. Reams have been written about how bad this car was, yet again it was or is becoming collectable; would anyone in their right mind exchange money for one of these?

Sir Digby Jones summed it all up rather well: "It is what I call 'the British Leyland model' – you put a lot of money in at the top, and an Austin Allegro comes out at the bottom." Not many survive; it became a favourite vehicle to be broken up for parts as its engines fitted several BL models including MGBs!

BL or BMC could have the whole article to themselves: so many cars of inferior quality emerged from their factories during that industrial strife period, and many have a devoted following, sort of a death wish for many.

Yes, people do actually collect restore and form clubs devoted to the Reliant Robin. There was a garage not far from the last house we lived in that ‘specialised’ in these three wheelers, and when it closed the numerous bodies and complete cars were rapidly bought up. Once again unless you have a sense of humour, why?

The fact that it was classified as a motorcycle for tax purposes and could be driven? The cheaper motorcycle licence does not redeem it and yet the company made the bloody things for thirty years and even boasted a chief designer. They even had limited editions with a gold plaque on the dashboard with the owner's name inscribed; why would anyone want to admit to owning one? Wonders never cease.

The MGB is a classic car. Why? Mainly, by the standards of its period it was reliable, cheap to run and it looked good. Other than that,  and I did drive a few, it didn’t exactly set the world alight with an engine design dating back to ‘48,  but it sold well and became much loved. What is sad is that abominable plastic-bumpered and castrated power wise by US emission control regultaions version is also a classic car as are the equally rubbish V6 versions. The extra weight spoiled what was half decent handling and they were not that quick either, so why buy any model other than the wire wheeled chrome bumper version?

Maserati, such a proud name in Italian racing and sports car history, went through hard times and in 1984 underfunded and desperate for a ‘hit’ car they produced the Biturbo in an attempt to stave off bankruptcy. To put the proud trident badge on the front of this monstrosity was an act of blind faith or downright stupidity, you choose. The name evokes amazing cars and they came out with this: you name it and it went wrong the litany of claims for failure would fill Encyclopedia Britannica, and it looked like a cross between a van and a Datsun. How could they do it. Yet again the fact it had the badge means it is a ‘classic.’ God help anyone who owns one, they need very deep self-filling pockets. I actually drove one of these, not mine I might add, the engine was quite powerful for the time but suffered from severe turbo lag that made driving ‘interesting.’ Sales in the US came to a halt after the unreliability problems but surprisingly the Biturbo sold well in Europe; the cheap price tag as it always does lures people to a badge and it staved off the financial hawks circling Maserati. To me it remained a good engine, as the lag problems were largely sorted in later versions and there were a lot of them, but for me this is a car that is still cheap to buy for obvious reasons and does the marque no good at all despite the relative success. Rather like the entry in to the everyday market by MB today, only the badge sells them.

Some of these cars qualify for the 'worst cars ever' category, the list for that is very long but most fortunately have sunk without trace; it is those that have survived to become classic as defined by their deluded but enthusiastic owners.

Some categories of car fall outside the mainstream. Kit cars following on from the Lotus 7 have appeared and disappeared with astonishing speed, most simply because they offered nothing different to that which they copied, and most did copy something, and most were on a nostalgia trip for a time when most have moved on.

I lived not far from the Ginetta factory in Essex years ago. The Ginetta was a successful, one of the few attempts to build a road worthy modern version of a Lotus 7 and succeeded. It has a loyal following where very few others do, they don’t warrant it; Ginetta went on to bigger and better things but still eventually folded.

TVR are another classic sought-after make, yet again and I have driven three versions including the incredibly quick at the time Tuscan. TVR failed again because of quality issues; the Tuscan on a couple of brief drives showed why, parts from current production mainstream cars shoe-horned in badly to save money, carpets that didn’t fit, strange non-fitting side windows, an exhaust that was stupidly noisy for the driver - it appeared to be placed by your ear - and a penchant for oil use, plus reliability problems. They went under several times and have a loyal following as a classic car. It failed, all it has is novelty value; it was not a good car, and the earlier ones like the M series were heavy to drive, had kit car build and unless you were always preening them unreliable, so too near to a kit car for me and not good enough for a classic. One to two of the later V8s may be a different story but the company was always in financial trouble and produced new models just to stay in the game.

It also had so many parts from other manufacturers, in itself not unusual for this type of vehicle, but in the TVR excessive to the point that in some models there was little that was TVR, the driving position and ergonomics on the early ones were atrocious.

Only the British could produce a ‘sports car’ that had a top speed of 62mph and took over thirty seconds to reach 50 mph. The Berkely did just that. Really a kit car in disguise, it had several editions up to 1960 when the firm went bust, but you have to ask yourself how did it last so long (3 years)? Amazingly there is a Berkely owner's club so it is officially a classic car; oh well, if you say so.

There was one car that was the reverse of the NSU and the Triumph Stag: the Daimler SP 250 sports car. It had a beautiful 2500cc V8 engine that Daimler stuck in the pig-ugly plastic body you see in the picture. The police even purchased them for motorway duties, but the body was terrible, it flexed so badly the doors flew open and road holding for a sports car was woeful, it never sold and especially in the States, its intended market. There were few made, under three thousand, and it finished Daimler who were purchased by Jaguar. Yes, there is an owner's club and they consider it a classic. How they could mess up with this having such a gem of an engine is beyond comprehension; Jaguar used the engine previously in the Daimler 2.5 V8 which was a Jaguar Mk2 with the Daimler grill and engine, this was a cracking car and for many better than the actual Jaguar straight sixes. Again, how could they waste such an engine later in the 'Dart' as it was known?

This one is short and sweet. The car is quite good and it has an owner's club which is commendable for a standard medium class saloon, but how can anyone delude themselves that this is collectable and warrants classic status? It is a Ford Mondeo with a Jaguar grill, I know it and so does everyone else, cheapskate Jaguar motoring minus the blue oval it should have; mind-blowing.

The Renault Dauphine is a classic, that is, a classic case of advertising winning over substance,. Those of us who are of a certain age remember the relentless catchy ‘seventy miles an hour bags of power’ advert; it worked, two million of these cars were sold world wide. The Renault Classic car club welcomes members with Dauphines, as they only can find 26 in the country (that many!); the reason for the scarcity is the atrocious handling and the gutless engine, along with having to be a midget to enter the thing which then cooked you because of the rubbish ventilation system. As one journalist said…."the most ineffective bit of French engineering since the Maginot line" and saying that it could actually be heard rusting." Yes, this is a classic car.

A car that was relatively successful because it was an American car in miniature and therefore stood out at the time of its introduction (1956). Based vaguely on a Hudson design in austerity times it seemed a breath of fresh at first glance. Was it a bad car! It had the wallowing suspension of American cars of the time, vague steering to match and for a small car a turning circle of a bus because it had covered wheels that restricted wheel movement.

An acquaintance had one, he was the boyfriend of singer who fronted the Johnny Howard  band at the time, and the first time he turned up at the dance hall in it I thought it looked like he was driving a bath tub coated in multi coloured ice cream. Awful and cheap, but it made you look and that was a difficult thing to achieve with a car in those times; but a classic, no.

Brian Sewell the late art critic was also a writer about automobiles and his words sum up the Metropolitan: "now perversely recognized as a collector's car"; exactly.

It is difficult compiling a list of cars considered classic by some but not by me, as many start falling into the ‘worst cars ever’ category, and the list for that is endless, but luckily cars like the Yugo and Lada (the mobile skip) and Morris Marina, too many to list, are great fun to write about but don’t have a classic car club for them as far as I know, well not yet but the way it is going it won't be long.

The VW Karmann Ghia has become a classic car, much sought after,  and fetches good money, yet again it is a car that flatters to deceive. The lovely body is dropped onto a standard VW Beetle chassis and engine, so no sports performance there and all the other handicaps of a Beetle. What is the point? Fine if you want to pose in one on the Promenade des Anglais but to drive a waste of time and I have driven one; absolutely gutless, apart from sitting in, what’s it for?

 

See what I mean...?

                                                                                                                                                                             

Personally I would prefer to start from scratch:

There is now another side of owning a classic car: many are purchased as investments and over the years owners have benefited from spectacular price rises in some cases. It is a guessing game getting it right though; no doubt the Ferraris and similar will stay valuable, but lower down the order there are going to be fewer people wanting an ICE powered car at all as time goes on, presuming of course we are allowed to have one?

There is a chance that generations born now will never own an ICE powered vehicle; it will become  a historic oddity, something we have since passed by, and that will mean outside the die-hard collectors of exotics those other classics will simply disappear. After all, where will you fill up and what would it cost, even if you are allowed to drive them?

Naturally this might not happen for reasons that would fill another article, but it is something in this new age to consider before embarking on what could be a very expensive undertaking.