Member Info for Tantalum

The numbers from the EU have been consistently high for the last 20 years averaging over 200K/annum with a total near 3 miilion since 2000. Tjese numbers however are smaller compared to the non EU immigration over the same period that has averaged over 300K/annum with a total over 5 miilion. These people had no right enshrined in law to come here unlike the EU. So our membership of the EU not the direct problem. The total of over 8 million does however create problems. It represents an increased pressure on all our infrastructure from roads and liesure to jobs . nhs and housing. We do not build houses as fast as these people arrive. I have noticed around my area there is a non stop industry all around the area of continual house building and we are told that the government never build enough houses for the people. Considering immigration control has been near the top of the important issues for many voters in this country for a long time you have to ask yourself, what are the successive governments doing and why?
The numbers get even larger when you had the illegals and casualhidden over stayers.
The only similar financial construct is the Ponzi scheme as governments seem to be attempting to shrink debt as a proportion of an ever growing GDP. Once addicted to this model only ever increasing numbers satisfy the need in this eventually unsustainable model.
It will pop quite possibly one day. Which will not be pretty in a world of ever increasing shortages of basic needs.
Too many people.

"Considered a windfall"
A windfall is classically an event from luck from the unforseeable like the wind.
The financial wars are planned and considered, nowt to do with wind.
Firstly when the price sunk it was dumping onto the market where Russia and Saud hasd a difference over market share. The price of oil plummeted and we made much losses. Now we have a situation where we are trying to deny market share for Russia by embargo, resulting in the opposite effect where there may be a scarcity of oil with associated higher prices. You might argue that the price of oil was already on it's way up, but that was part of this same hybrid war where putin was deliberately lowering gas exports to drive Europe into supply issues to soften them up prior to it's action on the ground.
Two wars one producing a glut one producing a shortage. We lost in one and profited in the other. I think that makes us about even. I see no windfall surplus, just a return of losses, These things tend to go in cycles. When I see oil companies recieving billions in subsidies when they make windfall losses then I'll accept the argument for windfall taxes.
The oil companies should need all their spare cash to make the UK more energy independent, unfortunately Boris's idea of independence is buying it from Iran or the middle east. Those bastions of Moral integrity. So he may finish up robbing them as he tells himself it's all for the sake of his green nirvana.
Vote Tory get green abcess.

If the SP doen't increase with the current price of gas , it's going to take something dramatic to ressurect this one.

I think everyone gets a £2000 dividends tax free outside of an ISA. So unless we get an enormous special or people are using much of their limit will have some spare.

Ah the ageing population.... that old cherry... Since 2006 there has been an increase in the over 65's of 660 thousand, ( partly caused by the increase in population) meanwhile the population has increased by 7.6 million.
In the past ten years the averge age at death has fallen. Compared to the levels of immigration the boomer bubble is just a bubble in the ocean.

Everyone talks about a growth in demand, as though it came out of nowhere. Demand is a function of several variables, the main one of which is population growth. They tell us we have a low birth rate so the enermous increase in demand/immigration is the problem. Since they intend to solve the housing problem, they do not intend to solve the immigration problem. The strange thing there is, is that the public see a problem and have done for decades, but in the Conservative Party it is a thing that you cannot even mention it's name. An ever growing population is as anyone familiar with agar plates will tel;l you is unsaustainable and for the population, will end in tears. It is akin to a ponzi scheme especially when you have a never ending stream of housing built, bought by overseas/the investment community, consistently rising prices and the benefit of the money flows for the investment. The end result however is met when one component of the treadmill fails. When that happens the politicians will hide.

I can assure you that I never wrote a book called the republic and bear no resemblance to Plato. I have been on this platform 7 or 8 years, rarely post. Used to post a lot on ii before the web site got well and truly fixed an eon ago. Started trading cfd's about 20 years ago made some real stake from Premier foods after a rights issue Lost an arm and a leg in wildcatters aand made as much back buying my lifes savings worth of LLPC in the crash of 2008 after which it doubled. Have done my besrt to lose some of it since!
See not plato. More sort of China plate.

With respect to the use of fossil fuels, I am where possible a firm supporter of market forces being the best route to economical efficient outcomes. There are times however when naked capitalism can deliver the wrong best outcome. I have studied climate extensively over the last 500 million years ( not me! the plants) since the arrival of embryophyta. Currently we are well below historic levels of temperature and Co2, we are in fact in a statistically unusual part of interglacial temperature. Over 80% of the last 250 million years the planet has been without ice caps. I am not saying humans are not warming the planet. What I am saying is that the climate is probably beyong existing science to predict or change and examination of history suggests sooner or later temperatures go up quite a bit or down quite a bit. I am reminded of Canute - on the shore. I am however concerned with environmental pollution ( co2 is a building block of life - not a pollutant ) I believe green energy is better where practical and will eventually be cheaper too. I do not however agree with crippling our industry and consumers with excessive energy costs when India and China will finacially benefit while producing 100 times more co2 than us. We will impoverish ourselves for virtue. The sin of Pride.
Better we use our fossil driven success to enable new technologies to revolutionise energy. As long as it makes economic sense too.
As I type UK coal power statons are producing 1.43Gw of power - about 3.7% of total generation . We are exporting 0.36Gw to France. Coal geneartion has at times increased above 6%- we have burnt more recently as power levels have reached close to crisis levels. Germany has burnt much more coal, Spain has brought old coal stations back on line.
All this is the result of under investment ( fossil animosity)in fossil tachnology, the political use of countries of energy and resources as a weapon and lockdown errors of Covid.
Our government and media have been demonising fossil fuels for reasons that suit their agenda. I don't believe the science and I certainly don't believe the ability of a green obsessed government to make much of a difference in any case. We can however impoverish ourselves quite easily. Just recently Porthmadog declined planning permission for a new gas power station. Not because we don't need one but because they don't like fossil fuels. But it seems they're quite happy to increase prices of energy for the UK people while they use energy from Biomass powered drax that produces twenty times more Co2 than gas while contributing to the devastation and deforestation of three States in America as we proceed at speed to burn Hardwood forests with virtue.
It is neither science or sense that drives green lunacy it is corruption by some and speudo religious fervour by others. It is green hysteria and profit taking.

I do know where I was during the all 26 CoP meetings, that year after year have predicted doom, then made agreements about what all should do ( usually ignored by most) to comply with their new green religion. Climate change predictions have been around a long time and 99% of them are way out.The first 'respectable' one that started the ball rolling was here in the UK by a University department who were discovered 6 years later to have completely 'cooked' the data. That did not stop well paid climate researchers using their findings for years to come. If you are a scientist there is aways money available if you can research and help with clarifying future downturns in the climate. For them there is no financial future in finding nothing. For every scientist who researches climate there are hundreds that don't and many that do not believe the doom mongers. When groups use fear and 'science' to scare the sheep. it becomes easy enough to convince the masses. Covid has been a good example of the use of fear to manipulate people and the way science is used to justify an agenda. Sweden who largely went the route of herd immunity while the UK that flip flopped to lockdown, in the end didn't see much differemce in outcome , except of course we trashed our economy much better than they did.
The way scientists predict the future is by making models that represent the dynamic interaction of the important variables, in epidemiology, share pricing or future weather ( sorry climate! ). The climate has too many known and unknown variables to be a simple procedure. Many involved in climate research know what they are looking for and design their algorithms with enthusiasm.
Over the past 300 million years the temperature has been warmer 85% of the time than it is now. The average is a few degrees more than the present (20yr) average, yet I saw a cimate campaigner last week on TV stuipuating that current temperatures are the highest ever. Could'nt be more wrong. 200 miin years ago co2 levels werre approx 300% higher and methane 400% higher. Why have things changed so much? Cleary what drives the climate has been outside man's infuence and we are currenty below historical averages .
I could go on all day but this is not the place Thunberg is typical of attitudes to climate change Science is a process of discovery debate and re evaluation Thunberg and her kind believe in climate madness -in a religous fashion. A zealotry that justifies all behaviour and has no debate. Infidels are treated with scorn. This is not science, it is fanaticism.
China however is currently celebrating record coal production and with 2 new coal powered stations coming on line each month are celebrating record Mwh production.
We need an ordered global transition to a better way.
The real crisis is deforestation, habitat loss and chemical pollution. Co2 is not a pollutant.

What climate change?

1975: The Cooling World and a Drastic Decline in Food Production
1969: Worldwide Plague, Overwhelming Pollution, Ecological Catastrophe, Virtual Collapse of UK by End of 20th Century
1972: Pending Depletion and Shortages of Gold, Tin, Oil, Natural Gas, Copper, Aluminum
1970: Oceans Dead in a Decade, US Water Rationing by 1974, Food Rationing by 1980
1988: World’s Leading Climate Expert Predicts Lower Manhattan Underwater by 2018
2005: Fifty Million Climate Refugees by the Year 2020
2000: Snowfalls Are Now a Thing of the Past
1989: UN Warns That Entire Nations Wiped Off the Face of the Earth by 2000 From Global Warming
2011: Washington Post Predicted Cherry Blossoms Blooming in Winter

let me guess... the mere threat of all these windmills stopped all this.
these above are just a few of the may many dozens more of failed alarmism.
The last 10-20 years have yielded cooler averages hence the now less popular term 'Global warming. How many dire predictions have come true?
Joe Biden got elected.
Even climate .gov in the US try to explain it's just temporary -
"The most likely explanation for the lack of significant warming at the Earth’s surface in the past decade or so is that natural climate cycles—a series of La Niña events and a negative phase of the lesser-known Pacific Decadal Oscillation—caused shifts in ocean circulation patterns that moved some excess heat into the deep ocean. Even so, recent years have been some of the warmest on record, and scientists expect temperatures will swing back up soon.
Clearly they need a thicker tin hat.
I don't doubt that humans treat the world badly.
Just not as badly as many well paid climate scientists understand the climate.

Here's some strong facts: wind turbines fitted to submarines are as useful as a haddock driving a bus. Solar panels also are not so hot underwater. When you need a dependable powerful quiet source of power for your sub, until nuclear fusion comes along, fission is probably strategically the best. Methane vats from pig droppings outperform any heat pump and are the way to go in the modern world. Or is that carbon based? Good carbon or bad carbon? Only when you get it under an electron microscope can you see whether good or bad is printed on the mucleus.
Tin hat time.

I was a founder member of the flat earth society in 1970's audio circles.
That ok?
:-)

There is no doubting that climate change theories have had an effect on the market, mainly which is down to pr , connected agendas and virtue signalling. Although climate insanity is just a theory backed by computer algorithms designed to show the climate changes we were promised many years ago, and not a fact, it is however a factor to be taken into consideration but it should be borne in mind that throwing the baby out with the dishwater may have negative consequences for institutions and nations alike.
But make money where you can when you can, but do not put all your brains in one basket.

So virtue signalling at day one? We have more than enough wokeness in the banking sector with Boards spending billions on poiltical outcomes instead of financial ones. Let's hope he serves the shareholders and not the lovelies in the City.

To join the Labour party he has to brush up on his leftie subversive newspeak. He just needs to add more '******' in there to become a fully fledged traitor. He's already made a packet out of his existing subversion and he obviously wants to make more.

Global production of co2 by human activities is less than 5% of that produced ny natural processes, it has however shifted the equilibrium point slightly. This point has moved throughout history and has been higher than current levels on many occassions. It is however something we should control as nature should prevail. Man's effect on the environment however goes much further than burning a piece of coal. Deforestaion shifts co2 levels, changing land use causes extinction in these anthropogenic times and consumerism feeds pollution at a dangerous level. Pollution is something that poisons the world causing illnesses, cancer and destruction. Carbon on the other hand is the basis of life - we just need to keep thiings in balance. Scientists have a long history of doing good. Trans fats margarines that are good for us, BSE and Sars that will produce millions of deaths, low fat foods that make us all fat instead of thin and global warming that never appeared.
I am a scientist and conclude that whenever politics drives research, the findings are meaningless, this does not mean humans are not degrading the planet. There are just to many of us growing at a level that is not sustainable. We're thirty people living in a semi.

With the climate crisis maniacs controlling the agenda this will be standard MO until proper science reasserts itself. Never have I known the current level of deception and corruption in everyday life. Politicians, media, judiciary and police all work on feelings and prejudice and scientists will discover the moon is purple if you give them a grant to research it. Fake poltics akin to tribalism affects institutions everywhere. Markets have always seemed irrational but now ittationality has become fashionable. Don't follow the science, follow the insanity.
At these levels ( OP ) greed will at some point assert itself.

Ther.e is no scientific concensus. When scientists air views that oppose the 'alleged' concensus, they finf themselves sidelined/ isolated. Such censorship[ are the methods of politics, not of science.
The concensus in the USSR 60 years ago was 99% support for the state. The lack of opposition to the prevailing view should never be the result of pressure. Freedom of thought and speech is essential for the scientific method. Climate science and it's promoters are too fascist to be motivated by science.
Nevertheless the movement represents a market dynamic even if it's little to do with science.

What's Churchill got to do with Aryan ruled EU? He had no crystal ball. When routes go wrong, you turn back onto the right track. Stop remoaning.

Benefits, yes? I remember quite well when the local JLR factory was closed and one of almost identical size built at the other end of Europe, with over 100 million in subsidies . THe money was not for relocation, that would have been illegal by EU law, the monet was for regional development and training. ( ha) If it walks like a duck...The EU is not a democratic institution. It is Ruled by Germany and influential others. Vassal states need to donate/ shut up and obey. There are some benefits of being in the EU. but taking the knee is not worth it. Britain would have only ever got what it was in the interests of those giving it. The EU could be a great institution for everyone, but it's designers never intended it to be so.
The EU currently wanrt us to compromise in handing over fishing rights. Over territorial waters there is no compromise. It's like asking a man to chop his leg off and when he disagrees you expect half a leg to be perfectly reasonable compromise. I say we should agree but only if they give us Bulgaria and Croatia in return. :-)