Andrew

[Allison Pearson @AllisonPearson]

This is my sincere wish 👇

[Alternative MUFC. @AlternativeMUFC]

Who fancies a Comms then?

[Motor Sport magazine @Motor_Sport]

Charles Leclerc driving Michael Schumacher’s F1 title-winning Ferrari F2003-GA - complete with screaming V10 engine - around Yas Marina three years ago 😮‍💨🏎️

What should have been? 🫡

[Russell Quirk @russellquirk]

#F1 has become a sport made in the spirit of Ed Miliband.

This will not go well. Viewers will switch off in the millions if GPs cease being about fast and thrilling racing as opposed to saving the planet.

Formula E already exists. We don’t need (want) two versions.

[Ferrari News 🐎 @FanaticsFerrari]

The irony of F1’s “green engines”:

- All race cars combined over a season: ~150 tonnes CO₂/year
- F1’s total footprint from flying cargo everywhere: ~250,000+ tonnes

Even if fuel consumption tripled using V12s, that’s <1% from the engines.

But sure, let’s nerf the engines.

[Guenther Steiner ➐ @HaasF1TeamBoss]

Okay. No PR bullshit here. I just watched qualifying and I have to say that these new power units are focking shit. Lifting and coasting on straights is the opposite of what F1 is about. Whoever came up with this needs to be sacked. Immediately.

[Zach Brown @the_zb_]

There are some real misunderstandings here about the grumbling surrounding the regulations.

I’ve seen several voices claiming that people upset about the regs are just “sour grapes” because it looks like Mercedes will dominate.

That’s a mistaken take.

People and drivers are aggrieved and extremely disappointed in the inherent NATURE of the regulations, and how the cars must be driven (not driven, as the case may be), and how heinously offensive it is to watch. That will not change no matter what the development trajectory looks like.

The product on track looks offensive. It’s awful. And it’s inherent to the nature of the regs - it’s not changing.

Harvesting for such electrification means a permanent and unchangeable sacrifice of driver differentiation in high speed. That is obvious at this point, the needs of the regulation mandate this. There’s no room to engineer around this, physics is physics.

And that is a damning, heinous thing to watch. It’s so anti-racing and so anti-F1 that it’s an exercise in cognitive dissonance watching an onboard.

I hope to goodness that we all refuse to try and condition ourselves to accept this as “normal” or just “something to get used to”.

It’s not about parity, it’s not about who is in front or behind. You may or may not believe me when I say that, but this product would be no better if Ferrari were 2 seconds ahead of everyone.

This is not F1.

And I hope there is a swift and decisive fix, and a colossal push toward regulatory overhaul by 2029 with turbo V8’s with mild hybrid assist (turbo lag mitigation) and sustainable fuels. That is the solution.

[G R I F T Y @GriftReport]

Tomorrow morning at 10 Downing Street 🤣

[Konstantin Kisin @KonstantinKisin]

Net Zero is economic suicide. It must go.

[Ben Pile @clim8resistance]

@biztradegovuk What about the homes and businesses that are not eligible for your generosity but are going bust because of your fucking stupid policies?

[David Frost @DavidGHFrost]

Starmer's dangerous plan to proceed with a digital ID scheme must be opposed by everyone who cares about freedom.

I wrote about this in June (link at end of 🧵) but in brief:

[Voice of Reason @brexitblog_info]

@Heidi_Labour Correction. Pouring taxpayers money into propping up a failed technology that no one wants.

[Aimen Dean @AimenDean]

Now, now, Owen. Breathe.
Before you fling the label “disinformation peddler” around like it’s confetti at one of your student union rallies, how about - just once - you actually refute the information instead of writing a lazy, dismissive sentence and pretending you’ve scored a point?

Let’s talk qualifications, shall we?

See, unlike you, I’ve had real jobs - plural.
Jobs with stakes. In intelligence, in security, in global finance. For nine years, I headed the Financial Intelligence Unit of a global bank. That’s right: I dealt with threats that actually mattered, not imaginary ones drawn on the back of a Guardian opinion page.

You? You’ve spent your adult life in a journalistic safe space echo chamber, armed with an MA in U.S. history, a region you don’t even write about. And let’s be honest: if history and geography were boxing gloves, you’d still manage to punch yourself in the face. You’ve never held elected office. You’ve never worked in banking, finance, diplomacy, security, or anything remotely requiring accountability or expertise. You don’t speak a word of Arabic. You can’t name three Yemeni tribes, let alone explain the tribal dynamics behind a conflict you comment on with stunning confidence and stunning ignorance.

You opposed the Saudi-led war in Yemen, a war that, in retrospect, was a strategic necessity against Iranian expansionism and a Houthi militia now proven to be a regional and a global threat. But of course, nuance isn’t your strong suit. You framed it as a “crime against humanity” while totally ignoring the actual crimes by the Houthis, according to the majority of Yemenis and Arab states.

And then there’s your economic wisdom. You once called for the nationalization of all banks. All of them. As if Monopoly money and Marxist pamphlets are interchangeable. You’re a walking manifesto for why no one should let infantile socialists anywhere near macroeconomics.

Let me make one thing clear, Owen: I don’t do disinformation. I can’t.
Because unlike you, I answer to people who don’t tolerate fantasy. Global funds, sovereign wealth funds, global banks, commodity traders, airlines, energy companies and heck, even governments - they don’t pay me for ideology. They pay me for cold, hard, verified intelligence and solid forecasts. And if I were wrong - consistently wrong, like you? I’d be out of business in a heartbeat. These people are not kind when it comes to failure. To give them wrong forecast is to cost them money, so I must seek - and tell - only the cold hard truths, and their implications.

This isn’t The Guardian; there’s no editor to hide behind, no trendy moral outrage to mask incompetence.

You survive on emotionalism and mob applause. I survive on precision. On getting it right.

So no, Owen, don’t project your failures onto me. Don’t confuse your echo chamber for authority. You’re a one-note, one-language, one-track ideologue who’s never held a real job, never risked a real decision, and never had to face the consequences of being catastrophically wrong.

You deal in slogans. I deal in facts.
You write for applause. I deliver for clients.
You thrive on fiction. I don’t have that luxury.

So next time you feel tempted to call someone a “disinformation peddler,” look in the mirror, and have a long, honest chat with the reflection of a man who’s done precisely nothing with his life but shout from the sidelines.

[Liam Halligan @LiamHalligan]

Rachel Reeves's Spending Statement isn't credible – which makes the UK increasingly vulnerable

There is a huge and gaping chasm between the Labour leadership and fiscal reality – and, in the end, fiscal reality always wins, when global investors lose all patience in the ability of the UK government to cover its debts.

Subscribe to "When The Facts Change" for sharp analysis of economics and politics in a fast-moving world.

View post via linked X message

[Christopher Snowdon @cjsnowdon]

I haven't come across this "charity" before but it can get straight in the sea. It has a total income of £827,747, of which £712,000 inevitably comes from the taxpayer. https://t.co/K5wHxA4IvN

[Liam Halligan @LiamHalligan]

“There is no trade-off between economic growth and net zero.” So said Rachel Reeves back in January. Has the Chancellor since changed her tune?

Reeves now says that the UK’s “absolutely insane” environmental regulations have become a serious barrier to “essential infrastructure investments”, having gone “too far in one direction”.

Now Reeves is finally realising that not only are “net zero” policies unpopular, but that unless Labour performs a major policy U-turn soon, bringing down energy costs and significantly easing “net zero” regulations, the economic growth that her party – and the country – so desperately needs will be lost to the wind.

My latest @Telegraph column

🧵1/6

https://t.co/d83ANemQec

[Andrew Neil @afneil]

Those interviewing E Miliband need to better briefed so they can call him out when he spouts nonsense.
He says fossil fuels are up 60% on the year. In fact oil and gas prices have been trending down and shown marked falls these past 12 months.
He says we are in the grip of petro-state dictators. We get most of our gas from Norway and the USA.
On the other hand he’s been in China pleading with them to take stakes in our solar and wind power + other green infrastructure. Not a petro-sate dictatorship. Just a dictatorship.

[Jonathan Wasserstrum @jmwass]

Me after bedtime every night for 2 boys under 5.

[Sir Peter Morris: Just fed up of all the nonsense. @petemorristwit]

.
Sorry: Another Steel Rant.
Something I know A Lot About.
.
Having worked with steel and in an around steel for my entire working life, even to the extent of pseudo steel making in a steel foundry. I'll explain that in a moment.

Using 'blast' furnaces is 'the' only way to make top quality virgin steel. Structurally sound steel that you can use for instance in nuclear vessels, structural building steel, Railway tracks, armaments...etc. Which is why I was so annoyed about Miliband closing the blast furnaces in Port Talbot, in favour of electric arc furnaces. Yes, I know he didn't start it, the Conservatives did. But 'he' made sure it happened.

The reason I mention pseudo steel from electric arc furnaces, is because it isn't real steel. It's made from often highly contaminated scrap steel from anywhere they can get it. Which would inevitably get imported from God knows where.
Where I worked, we had two small electric arc furnaces. We often joked it was honeycomb steel, because very often it was.

Now let's look at the ridiculous cost of energy (electric) to power electric arc furnaces. Due to green levies and having 'the' most expensive electricity, probably in the world.
Where I worked they had just two small furnaces. Before the energy nightmare (one 1,000 Kg furnace and one 1,600kg furnace). The monthly bill for power was in the region of £16,000 a month, which is pretty eye watering anyway. Once the 'crisis' (self made by Miliband) hit. The Monthly bill shot up to around £50,000 a month. And that was 'after' putting the guys on only 3 days a week.

Can you possibly imagine what the cost for a plant like Port Talbot would cost in terms of electricity. I don't know how many furnaces they plan but just in terms of the cost of electricity is prohibitive. To produce honeycomb steel?
In Miliband's grand scheme, powered by windmills and solar panels. There is no possible way that would even remotely provide the required power. So lets Import gas from Norway, who drill in the same sea as we don't any more. Thanks Mad Ed.

Ok, let's move on to iron ore. A blast furnace 'has' to use pure iron ore to produce the quality steel. We don't mine it any more in the UK...Another vulnerability.

How about coking coal which is essential to get the temperatures a blast furnace needs. We don't mine that any more even though we have a plentiful supply right under our feet.

It's all very well Starmer being the big man and 'possibly' saviour of British Steel. To show he's the big man of steel. Errrr...No. Without the iron or, the coking coal and reduced electricity costs, it will be a black hole with importing everything else we need to make 'proper' steel.
Shame on him for not realising this when Port Talbot went down the plug hole.

The faster Miliband is dumped and net zero dumped, the better off we'll be.
Instead of Starmer jetting around the world playing, "I'm the big I am"...