A range of vital skills and instincts are frequently found lacking in the populace at large, and often also in places where they are badly needed. Numeracy is one: adequate skepticism concerning the Voice of Authority is another; and, the vital ability to conduct a two-second "do we believe this?" credibility check.
So: WTF can it possibly mean when we read:
Rachel Reeves is set to unveil an £86bn package for science and technology in next week’s spending review
?? This is "expected to be worth more than £22.5 billion-a-year by 2029". We know she's recently decided that government capital expenditure needs have no upper limit, but what on earth does anyone imagine this "package" means? For calibration: the entire UK defence budget is about £60 bn this year, and the government's existing R&D spending somewhat less than £20bn right now. Government S&T money for the higher education sector is in low single-digit billions.
OK, higher education isn't the only place where government S&T money is spent, but unless Reeves has just "unveiled" the existing £20bn R&D budget slightly re-classified, how is the balance of "22bn p.a. by 2029" going to be doled out, and to whom? Either (a) we can ignore it because it's empty; (b) it's gonna be pretty inflationary in some sector or other; or (c) it'll be embezzled on a large scale for purposes not really encompassed by "science & technology": I can see the queues forming already.
I suppose some people ignore these things anyway: but all too many supposedly fact-checked media outlets print them uncritically, and one kinda supposes they are half-believed, in a vague sort of way. Maybe Reeves thinks that all those Trump-fleeing US academics will read it, and jump on the next plane for Blighty.
But who, exactly, rushes to vote Labour on the back of all this? I think they'll find there's a great deal more focus on their failure to deliver, e.g., 1.5m new houses and cheaper electricity, come 2029. Because fail is what they are gonna do.
ND
"the populous at large": you what?
ReplyDeleteThe populace at large: maybe you're too young to have been schooled properly.
haha, thanks, corrected
ReplyDeleteMaybe this is part of it? Who said Britain had nothing to learn from the IRA? Didn't they use a soft roof van in Downing Street?
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure any two-men-in-a-shed outfits will be in the running, 125kg drones are very expensive and need huge govt/CAA authorisations, so it'll be the usual suspects bidding with the usual expensive outcomes. But were I an agent of a foreign power I think a summer holiday in Aberporth would be called for - there aren't that many places you can chuck 125kg drones about.
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/britain-wants-to-launch-large-drones-from-transit-vans/
The launcher must be able to “launch at least 5 reference UAVs within 4 minutes of the first UAV launch and recover within a maximum of 10 minutes from that first UAV launch, from a static and level position.”
Notably, the MOD specifies that the UAVs will be unpowered during launch, and “will not make use of any rocket assisted take off (RATO) boosters or any other launch mechanism other than the Pj VOLLEY launcher.”
Key technical requirements include:
Launching UAVs up to 125kg in weight at speeds of at least 60m/s (200 km/h)
Minimal setup and manual operation by ideally one person and no more than three
Operation in temperatures ranging from -20 to +55°C
Functionality in day/night, gloved, and NVG conditions
Deployment from vehicles such as a “large body Sprinter truck” or “regular Transit van”
The full system must not exceed 275kg
WTF can it possibly mean: ... expected to be worth more than £22.5 billion-a-year by 2029
ReplyDeleteCould it be she will include the Sizewell C Regulated Asset Base financing in that, even though that comes from the electricity bill payer rather than the taxpayer? The maybe £42 billion for a 7 year (optimistic) build project is an average of around £6 billion per year, which is a decent chunk of that. (EDF have pretty much bailed out of the financing). New build costs are rather front loaded, with the early ordering of the expensive long-lead time major reactor components, so higher in the first years.
Just a reminder that leccy from Hinkley Point C, SZC's sister, would cost about £127/MWh this year according to BoE CPI inflation calculator, if it was actually working now as planned. That's way above other generation methods, so would have increased already way-too-high leccy prices to the consumer if it was working. SZC RAB financing will be another step upward in this leccy price escalation ladder maiming UK industry.
That's a good point. Perhaps it also includes the "£22 bn" for carbon capture & storage ...
ReplyDeleteEasy when you know how
She's not going to have £86 billion to spunk in any case. The £160 billion pension fund surplus she planned to steal for government "investment" turns out to be more like £11 billion - https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/jun/07/pensions-report-cuts-rachel-reeves-planned-growth-funds-from-160bn-to-11bn
ReplyDeleteWhy not copy Congress and consider a tax on remittances? 5%? 10%? Start with 5% to see how it goes.
ReplyDeletethat's not a bad idea, dearieme. But how easy is it to track this, as used in Bradford and Small Heath. You and I might not be able to use it in safety, but someone with relatives at both ends can.
ReplyDeletehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawala
You go to your travel agent in Bradford, hand over the money, he gives you a code and a day or two later his brother in Lahore goes to the appointed travel agent, gives the code and collects. No Swift involved.
How the back end payment works ... could be legion but drugs are definitely one currency.
HMG would declare that any remittance not declared and with tax paid is liable to seizure and, if that's impossible, the fines on the guilty party will be 10 x the remittance.
Delete"your brother", not "his brother"
ReplyDelete"...unless Reeves has just "unveiled" the existing £20bn R&D budget slightly re-classified"
ReplyDeleteBingo. It's exactly this, I believe. Adjusted for inflation, it's actually a reduction on the Tory R&D allocation.
Reference: https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/whats-new-in-reevess-spending-review/
DeleteI saw the big numbers and thought 'government numbers - ignore'. You know they are crooked but finding out how is too tedious. Anyway, all done for us by The Speccy.
ReplyDeleteThen I thought what would I put a few £Bn into if I were running HMG. The first problem is 'a few £Bn'. Not enough for anything I can think of. The next problem is what to put many many £Bn into, what is there that everyone else is not piling into. And yes, embezzlement is the zeitgeist.
Then that Transit Van UAV launcher. Looks like the usual all things to all colonels requirement. The MoD down wiv the kids.
One spark of sunshine, went into town and found the nail bar full of wimmin and a long queue outside. Something going on, someone's economy is looking up.
dearieme - but how will HMRC know about the remittance? I remember after 9/11 the good and the great were very exercised about this form of money transmission, but I don't recall what came of it.
ReplyDelete"how will HMRC know about the remittance?"
ReplyDeleteMI5/MI6/GCHQ ....? Or just ask the CCP - they probably know everything anyway.