Destroy manufacturing and you can meet climate targets. Genius The fact it makes global emissions higher because now we have to import everything instead and it's generally made using dirtier energy and then shipped half way round the world is an inconvenient detail we're supposed to ignore

The same thing happens to a gene pool when a population marries its own cousins.

Digital national security is a thing. A real thing. Our military without AI is just scrap steel. We need base load electricity - cheaply - to run data centres. #gas #coal This is the way. #SackMiliband #ReformUK #StarmerOut

Enough.

End Net Zero and instead defend our islands. #SackMilliband Let's get this trending.

Hearing Teck just sold #copper concentrates in a tender at -$220 / -22c treatment charge / refining charge. The madness continues!

Energy density in lithium battery is the same as calories in a cabbage.

Germany currently has about 26 gigawatt hours of battery storage. Most of it sits in home batteries with only 4.3 gigawatt hours actually serving the grid. Building that storage already cost more than 10 billion euros and at national demand levels it only covers roughly 30 minutes of summer electricity usage. The winter months bring what's known as "Dunkeflaute" - cold dark windless periods and higher energy usage. To survive a 10-day winter lull (the minimum realistic requirement), Germany would need about 12,000 gigawatt hours of batteries, 470 times today's storage. Such a system would weigh roughly 60 million tons and would be made from vast quantities of lithium, nickel, graphite, copper, aluminum and steel, all requiring intensive mining. At current battery prices, the system would cost trillions of euros. And batteries last only 10 to 15 years, meaning the entire system would need constant replacement. The conclusion is unavoidable... Wind and solar require reliable backup power, renewables need oil, coal, gas and nuclear.

Apart from Mad Ed Miliband, who is clearly obsessed with it, is there anybody else left in Britain who thinks NetZero is a Good Idea? The world increasingly shows it doesn't care. So we're not 'leading' anyone anywhere Just sacrificing ourselves for nothing So why do it?

“I thought being on the left was a mental problem. The empirical evidence is so overwhelming that it never worked anywhere, and they refused to accept it.” “But what I discovered is that being on the left is a disease of the soul. The left is built on envy, hatred, resentment, and unequal treatment under the law. They are very violent, and since they have no way or arguments to answer, they go for physical violence.” Javier Milei

Starting and running a business in Britain in 2026 - let’s go through it, step by step… You've got a good idea. You've worked hard, saved some money, and decided to take a risk. A big decision. Let's say you want to open a coffee shop - nothing overly extravagant. Surely this is possible, right? Available unit on a local high street, you see a gap in the market. A simple ambition to build something. Create jobs. Generate wealth. Contribute to your local community. Maybe even build a better future for your family. Exactly the sort of person politicians claim they admire. Unfortunately, you've chosen the wrong country to do it in. Britain. 2026. Labour. Bugger. The first thing you discover is that absolutely nothing is straightforward. You register the business. Not impossible, but hardly simple. The foreign vape shop owners manage it, so why not you? Done. In fairness, not the most challenging part of this story... Then comes the bank account - you’d think opening a business account would be a routine matter. Instead, you're treated like a criminal. You want to sell coffee, not arms. The banks are simply out of control in this country. Just like the lawyers, but that’s a different story. Legitimate entrepreneurs should not be waiting weeks while faceless compliance departments shuffle paperwork between themselves and refuse to answer questions - slash it all back and let people just get on with it. Eventually you get through that hurdle and secure the premises. Perfect location. Lots of footfall. Not a total dump. It can work. Then reality arrives. The rent is eye-watering - contracts have clause after clause after clause. How can anybody understand it all? Insurance is through the roof. And before you've served a single coffee, the local authority is already getting its grubby hands on your money. Energy costs are so very painful... Business rates - one of the most destructive taxes in Britain. And for what? What do we get from that money? You are effectively punished for occupying premises and creating economic activity. For PAYING TAX. It is insane. A Restore Britain Government would abolish business rates entirely for small high street businesses. Pubs, cafes, bakeries. All of it. No business rates. Then come the inspections. Oh joy. The paperwork. The bureaucracy. The council gnomes. Nobody objects to basic standards. Of course cafes should be clean and safe. The problem is that too much of the system now exists to justify the existence of regulators rather than help businesses succeed. They are there to prove that their job needs to exist. So rules get put on rules, on top of more rules. It is endless. Many of the people enforcing these rules have never built a business, never employed anybody and never risked their own money. Never done anything. Work half weeks, with 30 days holiday a year. Fridays at home, of course. A profession filled with nit-picking gits. Restore Britain would conduct a full bonfire of unnecessary regulations and introduce a simple principle. Every regulation should have to justify its existence - if it doesn't prevent genuine harm, it goes. It will be glorious. We will tear it all down. But let’s say you get through this. You stumble on. The cafe opens, and goes well. People like it. It grows. The coffee is good. You need help. Another bureaucratic nightmare. PAYE. National Insurance. Pensions. Employment contracts. Holiday entitlement. Workplace policies. Health and safety obligations. The worst of all - HR. You look at it all, and just think what’s the point? Is it worth the risk? That is a disaster for our economy, and a disaster for youngsters looking for work. Restore Britain would slash back employer National Insurance, simplify employment law for small firms and create a framework that protects good employees without treating every employer as a potential criminal. The HR-ification of Britain will end. If I had to pick a 'profession' I hate the most, HR has to be number one. Employers will be able to sack employees for not doing the job properly. It doesn’t matter if they’re black, gay, Muslim or whatever else. This ‘protected characteristic’ nonsense will be stripped away. The only protected characteristic we’re interested in is competence. We will repeal The Equality Act 2010. This is key. This is where so much of the bullshit emanates from. But let’s say you don’t want to bother. Maybe bringing in contracting services could work. Wrong. IR35 - one of the most economically illiterate policies ever introduced by thick idiots in the civil service who have never created a job in their lives. Restore Britain would scrap IR35 entirely - if two consenting adults wish to enter a genuine contracting arrangement, the state should keep its nose out. Who does what, when and for who is between those two individuals. IR35 is the first thing to go. Burn it and bury it. But we do want apprenticeships. This is the way forward, and we would give companies tax breaks for developing and building local skills for young men and women. Crucial. I’ve been running an apprenticeship campaign in Great Yarmouth - looking to link local businesses with colleges. Progress made, but lots more to do. As your business grows, your accountant becomes indispensable. Not because your accounting is particularly complicated or he’s a good bloke, but because the tax system has become absurdly complex. I used to do my own returns. No chance now. Restore Britain would begin simplifying the tax code from top to bottom. Tax should be low, simple and transparent. That’s what Restore Britain stands for. Then comes one of the most notorious barriers in British business. The VAT threshold. You finally start making progress, and your turnover approaches the threshold. Looks good on the face of it, but it’s actually horrific news - cross the line and suddenly everything changes. VAT is applied. What are you supposed to do? Pass the cost on to customers? What are they going to do when the cost of their morning order shoots up? Many firms deliberately limit growth because crossing the threshold creates such a financial shock. That is insanity. Restore Britain would double the VAT threshold. Growth should be rewarded, and we would do exactly that. Somehow, you’re limping on and decide an expansion is needed - maybe a covered outdoor area let’s say. Add more seating. People like to eat outside. Surely this is straightforward? Planning. The worst people on the planet, whose sole aim is to destroy economic ambition, growth and hope. I detest them all so very much. Restore Britain would overhaul the system with a presumption in favour of economic development. If planners cannot make a decision within a fixed timeframe, approval should be automatic. We will not keep businesses waiting for months and months. It is simply unacceptable and unfair. Same for licences to stay open later, host music, even god forbid serve alcohol - the bureaucrat’s nightmare. We wouldn’t want people enjoying themselves, would we? Restore Britain would introduce another presumption backing small business activity unless there is a compelling reason to refuse it. If customers want to enjoy a drink later on with their friends, let’s make it happen - the burden should be on the regulator to justify their restrictions, not on the entrepreneur to justify growth. Again, let’s give them a time frame to object. If they can’t, it goes through. Job done. That is what Restore Britain will deliver. Then there are card payments. Every coffee, sandwich, bottle of water. People just are not using cash. So a small slice disappears off everything, but that turns into thousands. Restore Britain would review payment processing fees and increase competition in the sector. We must reduce the cost of doing business. This is vital. We come to HMRC. I hate these people so much. It’s far quicker for a benefits claimant to get hold of the DWP than it is for small business owners to speak to HMRC. How mad is that? Restore Britain would introduce meaningful accountability when HMRC gets things wrong, or simply doesn’t pick up the phone. Let’s link senior leadership pay to response times. That will get them jumping. When you pay the tax, and sign it all off? The anger I feel when I think about where that money goes is not a positive experience. Funding hotel fry ups for Afghan men who have broken into our country. Restore Britain would indiscriminately deport the illegals, as you know, but this is a post about starting a business… Back to HMRC. They whack me with tax inspection after tax inspection. I wonder why… Awful people. If I ever get a sniff of power, I will tear that place apart limb by limb. Then comes the final insult. The salt in the wound. The knife in the back. You want to pay yourself. You've worked sixteen-hour days, seven days a week. You've risked everything. You've missed weekends, holidays and family events. You have carried all the risk. The wife or husband is constantly pissed off because the phone doesn’t stop ringing. Now perhaps you'd like some reward. Let’s look at what’s left... Corporation tax takes a slice. Dividend tax takes another. Student loan repayments take more. National Insurance takes more. Income tax takes more. What’s left? By the end of it, government has its sticky fingers in your pocket at every stage. Restore Britain would establish the lowest corporation tax rate in Europe. We would increase dividend allowances. Slash NI. Cut back income tax. Scrap interest on student loans. In short - reward your hard work. Entrepreneurs all over Britain are asking this question... Why not take a comfortable public sector job, collect the salary, enjoy the pension, work from home, avoid the stress and leave somebody else to create the wealth? Why bother? What's the point? If enough ambitious people think that, the economy stops functioning. We become even more reliant on the fat, bloated, squid like state. Politicians in Westminster DO NOT understand what they are doing to businesses in Britain. I listen to them talk about business and my ears bleed - you do not understand just how thick some of these people are. However bad you imagine, double it. You’re half way there. It is time for a different sort of politics, a different type of politician. Restore Britain will make Britain the easiest country in Europe to start, grow and succeed with your own business. To our cafe owner, wondering if all the endless bullshit is worth it? My message is this… Keep going. It will get better. Britain needs you. There is good news - there is finally a political party on your side. Restore Britain.

Not only do we have the highest tax burden but government borrowing is at record levels Yet the economy isn't growing, unemployment is @UKLabour always trashes the economy but this lot is doing it at an unprecedented rate. The UK will be bankrupt by 2029 at this rate

Britain's industrial decline isn't just a theory — it's visible in the data. 📖 Chapter 11: Economic Statistics By GBBC A data-driven look at productivity, investment, manufacturing, and economic growth. 💬 “Good policy begins with honest analysis.” 🔗 bit.ly/4x7KVQP

Follow the money. Show me the incentive, and I will predict the outcome. The West has been played like a Stradivarius. Ed Milliband is making Britain poorer to make China richer: Why is he doing this? What is his incentive? The outcome is the destruction of UK manufacturing, and the impoverishment of bill payers. @UKLabour @reformparty_uk @Ed_Miliband @TiceRichard

Ed Miliband is insane.

Dawn over The Great Sandy Desert.

$STAR.L Man that chart is looking delicious. I mean it is literally smiling at you, what more could you ask for?

I spent a large part of yesterday trying to explain to people who supposedly are proponents of science what a "confounding variable" is. Rather than say the same thing again today to about 100 people in about 100 different replies, I'm going to write it all in one place, here. When scientists do science, in the form of an experiment or study, they will ultimately write it up in a standard report format containing the same sections: Abstract Introduction Method Results Discussion References One of the most important aspects of the Discussion is a critical analysis of what was done. What went well, what could have been done better, what should be done next time. In particular, the authors attempt to identify if there are any "confounders" which may have influenced the results and rendered them invalid. Let's take the example of a medicine in a clinical trial. We might, if we are ethical scientists, want to study whether a particular medicine causes adverse effects to those taking it before letting it loose in the wild. So we might recruit some people for a trial, and divide them into two groups. The first receives the actual medicine, the second receives a placebo. We might then monitor the recruits for a few months (or, preferably, a much longer period) on a daily basis and note any illnesses suffered in both groups. We would then do a statistical analysis on the results from the two groups. If the results of that analysis showed that there was no statistical difference in the levels and types of illness suffered in the two groups, we might then conclude that no adverse effects were caused by the medicine. If, on the other hand, there was a significant difference between the two groups, that would point towards the need for further study and might lead us to conclude that the medicine was the cause of the difference. The key thing here with our experimental design is that we want to make sure that the two groups in the study - the experimental group who receive the medicine and the control group who do not - are, in every other way, identical. Because if they're not, those differences might have caused the effect we observed, rather than the differences we created in our experiment. What factors might make these two groups different? 1. Age differences. If one group was older, we might expect they might suffer more illness than the younger group. 2. Gender. Dependent on the medicine, males or females might be more affected. If the groups weren't balanced for gender, this might distort the reported illness results. 3. Health differences. If one group had poorer general health than the other at the beginning of the trial, we might expect them to report more illness during the trial. These are all examples of "confounding variables". Factors which we did not control but which might influence the outcome and render our results invalid. So in our experimental design we would want to make sure the experimental group and the control group are closely matched for age, gender and health status. Which brings me onto climate change. Climate scientists contend that Carbon Dioxide created by human activity in the industrial age is causing global atmospheric temperatures to increase. As evidence, they point to an increase in global atmospheric temperatures over the last 200 years or so. So far so good. Temperatures have, broadly, risen during that time. There are plenty of other things to criticise about this hypothesis and about climate "science" in general but that is for another time. Yesterday we saw, all over the media, headlines about new record May temperatures of 35 degrees at Kew and Heathrow, and below the headlines was text saying that experts were saying this was another example of evidence of how the climate is warming. Now I don't deny that it's been hot the last couple of days - where I am it has been around 32 degrees - so I don't doubt that the May record may have been broken somewhere in the country. But the specific problem I have is with the temperatures at Heathrow and Kew, or indeed anywhere close to London or a big urban area being used as the evidence that the May record has been broken,or that they are evidence of atmospheric warming. Why? Because of a confounding variable. When we say a temperature record has been broken, we need to make sure we are comparing apples with apples. So not only do we need to compare temperatures that were measured in the same site using the same type of equipment in both instances - we need to make sure that the sites themselves have not changed. We know that modern urban areas create a "heat island" effect. The expanses of heat-retaining materials like concrete, asphalt and cement retain heat during the day and release it slowly overnight, leading to higher daytime and nighttime temperatures. Added to which are the many buildings and vehicles in urban areas generating their own heat. All of this means that temperatures in, or close to, an urban area are typically several degrees warmer than in countryside some distance away. Given the expansion and urbanisation of London over the last century, this effect will only have grown over time. Arup measured this effect in London and concluded that temperatures there are often 4.5 degrees hotter than in the surrounding countryside (see first comment for link). This effect obviously varies between different parts of London, as shown on the heat map, and reduces as you move away from central London, but even at Kew, the effect is estimated to cause temperatures to be 0.9 degrees higher than would be the case if Kew was sited in the countryside. And Heathrow clearly creates its own heat island effect given the scale of the airport and the big expanses of heat absorbing materials there. So if we are going to use temperatures measured in, or close to, London as evidence of atmospheric warming, we have a problem. We have a significant confounding variable. The warming caused by the heat island effect is going to add to any warming in the atmosphere, and give us an exaggerated result. You can perhaps forgive tabloid newspapers for running headlines about this, just quoting the raw temperatures measured. They want to make money and it being very hot outside is a great news story. And urban areas becoming increasingly hot in summer is an issue in its own right. But what is unforgiveable is people who claim to be scientists using these measurements as evidence of atmospheric warming, when there's such a glaring confounding variable influencing the data. How would a proper scientist deal with this confounder? Well, they might say "from now on, we will only use temperatures from rural weather stations which are not subject to urban heat island effects, and we will only declare records on the basis of those measurements" And they might say "we will not use temperature measurements from areas subject to urban heat island effects as evidence of atmospheric warming". But the Met Office and the climate science people aren't saying that. They're going with the artificially inflated temperatures. Because they have an agenda to push, a vast Net Zero industry to sustain, research grants to chase, and any evidence, however shonky, which backs up the global warming narrative is welcome. This isn't science!

Keep the faith - the home stretch beckons!

Have you been leaving your thermometer in direct sunlight because you have an agenda to push? The higherst recorded temperature in india in 51 degrees centigrade, recorded over 10 years ago, beating by 0.4 degrees the 1956 record. More inconvenient truths.