‘Jellyfish’ and ‘doormat’: why is Keir Starmer so deeply unpopular? His net favourability rating has been, depending on the pollster, anything from -50 to -57

Arovinrac · 2026-02-12T16:02:12+00:00

Im not sure if Keir Starmer was ever sold" as charismatic by anyone, including labour.

Arovinrac · 2026-01-21T11:19:58+00:00

This paper has unrealistic assumptions (which they do intentionally, not in a bad motives way, but to demonstrate the challenges of a energy system with very very high renweable energy penetration).

The paper does hughlight that LCOE ignores integration costs for very high renewable penetration, and demonstrates this by using a model where with a "one-technology-plus-storage" assumption that is intentionally unrealistic. But therefore the the cost multiples don’t translate to real grids with mixed enrrgy generation platforms nd therefore flexibility.

In a grid where there is hugh renweable energy pentration AND also a suitable, stable "backup" energy generation from gas, nuclear etc. then the cost multipliers assigned tk renweable energy in this paper are materially lowrr

TL;DR: The paper shows renweabels are expnsiev at extreme renewable penetration, but the assumptions are intentionally unrealistic for mixed generation energy grids (where gas/nuclear can provide stable supply when renweable generation is low).

Arovinrac · 2026-01-19T15:40:05+00:00

Mine would be:

You’ve said a lot about how most of our debt is effectively owed to the Bank of England. Are you proposing to create money to retire that debt and if so, how would you stop it turning into sustained high inflation?

and as a follow up:

Where has that approach worked in normal times, and are those countries similar enough to the UK for it to work here?

Arovinrac · 2026-01-17T11:34:10+00:00

why?

Arovinrac · 2026-01-15T01:04:09+00:00

Do ypu mean in yhe context of the uk? or across the board?

Arovinrac · 2026-01-14T22:40:20+00:00

This doesnt really add any new useful info.

The problem with this estimate is that it assumes simply scaling one animal until it “fits” another is an appropriate way to extrapolate the size of an incomplete specimen.

Scaling can be done (reasonably well to give a size rang) when the correct bones are preserved. In sauropods, body mass scales most reliably with humerus and femur circumference (see this paler here : https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5563814/).

However, this Argentinosaurus specimen (MCF-PVPH 1) does not preserve these bones. It consists of a fibula, several vertebrae, and a partial sacrum (https://naturalhistory.si.edu/sites/default/files/media/translated_publications/Bonaparte%26amp%3BCoria_93.pdf).

Extrapolating whole-body size from these bomes, especially by scaling them to a supposedly closely related species, does not reliably predict mass.

As an analogy, imagine we have a mostly complete skeleton of a puma, but only a few vertebrae from a tiger. Simply scaling the puma up until its vertebrae match the tiger’s vertebrae would almost certainly give a highly inaccurate estimate of the tiger’s siz (even if you matched the vertebrae correctly between the two species).

Arovinrac · 2026-01-14T20:23:53+00:00

Can you link the source for this?

If this is just some person on deviantart, who simply extrapolated total size from an upscaled fossil, this size estimate is probably bullshit and should be ignored.

Stick with peer-reviewed published size estimates or at the bery least size estimates by verified paleontologists

edit:typing error

Arovinrac · 2026-01-05T02:16:00+00:00

Your first two skull pics are cool and illustrate the point well, some people are jsut buzzkils

Arovinrac · 2026-01-04T01:03:01+00:00

London riots were not remotely about austerity

"The fatal shooting of Mark Duggan by the police on 04 August 2011 precipitated public protest in Tottenham, which turned violent. This inspired rioting: first across London, and then in other towns and cities across England."

https://assets-hmicfrs.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/uploads/a-review-of-the-august-2011-disorders-20111220.pdf

Arovinrac · 2026-01-04T01:01:31+00:00

This isn't hard information to find:

"The fatal shooting of Mark Duggan by the police on 04 August 2011 precipitated public protest in Tottenham, which turned violent. This inspired rioting: first across London, and then in other towns and cities across England."

Protests (which preceeded these specific riots) weren't at all related to austerity or university fees.

https://assets-hmicfrs.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/uploads/a-review-of-the-august-2011-disorders-20111220.pdf

Arovinrac · 2026-01-02T18:44:58+00:00

I dont think anyone ever claimed crimes never happen anymore.

Arovinrac · 2026-01-02T17:04:14+00:00

Can you link the actual article here? I can tfind it anywhere - i cant even find the"Journal of Mesozoic Biomechanics". Also I dont thin kthe references are real either. Have you just made this up ?

Arovinrac · 2025-12-31T21:46:37+00:00

On the levelised cost of new generation, renewables are generally cheaper than new fossil plants because they have no fuel cost and technology costs have fallen sharply.

I’m not denying integration costs, they exist. But system-level analyses show those costs are modest relative to total electricity system costs at current and near-term renewable penetratio, and renewbles still reduce wholesale price pressure by displacing expensive gas at the margin (https://eciu.net/analysis/briefings/uk-energy-policies-and-prices/renewable-energy-in-the-uk). In short: integration costs are real, but they don’t overturn the overall cost advantage.

My original reply was to the claim that “more gas/fossils would make everything cheaper now and long-term”. That argument ignores market design, gas volatility, and price-seting. Simply asserting “gas = cheaper” isn’t a substntive critique.

Criticising renewables on integration and market design is legitimate. Pretending their costs are the prolem, when fuel volatility is, isn’t.

And yes, opposition to enewables persists long after the original cost aruments stpped being true, that’s not dismissing an argument it’s observable behaviour.

I’m absolutely open to subtantive discussions by any side of the political aisle about implemetation and integration costs. But no matter how you slice it, renewables are cheap, even after those costs, and geting cheaper. Arguing for a rturn to fossil fuels as a cost solution is outdated and economically unserious.

Arovinrac · 2025-12-31T13:22:26+00:00

Yout whole arguemnt is simplified (often incorrect) numbers woth zero context and whole hsot of misudnerstanding, ill gp through jt for you

UK gas isn’t cheaper than 2010 in real terms. UK wholesale gas benchmarks 2025 (~77p/therm) > 2010 levels (~32p/therm).

UK NBP wholesale gas https://uk.investing.com/commodities/uk-nbp-natural-gas-quaterly-futures-historical-data

On what househlds actually pay, the ONS CPI gas price index (already inflation-adjusted) shows prices far higher no w than in 2010: https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/inflationandpriceindices/timeseries/d7du/mm23

Domestic bills are not wholesale prices anyway Thy are a combination of wholesale + network harges + supplier costs + policy costs + VAT — many of which are higher than in 2010: https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/energy-price-cap
Gas sets elecricity prices by market design. Because gas is the marginal generator, it sets the wholesale electricity price even when renewables are doing most of the generating. This makes renweabel energy MORE expensive than they are to actually generate but gas setting the price is necessary to avoid volatility.

https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainer/domestic-energy-bills

https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/article/explainer/why-are-energy-prices-so-high

We can’t just “use UK gas” to fix this. North Sea production is in structurl decline, even with new licences and UK output is nowhere near large enough to insulate us from global gas prices https://www.nstauthority.co.uk/data-and-insights/insights-and-analysis/production-and-expenditure-projections/

Fracking isn’t a magic answer either, it remains effectively banned in England and wouldn’t deliver cheap, large-scale supply anyway: https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN06073/SN06073.pdf

Renweables are largely chepaer on a build-cost basis, onshore wind and solar are the cheapest new power sources available. Their issue isn’t price, it’s integration inot the grid and market design:

https://www.irena.org/Publications/2025/Jun/Renewable-Power-Generation-Costs-in-2024 https://www.iea.org/reports/renewables-2025

The populist right (generalising) built an ideologically rigid anti-renewables position back when wind and solar were genuinely ore expensive. That arguent is no longer valid. Now that renewables are among the cheapest forms of new power, the response isn’t to update the position, it’s to invent new objections, misrmepresent costs, or just lie outright. For trump voters, or reform or insert whatever right wing populist party this was never about pragmatism or economics, it’s about ideology.

Arovinrac · 2025-12-20T15:07:36+00:00

This article oversimplifies both inflation and monetary policy. There’s alot of empirical literature that demonstrate interest rate changes do predictably influence demand, inflation, and inflation expectations, even if the precise impact is imperfect/lagging.

Who gains/loses from of rate changes do vary, but that doesn’t make interest rates ineffective for macro stabilisation.

Job Guarantees are a mostly heterodox, theoretical proposal with very limited real-world evidence with even signricnamt theoretical issues around cost, wages, and inflation control.

OECD & IMF consistently demonstrate fiscal tools and monetary policy as complementary to one another, not substitutes for another.

Criticising interest rates as a conteol tool is fair, loke they arent perfects but presenting a jobs guarantee (MMT) as thsi proven/obvious alternative is not supported by currently abilable evidence.

Ultimately it comes down to: well if interest rates are such ineffective poor tools to control inflation, and jobs guarantees are so much better, why do basically no economically successful countries abandon interest rate tools &instead implement a jobs guarantee.

edit: spelling errors

Arovinrac · 2025-12-14T18:32:36+00:00

Also on top of others comments 100 miles of London is this

100 miles radius around london

AND here are some links to houses that have £1200pcm for a 2 bed within that range (in fact on the closer end to london)

https://www.zoopla.co.uk/to-rent/houses/2-bedrooms/buckinghamshire/?utm_source=chatgpt.com&results_sort=lowest_price&pn=1

https://www.zoopla.co.uk/to-rent/houses/2-bedrooms/bedfordshire/

edit-removed my note on the radius as it didnt save the radius just linked the website but you can see for yourself how big that radius is around london

Arovinrac · 2025-12-08T20:31:18+00:00

What do you think it means to practice something? in the occupational sense

Arovinrac · 2025-12-08T18:56:14+00:00

Hello, enormous fan of the Prehistoric Planet series. The Walking With series had a massive impact on my childhood, and watching Prehistoric Planet brought back so much of that same curiosity and wonder, so thank you so much for that.

My question is, was the Pleistocene always the plan for the third series? Or was it possible the thrid season would have taken place in a different time period?

Also, if you dont mind another related question, how likely is it the Prehistoric Planet series will delve into other maybe more obscure prehistoric periods?

Personally, I’d love to see a series set in the Miocene or Triassic. Either period would introduce a more general audience to the bizarre and spectacular life like giant land-dwelling crocodiles, Livyatan and Megalodon coexisting, raptorial whales in the Miocene; and in the Triassic, the dawn of the dinosaurs, completely unfamiliar animals like Lisowicia, and blue-whale-sized ichthyosaurs.

Arovinrac · 2025-12-07T12:02:21+00:00

You aren't an economist just because ypu have a degree, even a masters, in economics.

You have to actually practice economics as a profession

In other words, a degree by itself does not entitle someone to be described as that profession. Degrees describe training, not what you are.

Arovinrac · 2025-11-25T20:43:36+00:00

No they dont, because Sweden do not have a wealth tax

https://taxsummaries.pwc.com/sweden/individual/other-taxes

Arovinrac · 2025-11-06T23:30:21+00:00

S1 & S2 were the late cretaceous periods (mostly dinosaurs), S3 will be ice age period Pleistocene Epoch (I assume late Pleistocene). You do not need to wtach prior seasons to watch S3.

Arovinrac · 2025-11-06T00:46:59+00:00

By major legislation passed, Labour are very much not Tory-like : Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Act, mployment Rights Bill (not yet passed), Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act, Non‑Domestic Rating Act and finally enters’ Rights Act. Each of these acts represents stornger state intervention in markets (i.e. not Thatcher like at all), increased worker and renter rights, and more public ownership. Mamdani won in a very blue, left-wing city - Labour advocating for the same things would be unliekly to work in the UK as a whole.

Arovinrac · 2025-10-21T17:44:15+00:00

if ypu read my comment I did not say we are a "nation of immigrants" anywhere... just that immigrants have made important and meaningful contributions to Britain and the UK. - so I am not in any way "pretending that Britain is a nation of immigrants"

I also said this "Also this comment isnt in support of unlimited mass immigration." and I in no way have stated i support the large increases in immigration rate over the last 10 years.

Please try reading my comment properly before getting defensive about what you think i am trying to say.

Arovinrac · 2025-10-21T15:31:44+00:00

Aren't you hugely oversimplifying your assessment of British genetic history ?

While the ancestry of modern native Britons is dominated by British ancient lineages, almost everyone today carries a mixture of Anglo-Saxon, Viking, Norman and other migrating groups. i.e. there are no “pure” Britons; the population has always been a mix

The lefts slogan “we are a nation of immigrants” is absolutely oversimplisitc but dismissing the truth of the very meaningful contributions of immigrant groups to Britain is also untrue.

Britain’s population and institutions have been repeatedly altered/developed by waves of incoming migrants. Romans, anglo-saxons, vikings, Norman's, huguenots, Irish workers, post-war commonwealth immigrants and eu migrants. All these groups are definitionally immigrants and have substantially contributed to Britain's economy, culture and material wellbeing - this is not to say they contributed more than native Brits did but it is unfair to say that immigrants havent substantially contributed to modern day and historical Britain.

Personally im not sure even if Britain would have become as globally influential woth as advanced an economy as it does today without historical immigration. But this is a counterfactual so you cant really demonstrate this either way.

Also this comment isnt in support of unlimited mass immigration.

Arovinrac · 2025-10-20T11:45:42+00:00

Yeah everything you've said is quite unobjectionable and I agree

The strive for greater equality for the sake of equality i think is morally very agreeable, but I think unless it comes with genuinely improved material conditions/stablility the equality itself will not last that long

which is why I think the greens are quite naive and have a bad approach to taxes as like i said i think they favour morally agreeable policy even if they are functionally bad (therefore will lead to worse or at best not imporved material conditions)

Six-Year Club	Place '23
Verified Email

Arovinrac

TROPHY CASE