Numeracy, where art thou numeracy?

Sigh.

31 thoughts on “Numeracy, where art thou numeracy?”

  1. Numeracy? Clown got an arts degree order of magnitude error?

    But that aside, 20 mil doesn’t sound far outside what Brazil might need to help fight forest fires. If they’re using the military, the manpower’s already paid for. You can’t magic fleets of water bombing aircraft out of thin air. Brazil presumably has military heavy lift, which it’s using for water bombing.. So what do you spend 200 mil or 2B mil on? More US & EU environmentalist observers?

  2. It sort of reminds me of a client wanted a rush job done. Decorate a suite of offices over a weekend so they could be up & running Monday. Saturday lunchtime he’s asking if we couldn’t put more blokes on the job. Hang the expense, he’ll pay.
    Answer’s no. For a start where do I find more decorators, Saturday midday? You’ve got the full team now. I could give you another ten on Monday. But that’s not today when you need an office decorated..Secondly, it wouldn’t make any difference. Paint takes so long to dry before you can recoat. Any more people & they’ll be standing around doing nothing & getting in the way.
    Not all problems can be solved with money. Although if you want to give me some, I’ll be happy to accept it.
    Maybe Balsonaro’s thinking why let these cvnts get a foot in the door for 20M I can’t use?

  3. They couldn’t care less about the rain forest. This is a cheapass “Get Bolsonaro” gambit.

    Note that the Amazon rain forest encompasses over 2,000,000 square miles. At the current rate of deforestation – OH NOES !!! – it will be all gone in the year 12,500.

    “Fires in the Amazon” is fake news Leftard agitprop.

  4. Bloke in North Dorset

    bis,

    Not all problems can be solved with money

    Or more bodies.

    I’ve had to explain to quite a few very senior managers and civil servants that just because a woman can produce a baby in 9 months it doesn’t follow that 9 women can produce a baby in one month. Some jobs just take a lot of time.

  5. The end outcome doesn’t matter to the Left, because its all about control. And the metric used to measure control is money. The more money the State spends on doing X means a) more people have to be taxed to raise that money, and b) more people are thus dependent on the State for their livelihood, both of which increase State control over the individual. So spending £10bn on ‘education’ is better than £5bn regardless of whether that extra spending actually educates a single extra student or raises the standards of the rest even slightly. The actual outcome is irrelevant – the aim is to control the greatest amount of the entire economy via taxation and spending as possible.

  6. So true, Jim. They REALLY, REALLY don’t care about anything else. Whatever they are talking about is just a foil to get more control.

    When they whine about ______, they don’t really care. It’s fake. They use your caring against you.

  7. I did wonder what the point of giving them cash was, surely lending them some planes and crews are what they need. Also not reported is the very quiet summer it’s been for wildfires in Canada, though the last couple of years have been filled with hysteria about how fires are getting worse and this is a constant upward change in the cycle etc.

  8. “surely lending them some planes and crews are what they need. ”
    It was a thought I had. Until I thought some more. Who lends Brazil planes & crews? Not countries in the immediate region. Colombia, Bolivia & Peru all have their own sections of the Amazon forest to worry about. Venezuala couldn’t find a plane if it wanted to. Argentina’s on the verge of economic collapse. Paraguay? Uruguay? Maybe a couple from Chile.
    Further afield? Central America lacks the capability. US might be able to, but it’s not simply planes & crews. Aircraft need maintenance & support personal & facilities to fly & they have to be specific for the sort of aircraft concerned. Getting that lot down to Brazil would be a major logistics operation. If Brazil has the runways & facilities to take that volume of traffic. Runways four hours flying time away from the fire areas aren’t going to be practical.
    It’s something people forget in situations like this. Countries only have the facilities & capabilities they need to meet reasonable expectations. If the UK had to mount a major cross-Channel sealift, it would have to do it with the ferries it has. Maybe borrow a couple from neighbouring countries. It couldn’t magic a fleet of a hundred ships into existence & the ports to handle them.

  9. Bloke in North Dorset

    bis,

    They’d also have to do a fairly rigorous risk assessment. Who’d be the politician who sent his country’s planes and personnel only to have one of their own cities ravaged by a forest fire?

  10. re BiND “9 months”…

    Reminds me of the old joke – “Definition of the IBM man-year – 500 blokes trying to get something finished before lunch”.

  11. Edward,
    I usually get a “rate limited” message when I open Twitter links in my phone browser. Opening in a private/incognito window always works though.
    Suspect my phone’s carrying a cookie that marks me as an undesirable for opening Twitter links from “extreme far right” websites (such as here).

  12. I’ve had to explain to quite a few very senior managers and civil servants that just because a woman can produce a baby in 9 months it doesn’t follow that 9 women can produce a baby in one month. Some jobs just take a lot of time.

    And then they sacked you for the exclusionary assumption that women have children

  13. The fires in central Africa are far bigger at the moment than the Amazonian ones. Strangely nobody seems to want Kleptostan or it’s neighbours any planes.
    (FYI Air Zimbabwe is missing 3 planes from it’s fleet. They’ve been nicked, which shows ambition and application, no?)

  14. Sounds like SOP for having something away, smartish. Make whoever’s it’s supposed to belong to unclear so that, when it does a vanishing trick, no one’s going to report it & accept the blame for losing it.
    Has anyone seen the actual aircraft recently?

  15. Who’d be the politician who sent his country’s planes and personnel only to have one of their own cities ravaged by a forest fire?
    It’s a pretty regular occurance – Canada exchanges forest fire crews with Australia and (IIRC) New Zealand – in those cases counter-cyclical fire seasons obviously help – but also with the US and Mexico, which are on the same summer season as us – and I think we had some Germans in the last couple of seasons (ditto). Within Canada, Provinces exchange crews (forest management is a provincial responsibility, although the Feds kick in military personnel and equipment) depending on the fire season.

  16. Oh – I should add – it’s usually crews that travel, not the water bombers or heavy equipment, for the logistical tail reasons mentioned above.

  17. Bloke in North Dorset

    Oh – I should add – it’s usually crews that travel, not the water bombers or heavy equipment, for the logistical tail reasons mentioned above.

    So they can get their crews back quickly to man their own infrastructure very quickly. Low risk.

    That’s not what I had in mind, I was commenting on the improbability of sending planes and the rest of the infrastructure,

  18. Bloke in North Dorset

    Completely OT

    I haven’t come across the term Queens Consent before, but it seems that those who think Parliament can order the PM to seek an extension are in for a shock. Its a long article and well worth a read, but here’s the key points as I saw them:

    For our purposes, Queen’s Consent is a procedural requirement for any Bill passing through the Commons and Lords where the terms of the Bill would ‘affect’ the exercise of any royal prerogative if it was passed. The effect on the prerogative must be more than de minimis. The final decision as to whether Queen’s Consent is required is made by the Speaker, but the Clerk of Legislation provides confidential legal advice to the Speaker beforehand.

    If a Bill affects prerogative, a minister must explicitly confirm that the government agrees that the Bill should pass. This formally happens in the Commons at the Third Reading stage. If the government does not want the Bill to proceed, its refusal to indicate its approval at Third Reading is fatal for the Bill.

    Queen’s Consent is normally a formality, because the government usually proposes (or more accurately for Private Members Bills, acquiesces to) all Bills that are successfully voted through both Houses. The current scenario could see a situation where a Bill passes in the teeth of trenchant opposition from the government.

    Prerogative powers are legacy powers of the Crown that are now mainly exercised by the government. Conducting foreign affairs, and in particular the power to agree treaties and operate treaty powers, is an important part of the prerogative and is the relevant power for this post. Under that power, the UK government has agreed new treaties, and particular laws, at EU level over the last 46 years (and indeed continues to do so)

    The story behind the passage of Cooper-Letwin is more complex than many realise. The drafting of the original version was masterly. Cooper-Letwin mandated the then Prime Minister (PM) to seek an extension to the Article 50 process under s 1(2). The word ‘seek’ is crucial. The reason it is so crucial is that it allowed the argument to be made that Queen’s Consent was not necessary for the Bill. This was because to ‘seek’ an extension does not actually have any effect in terms of changing the date of exit at EU level. Seeking an extension arguably does not ‘affect’ prerogative exercise as a matter of law.

    The issue of Queen’s Consent therefore raises a significant dilemma for those MPs who want to pass Corbyn-Hammond [he assumes they team up for the purposes of argument, but it could be anyone] to prevent No Deal by forcing the PM to agree another extension with the EU27 beyond 31 October 2019.

    If Corbyn-Hammond follows the format of Cooper-Letwin and only mandates that the government seek an extension then it places no obligation on the PM to agree or accept any extension. That would remain part of the prerogative power to be exercised as the PM sees fit in his negotiations with the EU27.

    In seeking such an extension, the PM might make clear that he was only doing so because he was legally obliged to do so. It may be that the PM could attach a series of demands to any extension he must seek such that the EU27 would be unlikely to grant one. He may indicate that he would do nothing with any extension except seek to count down the clock, or even disrupt EU business, or other ideas. Any or all of these strategems may cause negotiations for an extension to fail.

    By contrast, if Corbyn-Hammond were to go further than Cooper-Letwin and mandate that the PM must not only seek but also agree or accept any extension, by whatever mechanism, there can be little doubt that Queen’s Consent would be needed and the government would have to agree to the Bill being passed during Third Reading.

    Conclusion
    The proponents of a new Bill to prevent No Deal are caught on the horns of a dilemma. If they draft a Bill that only mandates the PM to seek an extension, the PM would be left free to refuse to agree or accept any extension in negotiations with the EU27.

    If, by contrast, MPs try to impose a requirement, by any method, that the PM agree or accept any new exit date from the EU27, Commons procedural rules mean that the government would be required formally to approve the Bill by affirming ‘Queen’s Consent’ to the Bill at the Third Reading stage. This is because the power to agree or accept an extension is normally exercised using a prerogative power. Any statute that had the legal effect, by whatever means, of forcing the PM to agree an extension to the Article 50 process would manifestly ‘affect’ the prerogative for the purposes of the relevant test as to whether Queen’s Consent is required.

  19. C4 News Brexit Debate 2 Sep 2019

    Surprisingly good

    Redwood and Alexandra Phillips (Brexit MEP) did well and presented facts.

    Remoaners continued vapid Project Fear: “if” “might” “could” “can’t guarantee” “we don’t know what will happen”

    Nobody knows what future holds whether In or Out of EU

    .
    SNP said “We’ll run out of safe water” – an old trope debunked months ago as an outright lie

    Audience showed their derision

  20. Hopefully a whole raft of measure to defeat remainiac MPs treason are ready.

    I would arrest that SOS Bercow and enough of the rest of the bastards for treason before they got in the door tomorrow.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *