Signals are grim for Jodrell Bank Observatory after UK science funding decision

Jodrell Bank Observatory faces an uncertain future after UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) pulled funding. The UK's Particle Physics, Astronomy and Nuclear Physics (PPAN) science budget is decreasing by 2.7 percent over four years, which, coupled with increasing costs, means cuts seem inevitable, and the venerable Jodrell Bank …

[Darkedge]

criminal

cuts must be reversed, this is an essential part of our history and our future in science.

[Spazturtle]

Re: criminal

That is the point, the elite ruling class of this country hate the country, and are trying to destroy as much of it's history and culture as possible.

[Doctor Syntax]

Re: criminal

The political class are mainly humanities graduates who will tell you if asked that STEM disciplines are important for the economy but have no idea what they actually involve and thus run the country from on a basis of deep ignorance.

[elsergiovolador]

Re: criminal

And corrupt civil service blindly executes to protect their golden penshions despite having levers to push back.

[MarkTriumphant]

Re: criminal

And if they did push back, you would complain about policy being set by the unelected civil service.

[elsergiovolador]

Re: criminal

Why would I complain about Civil Service doing their job for once?

[elsergiovolador]

Re: criminal

But Treasury want to pay £1.2bn to rent an ERP system from US companies.

I think we can set our history and future aside to get Americans to have fancier Yachts, no?

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: criminal

To be fair, the Americans let their one rust through and drop into a sinkhole. Job done.

[Bonzo_red]

Re: criminal

The Guardian reported where the cuts will be hitting but I didn't see mention of the JCM telescope funding being cut. They mentioned a 20% cut to Rubin, a 45% cut to the Next-Generation Transit Survey and no funding for further instruments for the ELT in Chile, together with a withdrawal from the Event Horizon Telescope. For British astronomers, the cuts to Jodrell Bank seem a minor issue compared with the total devastation being wrought elsewhere.

[that one in the corner]

Re: criminal

Don't forget that Jodrell Bank is more than "just" the instruments on site: they co-ordinate a lot of other astronomy from other locations; e-MERLIN being the most obvious pan-UK example but it also plays a role globally: Jodrell is the global headquarters for the Square Kilometre Array. It takes part in international long-base line collaborations across Europe.

Shutting down Jodrell Bank will do far more than shutting down the instruments there, damaging UK reputation that will be hard, if not impossible, to regain: e.g. if SKA move away they'll have no reason to return if funding is restored.

[Red Ted]

Re: criminal

The same sort of government thinking that stopped developing the British Space Launch System and had a government policy that prevented there being a British Astronaut (so Helen Sharman's trip had to be funded through a private company "Project Juno").

Ford: "You're a bunch of useless bloody loonies"

'B' Ark Captain: "Yes, that was the reason"

[jpennycook]

Re: criminal

The USSR, despite being nearly bankrupt, managed to scrape together enough money to make up the shortfall, so effectively subsidised Helen Sharman. Thatcher always objected to crewed spaceflight for some reason.

[just4this]

Re: criminal

I visited a long time ago, I still have some punched paper tape I got from there.

It’s in a box of old treasures alongside the first crystal radio kit* I got working.

I’m not sure what the criteria for National Lottery grant/funding are nowadays but Jodrell Bank seems like a worthy cause if all else fails.I've seen less deserving causes funded.

*not a commercial kit, parts supplied by an uncle and required actual soldering.

[BartyFartsLast]

Re: criminal

I'm pretty sure they already get National Lottery funding.

This is bloody short sighted though, Jodrell has a huge role to play in inspiring future generations of techies, scientists etc. and still does incredible science.

[Ian Johnston]

Re: criminal

I visited a long time ago, I still have some punched paper tape I got from there.

Me too! Day out with the Glasgow Astronomical Society, about 50 years ago. I got to steer a small dish too - a repurposed Würzburg radar, I think.

[TVU]

Re: criminal

Yes, this is a wholly unacceptable act of egregious philistinism and I hope to see a strong campaign that successfully reverses these unjust cuts.

[DS999]

First the US, now the UK

And in a decade or two everyone is going to be saying "why is it always Europe or China making the big advances in science, and the US/UK are always left behind playing catch up".

Putin really got his money's worth interfering in our politics, didn't he? He knew he could never catch Russia up, so he's contented himself with dragging us down to Russia's level.

[RMclan]

This is personal

This is very bad news for UK science but for me it is personal. My uncle, Professor Ian Morison, devoted most of his life, until about 5 or 6 years ago, to designing and building most of the computer systems that controlled Jodrell Bank and later e-MERLIN. If Jodrell does close, I'm just glad that Ian is no longer around to see it following his death in 2024.

[werdsmith]

Re: This is personal

I predict that JB won’t be closing down, it will find alternative funding and continue.

However the vandalism and sabotage of our other research projects are harder to recover from.

I guess the consequences of this will be too far in the future for Burnham to care and meanwhile the £2 bus fares and a temporary pennies off the electricity bill need to be paid for.

[MachDiamond]

Re: This is personal

"and meanwhile the £2 bus fares"

That's been blowing my mind. Student discounts I can wrap my head around, but anybody with a job that needs a bus should be able to pay for it or the job isn't worth keeping. I would expect that somebody riding a bus to work won't have a car. That's easy to see. An entry level job often won't pay to have a car. Way back when I was in that position and took the bus/rode my bike to work. Even when I had a car, I often rode my bike to save money. The trick was working close enough to home that it wasn't a slog. This is another place where schools teaching personal finance would help. It can make more sense to take a job that pays less that's near to home over one that pays a bit more, but is further away. Knowing to do the math and having the ability is important. In the US, the biggest salaries are often paid where the cost of living is the highest. An additional downside to that is the progressive income tax where the higher salary boosts you into tax brackets that extract higher percentages of your pay.

I'm not that concerned that public transportation isn't paying for itself from the fare box, but thinking that the fares have to be reduced to support people that can't afford them when it's already rather cheap is a problem. Public transportation at a loss can reduce the need to build/expand massively expensive roadways. It also stimulates economic activity in an area if it's well run and safe.

[Steve Foster]

Re: This is personal

Not only that, but it's clear people fail to take basic steps to organise themselves.

A BBC news article about the lowered cap heavily featured a lady who said she'd benefit because she was spending £3k a year on daily buses.

Except that, in principle, she wouldn't benefit for the simple reason that she should be using a season ticket. And if she had a season ticket, she'd be spending a whole lot less than £3k per year in the first place!

A quick internet search suggested a suitable monthly pass would be around £60/mo (about the same as the lady said she's spending weekly) - so ~£720pa. An easy ~£2.2k saving is much better than that offered by the reduced cap (the article said £500).

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: This is personal

That assumes she actually *has* £720 to hand, or sufficiently good credit to access it. One in five people don't have £1k in emergency savings. One in ten have no savings at all.

Being poor is expensive.

[Steve Foster]

Re: This is personal

Nowhere did I suggest that the cumulative annual cost of a monthly bus pass had to be paid upfront (that would be very unusual). I annualised it for comparison with the BBC news article (which had annualised the existing spending).

If spending £60 weekly on bus tickets, it's a no-brainer to switch to spending the exact same money on a monthly pass instead. Save money from week 2 onwards.

It's no wonder people are poor when they fail to take simple obvious steps to avoid wasting significant sums.

I'll grant that it's possible there is an even better value annual bus pass option that might require payment of a substantial sum on day 1 that is probably inaccessible to those who could benefit most.

[MachDiamond]

Re: This is personal

"It's no wonder people are poor when they fail to take simple obvious steps to avoid wasting significant sums."

This illustrates my complaint about schools not teaching personal finance. There's also teaching needed to know where and when to apply it.

[RMclan]

Re: This is personal

I'd be interested to see where someone is spending £3k a year on daily buses, I'm presuming it's not in a major UK city.

Here in Birmingham an adult single ticket is £3 and an adult Daysaver ticket is £5.60. Even buying a Daysaver for 365 days is only £2,044.

If you use a debit or credit card to "tap and go", you will either be charged for a single ticket if you only use one bus or a Daysaver if you use more than one bus in a day.

My monthly direct debit bus pass (which also includes trains for zones 1 & 2) is only £105 per month (£1260 per year), and if I changed it to bus only, it would be £67 per month (£804 per year).

A standard 4 week adult bus only pass is £73 (£985.50 per year).

[Steve Foster]

Re: This is personal

Here's the article I mentioned:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/clyv4y3xdvgo

No, not in a major city, but Warwickshire (which still falls under the Birmingham/West Mids unitary travel ambit, if I've understood their website correctly).

[RMclan]

Re: This is personal

Bedworth and Leamington Spa don't come under the main West Midlands nBus zone, so the prices I quoted don't apply there.

They fall under the National Express NX Outer Zone area, so there a single is £3, a day pass is £6, and a weekly pass £23, so nowhere near the £58 a week she is stating.

[Mishak]

Re: This is personal

When I use the bus (when I visit head office) the local operator caps the daily spend to something like £4.50 (assuming you use the same card to pay). There are also then automatic weekly and monthly caps.

If I lived there, I would probably use them for work as the traffic is murder and I could catch up on some music/sleep.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: This is personal

As a comfortably-off, fit & healthy pensioner with access to 2 cars, I still get free bus travel in England because I'm old. Nonsensical.

[BartyFartsLast]

Re: This is personal

So your justification for it being 'nonsensical' is that you don't need to use it?

Would you rather it was means tested at massive administrative burden and cost to tax payers?

Perhaps you could show your outrage and protest it by not using it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: This is personal

My argument for it being nonsensical is that it wastes taxpayer money on people who don't need it. As for "means tested at massive administrative burden and cost to tax payers" that's also nonsensical. The government knows what income I declare and what tax I pay, all it has to do is add a cut-off, perhaps "no free bus pass for higher-rate taxpayers".

Use it? I rarely do, I have access to 2 cars. I use the train a lot, though, and pay through the nose for that, no discounts.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: This is personal

> The government knows what income I declare and what tax I pay, all it has to do is add a cut-off, perhaps "no free bus pass for higher-rate taxpayers".

You mean, you agree that it should be means tested?

But you believe that means testing is so trivial and cheap to accomplish? Why haven't you applied your expertise to all the other means-tested benefits and saved the tax payer all that money?

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: This is personal

> You mean, you agree that it should be means tested?

Yes, isn't that what I just said?

> But you believe that means testing is so trivial and cheap to accomplish?

In a case like this, yes. "if declared_taxable_income > x then free_pass=no". Not rocket science.

> Why haven't you applied your expertise to all the other means-tested benefits and saved the tax payer all that money?

Because the problem is political, not practical. 100+ MPs are ready to vote against their own government if they try to stop the giveaways. Even our famously incompetent civil service runs into a brick wall on that one.

[that one in the corner]

Re: This is personal

You do know that you can get a discount rail card even before you reach the age that you can a free bus pass?

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: This is personal

Yes, I pay for one, it saves 30%, so makes the fares slightly less extortionate.

[just4this]

Re: This is personal

“I use the train a lot, though, and pay through the nose for that, no discounts.”

How do you get to and from the station?

If it’s by car, wouldn’t cheap bus fare save you money?

And if not you, for sure at least some others.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: This is personal

> How do you get to and from the station?

I walk, saves on parking charges.

> If it’s by car, wouldn’t cheap bus fare save you money?

So what? I can afford it, why should the taxpayer be on the hook to pay my bills, thus putting up everyone's taxes? I'd prefer to see it restricted to those who really need it.

[MachDiamond]

Re: This is personal

"Would you rather it was means tested at massive administrative burden and cost to tax payers?"

Sometimes all that's needed is a mild bit of gatekeeping. If you needed to apply for a free senior bus pass annual in person, those who didn't need one would likely not bother. No means testing, just an application and showing ID for age verification. There doesn't even need to be a penalty for showing a fake ID so no enforcement costs, no records keeping, nothing. Visit an official government office, show an ID, get a pass good for a year with your name on it. There could be a penalty for lending that out, use by another person or sale of the pass. It could be one of those things that would get lumped into charges if arrested for something else. Give it a £500 fine that goes back into the public transportation system. I'll bet that it would get dropped the vast majority of the time if somebody has been arrested for being an ass and creating issues on a bus.

[BartyFartsLast]

Check your privilege

With respect, that's bullshit, some people are working to live and are on extremely tight budgets where a few extra quid a week makes a big difference.

"the trick was working close enough to home" is just a perfect example of your privilege, the poorest areas of the UK are the ones where people have the fewest jobs and those who do have jobs often have to travel the most for the least money, all while using public transport.

[MachDiamond]

Re: Check your privilege

""the trick was working close enough to home" is just a perfect example of your privilege"

It's something to consider about a job. As I pointed out above, if there's an increased cost to getting to and from a job, making a bit less but being closer to home may be the same real income at the end of the week. It has nothing to do with privilege.

On a slightly different path, choosing where to live is important as, yes, it can be very hard to move and wind up trapped. It's easy to be poor anywhere in the UK so I'd suggest finding a place with more opportunities than being bang in the middle of a blighted housing estate with no prospects for decent employment nearby.

(I don't post AC so don't combine me and the other person)

[martinusher]

Re: This is personal

Bus fares are just the tip of the iceberg. Everything in the UK is not just really expensive but incredibly bad value for money. You've got yourselves into a situation where the price of everything is primarily overhead with the cost being justified by the polite fiction that its some kind of 'service'. Except the place is really grungy -- you probably don't notice it if you live there, its the classic 'boiling the frog' scenario.

The rationale for flat rate fares on public transport is that it cuts down on administrative overhead. Every variation to a fare structure costs money to administer and enforce, money that might provide good (office) jobs for some but is detracting from the actual money spent on the service. That's why most countries use a flat rate model rather than the multiplicity of zones and concessionary fares that characterize most of the UK. (I'm still smarting from being reamed for seven quid to travel across two zones in London -- and don't even think about mentioning train fares.)

Its everywhere. You pay as much or more for groceries as we do in California. You pay as much or more for housing. Your health care system is free "at point of service" (assuming that a) you can find service and b) its something that's covered) but then mine is as well. Something has to give; you can't go on pretending that this is normal. Somehow you have to maintain the capability to continue science and other useful work (but not by throwing pocket change at it). The Sacred Cow that really needs turning into steak is finance; its bleeding you white with its insatiable demands.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: This is personal

> anybody with a job that needs a bus should be able to pay for it or the job isn't worth keeping.

I really suggest you investigate what public transport does to an economy.

A very good starting point would be the latest Youtube video by "Not just bikes" on why it is a good th8ng that Kansas City, of all places, has a new free to ride light rail system.

Hint: the benefits of lower cost, even free, public transit comes to the stationary items (businesses, neighbourhoods) along the journey more than it does to the individual riders. You have literally jumped on entirely the wrong way of looking at the issue.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: This is personal

It can come out of the foreign aid and asylum support budgets. We spend an inordinate amount of money building infrastructure in foreign countries while our own is crumbling from lack of investment and our youth suffer record unemployment.The ruling class of this country feels more compassion for the rest of the world than for their own people and seem to be operating on the belief that our "wealth" needs to be distributed abroad, to cronies or NGOs. Doesn't matter which. It's taken from us and given away.

Redirecting one week of asylum support would cover the entire proposed science budget shortfall.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: This is personal

"We borrow an inordinate amount of money to pay for building infrastructure in foreign countries while our own is crumbling from lack of investment and our youth suffer record unemployment."

TFTFY

[just4this]

Re: This is personal

"proposed science budget shortfall."

What is that exactly?

Since it’s only a proposal is there a chance it won’t happen?

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: This is personal

28 million.

We pay about 5.7 million per day on asylum support. One week covers the entire shortfall that has led to these cuts.

If we weren't bringing in useless dross to suppress wages and artificially inflate total GDP, we'd all be considerably better off and more capable of bearing the cost of social care and even foreign aid. Instead, our youth are driven out of the market by foreigners willing to work slave wages, usually under the table so they don't pay tax, which in turn means more youth on benefits, which increases the social care budget. Taxes have to be higher to cover the higher costs, even while wages shrink in real terms (a glut of potential workers suppresses wages across the board, even outside their notional fields of work). Infrastructure is placed under greater pressure by the unnecessarily increased population, but as so much of the budget is taken to pay for those extra workers, whether they work or not, there is less to maintain infrastructure to an acceptable level. Nearly every problem we face right now is the result of 40 or more years of mass immigration, supported in practice by every government since Thatcher. Arguably, by every government since Wilson.

[MangoQPR]

Re: This is personal

Wow...your bias is clearly showing with this jumble of words.

The West continue to bomb different places back to the stone age. So people will seek asylum.

The Dublin Agreement helped us under the notional agreement that we could send anyone back. Still rather terrible, but that was agreed. When you boys took us out of the EU, that agreement went up in smoke. Ironic, huh? All of the safe routes for asylum were eroded from 2010 onwards, so people try to come by boat. NO ONE is an ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT. They are asylum seekers.

Now, if Russia rolled into this country, where would you try to make YOUR way to? Somewhere like India? Japan? China? Jordan? Syria? I suspect you'd want to go somewhere where you might have family, or at least a grasp of the language, so that you could contribute to the society. But when you arrive, you're not allowed to. You're given £7 a day for EVERYTHING and left in a very poorly run hotel, under constant threat of thugs with rocks for brains, receiving a tweet that tells them to set fire to your temporary home.

Anyway, back to the matter in question...Perhaps we should ask a certain former MP to donate some of his £5m to keep it open?

[MachDiamond]

Re: This is personal

"The West continue to bomb different places back to the stone age. "

Just don't vote for the war mongers. You do vote, yes?

[Phil O'Sophical]

Re: This is personal

NO ONE is an ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT. They are asylum seekers.

Some are asylum seekers, fleeing persecution. Some are economic migrants, trying to get into a country where they think they'll be better off (they're generally wrong, since they have no understanding of the cost of living). Once their request to stay has been refused, if they don't leave they become illegal immigrants.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: This is personal

@AC

You do realise that the long-term UK fertility rate is around 1.4 - 1.6?

Who do you think will be paying your pension, meeting your medical needs and looking after you in a care home when you need them in the years to come? It sure won't be the indigenous population.

And when you tell them how much you hate them, that will really endear you to them...

[BartyFartsLast]

Re: This is personal

This is bugger all to do with Burnham but sure, he could be pressed to stop it.

Sadly though the 'usual suspects' (patriotic whingers) will moan if he does because 'he's favouring the norf'

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: This is personal

It's the "usual suspects" complaining about this decision to begin with, because it's clear that Burnham is making permanent cuts everywhere to fund temporary policies like the mediocre vat cut on home energy. If he wanted to actually ease the cost of home energy, he'd drop the green levies that keep the price of gas so high and take the industry thumb off the scale so we're not constantly paying a premium to idling wind farms.

[jpennycook]

Re: This is personal

We could drop electricity prices dramatically if gas wasn't used. The National Grid pays whatever the most expensive supplier charges for that time period, and that's almost always the cost of burning gas. More use of renewables + grid scale batteries would mean electricity would become cheaper for everyone.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: This is personal

This is categorically false. The price of natural gas collapsed more than a year ago, but the price of energy has not followed it here. The state artificially inflates the cost of gas and subsidises the cost of "renewable" energy, creating a false differential that wouldn't exist in an even playing field, then further inflates energy costs through levies on domestic bills to pay for those subsidies. Renewables only appear cheaper because the costs are hidden.

Grid scale battery storage is a meme.

[Phil O'Sophical]

Re: This is personal

It would be better just to stop the silly scheme where everyone is paid the marginal price. That was introduced to encourage the use of greener energy like wind and solar, which had high upfront costs and so was more expensive than gas. It worked, we now have more wind than we can use, so it's time to simply pay each bidder the price they ask.

[Rivalroger]

It isn't just physics

All research in the UK is facing swinging cuts. It is all so amazingly short sighted.

[Yet Another Anonymous coward]

Re: It isn't just physics

Cutting science is the one thing left and right politicians, and voters, can agree on.

[Korev]

Re: It isn't just physics

Our cuts are "World leading"

[Doctor Syntax]

Re: It isn't just physics

Not really. They're just following the lead given from the other side of the pond. And you can't say ruder than that.

[jpennycook]

Re: It isn't just physics

Although in this case, the Conservatives kept increasing the budget for STFC, presumably because they saw some value. Labour have decided it needs to be cut back dramatically.

[breakfast]

Re: It isn't just physics

I don't know if that's actually true, but as we haven't had a left-wing government in my life time and things aren't looking good for the future, it's hard to be certain.

[Yet Another Anonymous coward]

Re: It isn't just physics

Best hope then is the Greens getting in and rely on their support for fundemental physics

[smudge]

How Much?

None of the reporting that I seen, on TV and elsewhere in the media, including here, says how much money is involved.

So I will yet again ask the question that is crucial to JB and the other science being saved.... How much are we talking about?

[STOP_FORTH]

Re: How Much?

Indeed, is it a crowd findable amount?

[STOP_FORTH]

Re: How Much?

Fundable. Bloody auto correct.

[MachDiamond]

Re: How Much?

"How much are we talking about?"

The amount is probably immaterial. To lose the ability to do science is to lose it forever as a replacement in the future won't be approved by the liberal arts majors in government that don't think much about how that phone constantly in their hand came into being.

[Steve Foster]

Re: How Much?

The BBC news article I saw said JB's budget was £2.8m.

Less than 0.03% of the UKRI overall budget of just under £10bn.

Ref: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5y6r9rdxygo

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: How Much?

And then they're spending £1.8bn on AI, which is already massively financed by the private sector.

[Bonzo_red]

Re: How Much?

A measley £28 million/year spread over all the projects being slashed.

https://www.ukri.org/publications/explainer-stfc-prioritisation-outcomes/explainer-stfc-prioritisation-outcomes-2026-to-2030/

[BartyFartsLast]

Re: How Much?

2.8 Million apparently

[Azamino]

Foot meet Gun

I appreciate that money doesn't grow on trees but c'mon!

eMerlin was sponsored primarily by UKRI and if you run their details through Claude you will find plenty of investments in frankly dubious research projects. All large funds will have some seemingly frivolous beneficiaries of their largesse but actionable science should be prioritised over hobby horses.

[MachDiamond]

Re: Foot meet Gun

"I appreciate that money doesn't grow on trees but c'mon!"

Money may not but people on the dole seem to.

[just4this]

Re: Foot meet Gun

Money does grow on trees.

That’s why banks have branches.

[Doctor Syntax]

Re: Foot meet Gun

Your joke is sadly out of date. These days banks do everything they can to avoid having branches.

[BartyFartsLast]

Re: Foot meet Gun

That's man made financial climate change for you, even the banks don't grow branches any more

[David 132]

Re: Foot meet Gun

About 20 years ago one of the UK banks (Natwest?) ran a smug and sanctimonious advertising campaign about how all their competitors were closing branches that were subsequently "being turned into trendy wine-bars" and how this bank, of course, would never do that.

The high street branch of the bank in question in my town soon closed.

An imaginary glass of trendy wine to anyone who can guess what the site got turned into.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Foot meet Gun

I'm sure you may be aware that around 40% of benefit claimants are receiving "in work" credits? That means that the companies are not paying enough.

I'm sure you may also be aware that the number of people employed by HMRC to hunt down benefit fraud (of which there is some, but not as much as you are told) is a lot higher than those employed to hunt down tax evasion/avoidance (of which there IS a lot), but do keep punching down.

Why would we need this research? It's not like we've needed industry, car plants, engineering, a functioning utilities business, or decent trains, over the last 47 years is it.

Capitalism will continue to strip the decency out of the country until we all stand up and say no more.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Foot meet Gun

> ... until we all stand up and say no more.

Or lay down and lap at the patent boot leather. One of the two.

[Phil O'Sophical]

Re: Foot meet Gun

Capitalism will continue to strip the decency out of the country until we all stand up and say no more.

Like they did in Russia in 1917? That's worked out so well for them.

[MangoQPR]

Re: Foot meet Gun

That's a very binary thought to have.

You DO know that there's more across the political spectrum than Capitalism (great!!) and Communism (BAD!!!).

The Trumpian diktat that everyone to the left of him is a commie reeks of 50's "red under the bed" stupidity.

And look how THAT turned out.

[elsergiovolador]

Re: Foot meet Gun

I appreciate that money doesn't grow on trees but c'mon!

What is the current exchange rate for ripe apples to GBP?

[just4this]

Re: Foot meet Gun

If they go through an intermediary currency known as Scrumpy it’s about £5.00 per pint.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Foot meet Gun

"I appreciate that money doesn't grow on trees but c'mon!"

You're new here aren't you - Labour relies on the magic money tree.

Problem solved...

[Tron]

Brexit Britain may be skint, but this is vandalism.

And the only science that matters to the UK govt. involves climate and AI.

Governments always damage aspects of our lives. You just hope that stuff can cling on to be revived by a future regime. In this case, I fear it will be terminal for chunks of scientific endeavour.

A boycott of the government by all science professionals (including medical and tech) may help, but don't hold your breath.

And don't blame this on his English degree. I have an English degree and these are disgraceful cuts from a regime all too happy to waste money on the AI con.

Third world country now. All the good stuff is vanishing.

[Winkypop]

But, but….

Jodrell Bank is a national treasure.

I mean, Dr Who was there and all.

Surely that’s reason alone to keep it fully funded.

[STOP_FORTH]

Re: But, but….

It was built just in time to detect the radio bleeps from Sputnik and confirm that those pesky Russkies had indeed put an artificial satellite into orbit.

[jpennycook]

Explainer: STFC prioritisation outcomes 2026 to 2030

https://www.ukri.org/publications/explainer-stfc-prioritisation-outcomes/explainer-stfc-prioritisation-outcomes-2026-to-2030/#section-annex:-particle-physics,-astronomy-and-nuclear-physics-(ppan)-project-outcomes-

STFC Total costs 2024-25: £1,040,000,000; 2029-30: £877,000,000

Change vs 2025 to 2026: -15%

Jodrell Bank (among other projects): "e-MERLIN not prioritised for further funding", anticipated funding: "NA"

Then there's the cutbacks at CERN