I'd be staggered if Cons dropped anywhere near 100 seats; it would be the greatest political shock in my lifetime if so. Most people simply don't follow politics enough to make a rational decision which trumps tribal political affinity. It happens, but is usually a long grind (see the 'red wall', or at least the dozen or so of those that weren't potential swing seats in the first place, following Labours gradual lack of relevance, cemented by the Full Metal NUS embrace of Corbynism) or effects a specific cohort of seats (SNP).
Who else would all these tory voters in safe seats be voting for? I really can't see it at all; Truss could be disastrous but then... really much more disastrous than Boris?
Worst case for them AFAICS would be dropping to 230-250-ish seats, and even that's at the less likely end of things.
Not see @Yokes or @Dura_Ace around for a while. I’d like to know what we’re all missing on the Russia-Ukraine front.
Isn't @Dura_Ace teaching a course in Cairo or somewhere similar?
The Times reporting today that military personnel are to be banned from using prostitutes whilst abroad… surely @Dura_Ace will return briefly to inform us about the likelihood of such a ban being effective
You know what, I can see a weird, perverse long term benefit to the Tories choosing Liz Truss as their leader.
She likely loses the next election, sure, but having a relatively short sharp burst of ERG-backed Trussness leading to a defeat in 2024 at least might spare the Tories The Betrayal Narrative when they fall from power.
We all know it’s coming otherwise - I.e the “we wouldn’t have lost if we had been more Brexity/anti-woke”.
Perhaps it might discredit them enough that the Tories can choose someone sensible in opposition rather than doubling down on the insanity. Might spare them another 13 years in opposition.
The ERG would likely just say they needed an even more hardline leader like Badenoch or Patel or even Dorries or Rees Mogg, who actually did vote for Brexit and was not just a convert like Truss
Liz wins the leadership, but under the ERG's unshakeable belief that she will rule as their vassal.
To cement her hard-Brexit credentials (Remainer, Lib Dem past etc.) Liz unilaterally scraps Boris's oven-ready deal.
A trade war with the EU ensues.
Amid the social and economic mayhem, public support for Brexit collapses.
Liz is ousted. Hunt is brought in as the 'healing' alternative.
The ERG resign en masse, causing a string of by-elections.
Hunt calls a snap GE on a 'Britain Needs Stability' ticket.
Tories reduced to seventy seats.
OR....
Sunak v Truss; Truss implodes under scrutiny. Sunak wins the membership 63:37.
Sunak puts together a sensible Cabinet of capable talent. Boris chunters from the backbenchers for a bit, but decides life outside Westminster is for him and resigns his seat. The ERG are told to STFU as they were the ones pushing Truss.
Inflation peaks at 12.3%, but reduces very quickly, back to 3.6% next spring. The Government toughs it out at 5% on pay rises, saying if inflation stays high, there will be a supplementary pay rise in the spring; it won't be needed.
Putin dies in mysterious circumstances; Russian troops are pulled out of Ukraine except Crimea. Oil and food prices stabilise.
Conservative polling fortunes inch back up to 36%. Labour are seen to have no answers and inch back down to 36%. Starmer gets the blame.
New boundaries come in for the October 24 election. Tory majority of 14.
That's a heck of a lot of pieces to fall precisely into place to produce a majority of merely 14. That you say that is rather telling. Value bet. Sell Tory majority. There seems to have been a total collapse in confidence within the Tory Party without Johnson.
It is hard to believe Ukraine will resolve itself so neatly and cleanly. Putin dies. Russia retreats. Ok..
However, reading the Times today about Putin’s new isolation (the Chinese being frosty) I wonder if he will soon seek a tacit peace. He’s got a land bridge to Crimea. He’s seized a decent chunk of east Ukraine, he’s gained 2m blonde white Slavs to help his demographic crisis. Russia is bigger
He can take all that and consolidate it and easily sell it as victory and the war will grind to a gruesome halt
Quite likely, to my mind. And many around the world will welcome it
The Ukranians, and their NATO allies, have a very different idea.
Until the Russians all bugger off back to Russia, and contribute a fair amount for the damage they did to Ukraine, the Western sanctions are going nowhere, slowly squeezing the Russian economy and the standard of living of the Russian middle classes.
You have a higher opinion of western fortitude than me
If Putin sues for peace on the present borders I suspect we would, grudgingly, slowly, reluctantly (but with much inner relief) yield and agree
Sanctions would be gradually run down. Realpolitik would prevail. The Ukrainians would run insurgences, Russia would have to cope with that
Everyone would happily wave goodbye to crushing inflation and impending famine. Problem “solved”
Not pretty or noble, and possibly wicked, but that’s how I see it playing out now
The one thing we would do is ensure energy independence from Russia and maintain strong defences on the NATO frontier
A large part of the problem we face is that party leaders are being chosen by memberships who are well out of line with public opinion. If we leave Brexit to one side the British public is fairly reasonable in what they are looking for.
'That is a disgrace.'
Fairly or otherwise I fear Liz Truss won't get beyond the Ed Miliband 'weird' problem.
Ed Miliband looked like Wallace, who is quite an endearing character. Lizzy Lightweight looks like a tortoise who has just eaten a very sour piece of lettuce.
To stop a big Labour lead in seats the Tories need to address the blue wall issue, there is no evidence, anywhere, that Labour are making anything more than sluggish to very modest progress against a death roll government.
Truss sadly is likely the kiss of death to Tory MPs in Remain seats in the blue wall, the LDs will be cheering if she wins
You may well be correct in that, yes. I'm not a Truss fan on any metric. If she wins she needs to be PM UnTruss
Is there still argument about how best to tackle inflation?
FUEL DUTY, you bunch of muppets in Parliament. Rising transport costs are feeding into inflation everywhere at the moment, yet the Treasury blob and the green lobby can’t even countenance the idea that £2/litre petrol and diesel isn’t fantastic for the environment, which is their primary consideration.
The price elactivity of demand for road fuel is 1.1, that is that doubling the price reduces demand by 10%. Just about the only thing less price elastic are cigarettes.
The high price of fuel just means that people forego other spending, not that they consume less fuel.
Brains Trust: Is silver a good material for champagne flutes?
(Family member with silver wedding anniversary imminent.)
It tarnishes, in general, especially with sulphur compounds in the air, packing materials, etc. Wine contains sulphur, to some extent. And a quick check confirms that it affects the taste of the wine if drunk from.
Maybe some glasses (they always break sooner or later) and a silver coaster/bottle holder added?
Though lead crystal glasses can leach lead into wine if left too long ...
NYT - Maryland’s biggest contest is the race to succeed the term-limited governor, Larry Hogan, a moderate Republican who opposes former President Donald J. Trump.
The DEMOCRATIC primary is wide open and features nine candidates, including: Peter Franchot, the state’s comptroller [longtime MD politic]; Tom Perez, an Obama administration labor secretary [and former chair of Democratic National Committee]; and Wes Moore, an Army veteran (also entrepreneur, TV producer, best-selling author endorsed by Oprah WInfrey]
for Governor, total counted 373,590 (est. 61% reported) Wes Moore 137,118 (36.7%) Tom Perez 102,278 (27.4%) Peter Franchot 73,301 (19.6%) six others 60,893 (16.3%)
SSI - Moore is leading in Baltimore, Baltimore County, Prince George Co, Annapolis rest of southern MD; Perez leads in Montgomery Co (hello TimT!) and Frederick Co; Franchot is leading in mostly rural Eastern Shore and also in Western MD.
NYT - The two leading candidates in the REPUBLICAN primary are Kelly Schulz, who was Mr. Hogan’s secretary of commerce and has his endorsement, and Dan Cox, a state lawmaker who has Mr. Trump’s endorsement.
for Governor, total counted 235.532 (est. 80%) Dan Cox 132,428 (56.2%) Kelly Schulz 94,850 (40.3%) Robin Ficker 5,060 (2.1%) Joe Werner 3,194 (1.4%)
Cox is carrying all but two counties.
SSI - looks to me like Wes Moore will be Democratic nominee, while AP has called Republican nomination for Dan Cox. AND in a Fall race between a Trump GOPer and a Democrat, the later must be favored in the Free State of Maryland.
To stop a big Labour lead in seats the Tories need to address the blue wall issue, there is no evidence, anywhere, that Labour are making anything more than sluggish to very modest progress against a death roll government.
Truss sadly is likely the kiss of death to Tory MPs in Remain seats in the blue wall, the LDs will be cheering if she wins
Hmm, is Truss in reality a still-LD sleeper agent?
Is there still argument about how best to tackle inflation?
FUEL DUTY, you bunch of muppets in Parliament. Rising transport costs are feeding into inflation everywhere at the moment, yet the Treasury blob and the green lobby can’t even countenance the idea that £2/litre petrol and diesel isn’t fantastic for the environment, which is their primary consideration.
The price electicity of demand for road fuel is 1.1, that is that doubling the price reduces demand by 10%. Just about the only thing less price electric are cigarettes.
The high price of fuel just means that people forego other spending, not that they consume less fuel.
It's elasticity rather than electricity but again - we all know that the only solution is to cut fuel duty - nothing else will solve anything.
And the annoying bit is that fuel duty is dying anyway as people shift to electric cars.
A large part of the problem we face is that party leaders are being chosen by memberships who are well out of line with public opinion. If we leave Brexit to one side the British public is fairly reasonable in what they are looking for.
'That is a disgrace.'
Fairly or otherwise I fear Liz Truss won't get beyond the Ed Miliband 'weird' problem.
Ed Miliband looked like Wallace, who is quite an endearing character. Lizzy Lightweight looks like a tortoise who has just eaten a very sour piece of lettuce.
On a point of order, for Boris to get a Tony Blair type farewell at the end of PMQs it will require MPs of all parties to stand and applaud with encouragement from the LOTO to his own MPs to join in…
To stop a big Labour lead in seats the Tories need to address the blue wall issue, there is no evidence, anywhere, that Labour are making anything more than sluggish to very modest progress against a death roll government.
Truss sadly is likely the kiss of death to Tory MPs in Remain seats in the blue wall, the LDs will be cheering if she wins
Hope you are right but we have had too many false dawns
A large part of the problem we face is that party leaders are being chosen by memberships who are well out of line with public opinion. If we leave Brexit to one side the British public is fairly reasonable in what they are looking for.
'That is a disgrace.'
Fairly or otherwise I fear Liz Truss won't get beyond the Ed Miliband 'weird' problem.
Ed Miliband looked like Wallace, who is quite an endearing character. Lizzy Lightweight looks like a tortoise who has just eaten a very sour piece of lettuce.
She looks like the 'company high riser' who got drafted in as manager ahead of all the capable team members. Usually a year before the team is merged into a more successful team whos KPIs arent collapsing
Genuinely there is a scenario here where the Tories get less than 100 seats.
Maybe. But in 2019, 567 seats were won by Labour and Tories combined, 365 by the Tories.
Bookies are more sanguine. Currently the Tories are favourites to win most seats next time. Realistically, even if LDs etc do really well, most seats is + half of 510 seats, which is 226.
FWIW I now think for the first time that Labour to form the next next govt (putting together Lab maj, Lab min and all the coalition possibilities) is a higher chance than a Tory one. I put it at 55 - 45.
But you have to hand it to the Tories, they are fighting hard to lose, but Labour are not anything like the finished article of a winning machine.
So its a Johnson's Paint Trophy Final, not the World Cup.
Not see @Yokes or @Dura_Ace around for a while. I’d like to know what we’re all missing on the Russia-Ukraine front.
Isn't @Dura_Ace teaching a course in Cairo or somewhere similar?
The Times reporting today that military personnel are to be banned from using prostitutes whilst abroad… surely @Dura_Ace will return briefly to inform us about the likelihood of such a ban being effective
Brains Trust: Is silver a good material for champagne flutes?
(Family member with silver wedding anniversary imminent.)
It tarnishes, in general, especially with sulphur compounds in the air, packing materials, etc. Wine contains sulphur, to some extent. And a quick check confirms that it affects the taste of the wine if drunk from.
Maybe some glasses (they always break sooner or later) and a silver coaster/bottle holder added?
Though lead crystal glasses can leach lead into wine if left too long ...
To stop a big Labour lead in seats the Tories need to address the blue wall issue, there is no evidence, anywhere, that Labour are making anything more than sluggish to very modest progress against a death roll government.
Truss sadly is likely the kiss of death to Tory MPs in Remain seats in the blue wall, the LDs will be cheering if she wins
Hope you are right but we have had too many false dawns
Poll out today has the LDs up to 16% if Truss is Tory leader and Labour 12% ahead of the Tories
Ok let me risk a chunk of the enormous kudos I've built up on here over the years and throw down a precise and early prediction. It's like this at 4 pm -
Sunak 140 Truss: 109 Mordaunt: 106
Truss squeezes through but only just. Also means a good chance she doesn't since the margin of error in my machinations is more than 3.
Betting consequence: Since I'm also of the view that she (Truss) would be no shoo-in against Sunak in the Run-Off I'm going to vandalize my nice all-green book and lay her at evens.
Is there still argument about how best to tackle inflation?
FUEL DUTY, you bunch of muppets in Parliament. Rising transport costs are feeding into inflation everywhere at the moment, yet the Treasury blob and the green lobby can’t even countenance the idea that £2/litre petrol and diesel isn’t fantastic for the environment, which is their primary consideration.
The price electicity of demand for road fuel is 1.1, that is that doubling the price reduces demand by 10%. Just about the only thing less price electric are cigarettes.
The high price of fuel just means that people forego other spending, not that they consume less fuel.
It's elasticity rather than electricity but again - we all know that the only solution is to cut fuel duty - nothing else will solve anything.
And the annoying bit is that fuel duty is dying anyway as people shift to electric cars.
Ha ha, autocorrect stitched me up there, and someone (as always) noticed it before the edit!
Yes, government needs a strategy for how they replace the £40bn of revenue they currently get from taxing cars and petrol, when almost everyone drives an EV. Don’t also forget an unknown number of billions in company car BIK, which is already reducing quickly.
Is there still argument about how best to tackle inflation?
FUEL DUTY, you bunch of muppets in Parliament. Rising transport costs are feeding into inflation everywhere at the moment, yet the Treasury blob and the green lobby can’t even countenance the idea that £2/litre petrol and diesel isn’t fantastic for the environment, which is their primary consideration.
The price electicity of demand for road fuel is 1.1, that is that doubling the price reduces demand by 10%. Just about the only thing less price electric are cigarettes.
The high price of fuel just means that people forego other spending, not that they consume less fuel.
It's elasticity rather than electricity but again - we all know that the only solution is to cut fuel duty - nothing else will solve anything.
And the annoying bit is that fuel duty is dying anyway as people shift to electric cars.
The government can't do much about the current cost of living crisis. Just need to accept that.
I want to hear the Tory candidates debate longer term stuff.
Liz wins the leadership, but under the ERG's unshakeable belief that she will rule as their vassal.
To cement her hard-Brexit credentials (Remainer, Lib Dem past etc.) Liz unilaterally scraps Boris's oven-ready deal.
A trade war with the EU ensues.
Amid the social and economic mayhem, public support for Brexit collapses.
Liz is ousted. Hunt is brought in as the 'healing' alternative.
The ERG resign en masse, causing a string of by-elections.
Hunt calls a snap GE on a 'Britain Needs Stability' ticket.
Tories reduced to seventy seats.
OR....
Sunak v Truss; Truss implodes under scrutiny. Sunak wins the membership 63:37.
Sunak puts together a sensible Cabinet of capable talent. Boris chunters from the backbenchers for a bit, but decides life outside Westminster is for him and resigns his seat. The ERG are told to STFU as they were the ones pushing Truss.
Inflation peaks at 12.3%, but reduces very quickly, back to 3.6% next spring. The Government toughs it out at 5% on pay rises, saying if inflation stays high, there will be a supplementary pay rise in the spring; it won't be needed.
Putin dies in mysterious circumstances; Russian troops are pulled out of Ukraine except Crimea. Oil and food prices stabilise.
Conservative polling fortunes inch back up to 36%. Labour are seen to have no answers and inch back down to 36%. Starmer gets the blame.
New boundaries come in for the October 24 election. Tory majority of 14.
That's a heck of a lot of pieces to fall precisely into place to produce a majority of merely 14. That you say that is rather telling. Value bet. Sell Tory majority. There seems to have been a total collapse in confidence within the Tory Party without Johnson.
It is hard to believe Ukraine will resolve itself so neatly and cleanly. Putin dies. Russia retreats. Ok..
However, reading the Times today about Putin’s new isolation (the Chinese being frosty) I wonder if he will soon seek a tacit peace. He’s got a land bridge to Crimea. He’s seized a decent chunk of east Ukraine, he’s gained 2m blonde white Slavs to help his demographic crisis. Russia is bigger
He can take all that and consolidate it and easily sell it as victory and the war will grind to a gruesome halt
Quite likely, to my mind. And many around the world will welcome it
The Ukranians, and their NATO allies, have a very different idea.
Until the Russians all bugger off back to Russia, and contribute a fair amount for the damage they did to Ukraine, the Western sanctions are going nowhere, slowly squeezing the Russian economy and the standard of living of the Russian middle classes.
You have a higher opinion of western fortitude than me
If Putin sues for peace on the present borders I suspect we would, grudgingly, slowly, reluctantly (but with much inner relief) yield and agree
Sanctions would be gradually run down. Realpolitik would prevail. The Ukrainians would run insurgences, Russia would have to cope with that
Everyone would happily wave goodbye to crushing inflation and impending famine. Problem “solved”
Not pretty or noble, and possibly wicked, but that’s how I see it playing out now
The one thing we would do is ensure energy independence from Russia and maintain strong defences on the NATO frontier
We should get maximum support to Ukraine now before people get the chance to go wobbly. I'd be surprised if there wasn't a major offensive soon around Kherson which is much more strategically important to Ukraine than Lukansk.
To stop a big Labour lead in seats the Tories need to address the blue wall issue, there is no evidence, anywhere, that Labour are making anything more than sluggish to very modest progress against a death roll government.
Truss sadly is likely the kiss of death to Tory MPs in Remain seats in the blue wall, the LDs will be cheering if she wins
Hope you are right but we have had too many false dawns
Poll out today has the LDs up to 16% if Truss is Tory leader and Labour 12% ahead of the Tories
Puts the Tories on 190 or so seats. Lab would have a majority of 40... Lib Dems up to 39 (and I suspect that could be higher and the Tories even lower).
To stop a big Labour lead in seats the Tories need to address the blue wall issue, there is no evidence, anywhere, that Labour are making anything more than sluggish to very modest progress against a death roll government.
Truss sadly is likely the kiss of death to Tory MPs in Remain seats in the blue wall, the LDs will be cheering if she wins
Hmm, is Truss in reality a still-LD sleeper agent?
Conquest's Third Law of politics:
The simplest way to explain the behavior of any bureaucratic organization is to assume that it is controlled by a cabal of its enemies.
Not see @Yokes or @Dura_Ace around for a while. I’d like to know what we’re all missing on the Russia-Ukraine front.
Isn't @Dura_Ace teaching a course in Cairo or somewhere similar?
The Times reporting today that military personnel are to be banned from using prostitutes whilst abroad… surely @Dura_Ace will return briefly to inform us about the likelihood of such a ban being effective
Coincidentally I was last night rereading Robert Mason's Chickenhawk (life of a Huey helicopter pilot in Nam), which has a very apposite incident. Pp. 195-6 refers. (NSFW)
Its not just clean and attractive, its cheaper than coal, cheaper than gas, cheaper than offshore wind, tidal or nuclear.
Yes its not perfectly reliable at all times, but its the cheapest form of electricity available to us so we should get as much of it as we can as fast as we can.
Ramping up investment in onshore wind would mean we need less gas in the winter and have cheaper energy bills. There's no downside.
Between this and Rishi's reported scepticism about backing Ukraine, he's really beginning to look like Putin's useful idiot in this contest. 😠
Is there still argument about how best to tackle inflation?
FUEL DUTY, you bunch of muppets in Parliament. Rising transport costs are feeding into inflation everywhere at the moment, yet the Treasury blob and the green lobby can’t even countenance the idea that £2/litre petrol and diesel isn’t fantastic for the environment, which is their primary consideration.
The price electicity of demand for road fuel is 1.1, that is that doubling the price reduces demand by 10%. Just about the only thing less price electric are cigarettes.
The high price of fuel just means that people forego other spending, not that they consume less fuel.
It's elasticity rather than electricity but again - we all know that the only solution is to cut fuel duty - nothing else will solve anything.
And the annoying bit is that fuel duty is dying anyway as people shift to electric cars.
Ha ha, autocorrect stitched me up there, and someone (as always) noticed it before the edit!
Yes, government needs a strategy for how they replace the £40bn of revenue they currently get from taxing cars and petrol, when almost everyone drives an EV. Don’t also forget an unknown number of billions in company car BIK, which is already reducing quickly.
Once electric vehicles become the norm I'm sure they'll be taxed as a standard BiK. I'd be surprised if it raised more than £3-4bn a year currently.
Its not just clean and attractive, its cheaper than coal, cheaper than gas, cheaper than offshore wind, tidal or nuclear.
Yes its not perfectly reliable at all times, but its the cheapest form of electricity available to us so we should get as much of it as we can as fast as we can.
Ramping up investment in onshore wind would mean we need less gas in the winter and have cheaper energy bills. There's no downside.
Between this and Rishi's reported scepticism about backing Ukraine, he's really beginning to look like Putin's useful idiot in this contest. 😠
I oppose it in parts of the Highlands. National Park regulations aren't as strong up here, and the SG regularly overrides local planning decisions to circle the borders of them with turbines. Imagine if they did the same to the Lake District?
It's the huge roads across the moors and hills that are most problematic, imo. Chuck them up near our population centres, or just spam offshore
Is there still argument about how best to tackle inflation?
FUEL DUTY, you bunch of muppets in Parliament. Rising transport costs are feeding into inflation everywhere at the moment, yet the Treasury blob and the green lobby can’t even countenance the idea that £2/litre petrol and diesel isn’t fantastic for the environment, which is their primary consideration.
The price electicity of demand for road fuel is 1.1, that is that doubling the price reduces demand by 10%. Just about the only thing less price electric are cigarettes.
The high price of fuel just means that people forego other spending, not that they consume less fuel.
It's elasticity rather than electricity but again - we all know that the only solution is to cut fuel duty - nothing else will solve anything.
And the annoying bit is that fuel duty is dying anyway as people shift to electric cars.
Ha ha, autocorrect stitched me up there, and someone (as always) noticed it before the edit!
Yes, government needs a strategy for how they replace the £40bn of revenue they currently get from taxing cars and petrol, when almost everyone drives an EV. Don’t also forget an unknown number of billions in company car BIK, which is already reducing quickly.
Once electric vehicles become the norm I'm sure they'll be taxed as a standard BiK. I'd be surprised if it raised more than £3-4bn a year currently.
The ad attracted 27, yes 27, total 27, not 27 hundred or 27 thousand, 27 complaints...of which I think half are providing comment in that BBC article....and yet investigation, major news story etc etc etc. So basically if I get 20 of my mates to rant to the ASA about an ad they will investigate?
Its not just clean and attractive, its cheaper than coal, cheaper than gas, cheaper than offshore wind, tidal or nuclear.
Yes its not perfectly reliable at all times, but its the cheapest form of electricity available to us so we should get as much of it as we can as fast as we can.
Ramping up investment in onshore wind would mean we need less gas in the winter and have cheaper energy bills. There's no downside.
Between this and Rishi's reported scepticism about backing Ukraine, he's really beginning to look like Putin's useful idiot in this contest. 😠
I oppose it in parts of the Highlands. National Park regulations aren't as strong up here, and the SG regularly overrides local planning decisions to circle the borders of them with turbines. Imagine if they did the same to the Lake District?
It's the huge roads across the moors and hills that are most problematic, imo. Chuck them up near our population centres, or just spam offshore
Sounds smart to circle the borders of them with turbines. They absolutely should do that in the Lake District too. 👍
Inside the National Park maybe don't put them up, though that's a shame but fair enough, but outside the border? Absolutely put them there.
Its not just clean and attractive, its cheaper than coal, cheaper than gas, cheaper than offshore wind, tidal or nuclear.
Yes its not perfectly reliable at all times, but its the cheapest form of electricity available to us so we should get as much of it as we can as fast as we can.
Ramping up investment in onshore wind would mean we need less gas in the winter and have cheaper energy bills. There's no downside.
Between this and Rishi's reported scepticism about backing Ukraine, he's really beginning to look like Putin's useful idiot in this contest. 😠
I oppose it in parts of the Highlands. National Park regulations aren't as strong up here, and the SG regularly overrides local planning decisions to circle the borders of them with turbines. Imagine if they did the same to the Lake District?
It's the huge roads across the moors and hills that are most problematic, imo. Chuck them up near our population centres, or just spam offshore
The kind of idiot who has noticed that offshore now seems to be better value.
Rishi showing a bit of leg on tax and renewable energy tells me he knows he's going to be up against Truss.
I think she goes odds on to 60:40 if she goes through but it gets back nearer to 50:50 in a few weeks as he offers more on his policy platform to members and broader public opinion polling comes into focus.
Its not just clean and attractive, its cheaper than coal, cheaper than gas, cheaper than offshore wind, tidal or nuclear.
Yes its not perfectly reliable at all times, but its the cheapest form of electricity available to us so we should get as much of it as we can as fast as we can.
Ramping up investment in onshore wind would mean we need less gas in the winter and have cheaper energy bills. There's no downside.
Between this and Rishi's reported scepticism about backing Ukraine, he's really beginning to look like Putin's useful idiot in this contest. 😠
I oppose it in parts of the Highlands. National Park regulations aren't as strong up here, and the SG regularly overrides local planning decisions to circle the borders of them with turbines. Imagine if they did the same to the Lake District?
It's the huge roads across the moors and hills that are most problematic, imo. Chuck them up near our population centres, or just spam offshore
Sounds smart to circle the borders of them with turbines. They absolutely should do that in the Lake District too. 👍
Inside the National Park maybe don't put them up, though that's a shame but fair enough, but outside the border? Absolutely put them there.
The Lake District IS the National Park. There isn't anywhere which is part of the Lake District which is not part of the National Park.
Its not just clean and attractive, its cheaper than coal, cheaper than gas, cheaper than offshore wind, tidal or nuclear.
Yes its not perfectly reliable at all times, but its the cheapest form of electricity available to us so we should get as much of it as we can as fast as we can.
Ramping up investment in onshore wind would mean we need less gas in the winter and have cheaper energy bills. There's no downside.
Between this and Rishi's reported scepticism about backing Ukraine, he's really beginning to look like Putin's useful idiot in this contest. 😠
I oppose it in parts of the Highlands. National Park regulations aren't as strong up here, and the SG regularly overrides local planning decisions to circle the borders of them with turbines. Imagine if they did the same to the Lake District?
It's the huge roads across the moors and hills that are most problematic, imo. Chuck them up near our population centres, or just spam offshore
The kind of idiot who has noticed that offshore now seems to be better value.
While I agree, I am by no means convinced that we have seen the last of the Big Dog! While he is in Parliament I think he will make some trouble for his successor; he has after all apparently little sense of loyalty. And certainly not to anyone who takes over from him and doesn't give him a job.
That's a thought of course; former Prime Minister's have held seats in other peoples cabinets in the past!
Er, you think he'd be loyal just because his replacement gave him a cabinet post?
Its not just clean and attractive, its cheaper than coal, cheaper than gas, cheaper than offshore wind, tidal or nuclear.
Yes its not perfectly reliable at all times, but its the cheapest form of electricity available to us so we should get as much of it as we can as fast as we can.
Ramping up investment in onshore wind would mean we need less gas in the winter and have cheaper energy bills. There's no downside.
Between this and Rishi's reported scepticism about backing Ukraine, he's really beginning to look like Putin's useful idiot in this contest. 😠
I oppose it in parts of the Highlands. National Park regulations aren't as strong up here, and the SG regularly overrides local planning decisions to circle the borders of them with turbines. Imagine if they did the same to the Lake District?
It's the huge roads across the moors and hills that are most problematic, imo. Chuck them up near our population centres, or just spam offshore
Sounds smart to circle the borders of them with turbines. They absolutely should do that in the Lake District too. 👍
Inside the National Park maybe don't put them up, though that's a shame but fair enough, but outside the border? Absolutely put them there.
The Lake District IS the National Park. There isn't anywhere which is part of the Lake District which is not part of the National Park.
Aye but there's no reason that outside the border of the National Park shouldn't have them put up encircling the Lake District's National Park. I've said before there ought to be much more wind turbines along the M6 in Cumbria on the way towards Penrith.
It seems weird for eabhal to object to putting the vote turbines up outside of the Park, not inside it.
Its not just clean and attractive, its cheaper than coal, cheaper than gas, cheaper than offshore wind, tidal or nuclear.
Yes its not perfectly reliable at all times, but its the cheapest form of electricity available to us so we should get as much of it as we can as fast as we can.
Ramping up investment in onshore wind would mean we need less gas in the winter and have cheaper energy bills. There's no downside.
Between this and Rishi's reported scepticism about backing Ukraine, he's really beginning to look like Putin's useful idiot in this contest. 😠
I oppose it in parts of the Highlands. National Park regulations aren't as strong up here, and the SG regularly overrides local planning decisions to circle the borders of them with turbines. Imagine if they did the same to the Lake District?
It's the huge roads across the moors and hills that are most problematic, imo. Chuck them up near our population centres, or just spam offshore
Sounds smart to circle the borders of them with turbines. They absolutely should do that in the Lake District too. 👍
Inside the National Park maybe don't put them up, though that's a shame but fair enough, but outside the border? Absolutely put them there.
You can't do it in England in order to protect the views from the parks. I don't think we should unnecessarily trash our natural heritage to provide energy to our cities.
Another example is the hydro scheme in Glen Etive. One of our best spots dug up for the equivalent of just one offshore turbine.
Is there still argument about how best to tackle inflation?
FUEL DUTY, you bunch of muppets in Parliament. Rising transport costs are feeding into inflation everywhere at the moment, yet the Treasury blob and the green lobby can’t even countenance the idea that £2/litre petrol and diesel isn’t fantastic for the environment, which is their primary consideration.
The price electicity of demand for road fuel is 1.1, that is that doubling the price reduces demand by 10%. Just about the only thing less price electric are cigarettes.
The high price of fuel just means that people forego other spending, not that they consume less fuel.
It's elasticity rather than electricity but again - we all know that the only solution is to cut fuel duty - nothing else will solve anything.
And the annoying bit is that fuel duty is dying anyway as people shift to electric cars.
Ha ha, autocorrect stitched me up there, and someone (as always) noticed it before the edit!
Yes, government needs a strategy for how they replace the £40bn of revenue they currently get from taxing cars and petrol, when almost everyone drives an EV. Don’t also forget an unknown number of billions in company car BIK, which is already reducing quickly.
Once electric vehicles become the norm I'm sure they'll be taxed as a standard BiK. I'd be surprised if it raised more than £3-4bn a year currently.
Is there still argument about how best to tackle inflation?
FUEL DUTY, you bunch of muppets in Parliament. Rising transport costs are feeding into inflation everywhere at the moment, yet the Treasury blob and the green lobby can’t even countenance the idea that £2/litre petrol and diesel isn’t fantastic for the environment, which is their primary consideration.
The price electicity of demand for road fuel is 1.1, that is that doubling the price reduces demand by 10%. Just about the only thing less price electric are cigarettes.
The high price of fuel just means that people forego other spending, not that they consume less fuel.
It's elasticity rather than electricity but again - we all know that the only solution is to cut fuel duty - nothing else will solve anything.
And the annoying bit is that fuel duty is dying anyway as people shift to electric cars.
Ha ha, autocorrect stitched me up there, and someone (as always) noticed it before the edit!
Yes, government needs a strategy for how they replace the £40bn of revenue they currently get from taxing cars and petrol, when almost everyone drives an EV. Don’t also forget an unknown number of billions in company car BIK, which is already reducing quickly.
Once electric vehicles become the norm I'm sure they'll be taxed as a standard BiK. I'd be surprised if it raised more than £3-4bn a year currently.
Road-pricing is the solution - and a smart meter on the dashboard. With my annual mileage down from 25k to 5k I am wholeheartedly in favour.
The ad attracted 27, yes 27, total 27, not 27 hundred or 27 thousand, 27 complaints...of which I think half are providing comment in that BBC article....and yet investigation, major news story etc etc etc. So basically if I get 20 of my mates to rant to the ASA about an ad they will investigate?
Pretty much, yes. I've had an ad I've worked on receive complaints and subsequently be investigated (and cleared fwiw). It happens a lot; worth looking at their rulings for context. Sometimes an ad may only garner a few complaints but genuinely does need taking down. We actually have some of the best industry self-regulation in the world when it comes to advertising (and, for what it's worth, the best TV audience measurement).
Its not just clean and attractive, its cheaper than coal, cheaper than gas, cheaper than offshore wind, tidal or nuclear.
Yes its not perfectly reliable at all times, but its the cheapest form of electricity available to us so we should get as much of it as we can as fast as we can.
Ramping up investment in onshore wind would mean we need less gas in the winter and have cheaper energy bills. There's no downside.
Between this and Rishi's reported scepticism about backing Ukraine, he's really beginning to look like Putin's useful idiot in this contest. 😠
I oppose it in parts of the Highlands. National Park regulations aren't as strong up here, and the SG regularly overrides local planning decisions to circle the borders of them with turbines. Imagine if they did the same to the Lake District?
It's the huge roads across the moors and hills that are most problematic, imo. Chuck them up near our population centres, or just spam offshore
Sounds smart to circle the borders of them with turbines. They absolutely should do that in the Lake District too. 👍
Inside the National Park maybe don't put them up, though that's a shame but fair enough, but outside the border? Absolutely put them there.
You can't do it in England in order to protect the views from the parks. I don't think we should unnecessarily trash our natural heritage to provide energy to our cities.
Another example is the hydro scheme in Glen Etive. One of our best spots dug up for the equivalent of just one offshore turbine.
What ridiculous crap, 'protecting the views from the park'.
The park itself should be the border of where development doesn't exist. If you want the 'views' protected then make whatever land that 'view' is should be within the confines of the park, but realistically that has already been done, the parks are already quite big, its easily possible to be in the park and unable to see outside the park's borders.
If you're looking outside of the park from inside it, there's no reason there shouldn't be development outside of the park. There's always going to be a border somewhere, and outside the border should be able to be fully developed.
Its not just clean and attractive, its cheaper than coal, cheaper than gas, cheaper than offshore wind, tidal or nuclear.
Yes its not perfectly reliable at all times, but its the cheapest form of electricity available to us so we should get as much of it as we can as fast as we can.
Ramping up investment in onshore wind would mean we need less gas in the winter and have cheaper energy bills. There's no downside.
Between this and Rishi's reported scepticism about backing Ukraine, he's really beginning to look like Putin's useful idiot in this contest. 😠
I oppose it in parts of the Highlands. National Park regulations aren't as strong up here, and the SG regularly overrides local planning decisions to circle the borders of them with turbines. Imagine if they did the same to the Lake District?
It's the huge roads across the moors and hills that are most problematic, imo. Chuck them up near our population centres, or just spam offshore
Sounds smart to circle the borders of them with turbines. They absolutely should do that in the Lake District too. 👍
Inside the National Park maybe don't put them up, though that's a shame but fair enough, but outside the border? Absolutely put them there.
The Lake District IS the National Park. There isn't anywhere which is part of the Lake District which is not part of the National Park.
And the Yorkshire Dales (extension) runs along most of the way along the Lake District's eastern border... I believe there is already a lot to the West of the park as they can make use of the connection to Sellafield @Cyclefree is probably in a better position to confirm though
Onshore winds next to motorways, railway lines etc... would make a lot of sense as there is already disruption to nature anyway. Can't see why anyone would oppose that either.
Its not just clean and attractive, its cheaper than coal, cheaper than gas, cheaper than offshore wind, tidal or nuclear.
Yes its not perfectly reliable at all times, but its the cheapest form of electricity available to us so we should get as much of it as we can as fast as we can.
Ramping up investment in onshore wind would mean we need less gas in the winter and have cheaper energy bills. There's no downside.
Between this and Rishi's reported scepticism about backing Ukraine, he's really beginning to look like Putin's useful idiot in this contest. 😠
Aiui offshore wind is now cheaper than onshore wind, and I think I heard that from Boris the other day.
Its not just clean and attractive, its cheaper than coal, cheaper than gas, cheaper than offshore wind, tidal or nuclear.
Yes its not perfectly reliable at all times, but its the cheapest form of electricity available to us so we should get as much of it as we can as fast as we can.
Ramping up investment in onshore wind would mean we need less gas in the winter and have cheaper energy bills. There's no downside.
Between this and Rishi's reported scepticism about backing Ukraine, he's really beginning to look like Putin's useful idiot in this contest. 😠
I oppose it in parts of the Highlands. National Park regulations aren't as strong up here, and the SG regularly overrides local planning decisions to circle the borders of them with turbines. Imagine if they did the same to the Lake District?
It's the huge roads across the moors and hills that are most problematic, imo. Chuck them up near our population centres, or just spam offshore
Sounds smart to circle the borders of them with turbines. They absolutely should do that in the Lake District too. 👍
Inside the National Park maybe don't put them up, though that's a shame but fair enough, but outside the border? Absolutely put them there.
The Lake District IS the National Park. There isn't anywhere which is part of the Lake District which is not part of the National Park.
And the Yorkshire Dales (extension) runs along most of the way along the Lake District's eastern border... I believe there is already a lot to the West of the park as they can make use of the connection to Sellafield @Cyclefree is probably in a better position to confirm though
Yes; pretty much any hillside in Cumbria not in a National Park seems to have turbines.
Its not just clean and attractive, its cheaper than coal, cheaper than gas, cheaper than offshore wind, tidal or nuclear.
Yes its not perfectly reliable at all times, but its the cheapest form of electricity available to us so we should get as much of it as we can as fast as we can.
Ramping up investment in onshore wind would mean we need less gas in the winter and have cheaper energy bills. There's no downside.
Between this and Rishi's reported scepticism about backing Ukraine, he's really beginning to look like Putin's useful idiot in this contest. 😠
I oppose it in parts of the Highlands. National Park regulations aren't as strong up here, and the SG regularly overrides local planning decisions to circle the borders of them with turbines. Imagine if they did the same to the Lake District?
It's the huge roads across the moors and hills that are most problematic, imo. Chuck them up near our population centres, or just spam offshore
Sounds smart to circle the borders of them with turbines. They absolutely should do that in the Lake District too. 👍
Inside the National Park maybe don't put them up, though that's a shame but fair enough, but outside the border? Absolutely put them there.
You can't do it in England in order to protect the views from the parks. I don't think we should unnecessarily trash our natural heritage to provide energy to our cities.
Another example is the hydro scheme in Glen Etive. One of our best spots dug up for the equivalent of just one offshore turbine.
What ridiculous crap, 'protecting the views from the park'.
The park itself should be the border of where development doesn't exist. If you want the 'views' protected then make whatever land that 'view' is should be within the confines of the park, but realistically that has already been done, the parks are already quite big, its easily possible to be in the park and unable to see outside the park's borders.
If you're looking outside of the park from inside it, there's no reason there shouldn't be development outside of the park. There's always going to be a border somewhere, and outside the border should be able to be fully developed.
Since I live in an area just outside the Lake District National Park, which is about to become part of it, which has a lot of onshore and offshore wind turbines in the area and know quite a few people in the area working in the sector plus Husband is a planning barrister with expertise in this field, perhaps I should join in this conversation?
Nah - much more fun to watch others talk endlessly about stuff they don't much understand.
- Penny Mordaunt vowed to turn generation rent into generation buy with interest-free loans for deposits & forcing ALL banks to take rent into account for credit scores
Radical blueprint for partial loans to repay within 36 months
Its not just clean and attractive, its cheaper than coal, cheaper than gas, cheaper than offshore wind, tidal or nuclear.
Yes its not perfectly reliable at all times, but its the cheapest form of electricity available to us so we should get as much of it as we can as fast as we can.
Ramping up investment in onshore wind would mean we need less gas in the winter and have cheaper energy bills. There's no downside.
Between this and Rishi's reported scepticism about backing Ukraine, he's really beginning to look like Putin's useful idiot in this contest. 😠
I oppose it in parts of the Highlands. National Park regulations aren't as strong up here, and the SG regularly overrides local planning decisions to circle the borders of them with turbines. Imagine if they did the same to the Lake District?
It's the huge roads across the moors and hills that are most problematic, imo. Chuck them up near our population centres, or just spam offshore
Sounds smart to circle the borders of them with turbines. They absolutely should do that in the Lake District too. 👍
Inside the National Park maybe don't put them up, though that's a shame but fair enough, but outside the border? Absolutely put them there.
You can't do it in England in order to protect the views from the parks. I don't think we should unnecessarily trash our natural heritage to provide energy to our cities.
Another example is the hydro scheme in Glen Etive. One of our best spots dug up for the equivalent of just one offshore turbine.
Yes, that was a shocking decision. Glen Etive!
I think we should put 150m turbine 10m from Bart Towers. After all, it is outside the boundary, isn't it? And maybe add a waste recycling plant on the other side.
Mr. Soup, the state tracking every single vehicle on the road sounds rather dystopian.
Out of interest, how frequently would you bill people for this?
I'm afraid Mr. D. that we already live in the dystopia you describe. There are ANPR cameras everywhere and the state records everything. It's the constabulary's most powerful weapon.
I imagine road charges would be levied monthly by direct debit.
Are you still a non-driver, by the way? At least you'd be hors de combat, and no doubt much-envied.
Its not just clean and attractive, its cheaper than coal, cheaper than gas, cheaper than offshore wind, tidal or nuclear.
Yes its not perfectly reliable at all times, but its the cheapest form of electricity available to us so we should get as much of it as we can as fast as we can.
Ramping up investment in onshore wind would mean we need less gas in the winter and have cheaper energy bills. There's no downside.
Between this and Rishi's reported scepticism about backing Ukraine, he's really beginning to look like Putin's useful idiot in this contest. 😠
I oppose it in parts of the Highlands. National Park regulations aren't as strong up here, and the SG regularly overrides local planning decisions to circle the borders of them with turbines. Imagine if they did the same to the Lake District?
It's the huge roads across the moors and hills that are most problematic, imo. Chuck them up near our population centres, or just spam offshore
Sounds smart to circle the borders of them with turbines. They absolutely should do that in the Lake District too. 👍
Inside the National Park maybe don't put them up, though that's a shame but fair enough, but outside the border? Absolutely put them there.
You can't do it in England in order to protect the views from the parks. I don't think we should unnecessarily trash our natural heritage to provide energy to our cities.
Another example is the hydro scheme in Glen Etive. One of our best spots dug up for the equivalent of just one offshore turbine.
What ridiculous crap, 'protecting the views from the park'.
The park itself should be the border of where development doesn't exist. If you want the 'views' protected then make whatever land that 'view' is should be within the confines of the park, but realistically that has already been done, the parks are already quite big, its easily possible to be in the park and unable to see outside the park's borders.
If you're looking outside of the park from inside it, there's no reason there shouldn't be development outside of the park. There's always going to be a border somewhere, and outside the border should be able to be fully developed.
Since I live in an area just outside the Lake District National Park, which is about to become part of it, which has a lot of onshore and offshore wind turbines in the area and know quite a few people in the area working in the sector plus Husband is a planning barrister with expertise in this field, perhaps I should join in this conversation?
Nah - much more fun to watch others talk endlessly about stuff they don't much understand.
😀
Fair enough! My understanding was that an objection could be lodged in England on that basis, but not in Scotland.
The ad attracted 27, yes 27, total 27, not 27 hundred or 27 thousand, 27 complaints...of which I think half are providing comment in that BBC article....and yet investigation, major news story etc etc etc. So basically if I get 20 of my mates to rant to the ASA about an ad they will investigate?
Pretty much, yes. I've had an ad I've worked on receive complaints and subsequently be investigated (and cleared fwiw). It happens a lot; worth looking at their rulings for context. Sometimes an ad may only garner a few complaints but genuinely does need taking down. We actually have some of the best industry self-regulation in the world when it comes to advertising (and, for what it's worth, the best TV audience measurement).
The ASA is high on my list of "effectively unaccountable things to abolish". They force changes to hundreds of adverts every week, and are proud of their "act on a single complaint" ethos.
Its not just clean and attractive, its cheaper than coal, cheaper than gas, cheaper than offshore wind, tidal or nuclear.
Yes its not perfectly reliable at all times, but its the cheapest form of electricity available to us so we should get as much of it as we can as fast as we can.
Ramping up investment in onshore wind would mean we need less gas in the winter and have cheaper energy bills. There's no downside.
Between this and Rishi's reported scepticism about backing Ukraine, he's really beginning to look like Putin's useful idiot in this contest. 😠
Aiui offshore wind is now cheaper than onshore wind, and I think I heard that from Boris the other day.
Here we go, from Boris's speech in Monday's confidence debate:-
Last week I went up in one of our 148 Typhoon fighters, and I flew out over the North sea, over Doggerland. The drowned prairies are now being harvested again with tens of gigawatts of clean green energy. We will have 50 GW of offshore wind by 2050, and thanks to this Government’s activism I am proud to say that offshore wind is now cheaper than onshore wind. I looked down at that ghostly white forest of windmills in the sea, financed with ever growing sums from international investors, and I thought, “This is how we will fix our energy problems; this is how Europe should be ending its dependence on Putin’s gas.”
This would nicely justify Rishi siding with nimbies over onshore wind.
It is a bit worrying that HMG is unconcerned about the impact of yet more money flowing out of the country to buy electricity from "international investors" but such is the new orthodoxy.
- Penny Mordaunt vowed to turn generation rent into generation buy with interest-free loans for deposits & forcing ALL banks to take rent into account for credit scores
Radical blueprint for partial loans to repay within 36 months
Great so nothing about housing costs, just more bubble inflation. BUILD MORE HOUSES
That sounds dangerously like the mid 2000s where we had with 110% mortgages and we all know how that worked out. Also normally when people buy a house to get on the ladder they have all sorts of initial costs for refurb work, white goods etc etc etc, seems like for a lot of people on normal wages would struggle to pay back a loan in 36 months.
If I were to be made PM next month, I would use any fiscal headroom to suspend fuel duty and VAT on all energy. The next financial quarter headline inflation would show a significant fall. The financial quarters that followed would see further falls in headline inflation, as the energy price reduction fed through indirectly to other goods and services.
In turn, this would impact rational expectations of inflation, take pressure off pay negotiations and stop in its tracks the circularity of high inflation expectations chasing up wages which in turn causes higher inflation expectations
We’d have made a meaningful impact on the second half of stag-flation efficiently and without fuss. The easing impact on disposable incomes would also help boost consumer and business spending. While being like crack cocaine to the electorate.
Times like these we need to get creative using fiscal policy as a potent weapon in controlling inflation and impacting growth, not just monetary policy.
Onshore winds next to motorways, railway lines etc... would make a lot of sense as there is already disruption to nature anyway. Can't see why anyone would oppose that either.
Agree - especially something like the A9 corridor which already has pylons running through it (despite being in a national park)
Onshore winds next to motorways, railway lines etc... would make a lot of sense as there is already disruption to nature anyway. Can't see why anyone would oppose that either.
Agree - especially something like the A9 corridor which already has pylons running through it (despite being in a national park)
Oh for a proper large scale programme of burying high voltage campaigns under the countryside rather than on top of it.
Is there still argument about how best to tackle inflation?
FUEL DUTY, you bunch of muppets in Parliament. Rising transport costs are feeding into inflation everywhere at the moment, yet the Treasury blob and the green lobby can’t even countenance the idea that £2/litre petrol and diesel isn’t fantastic for the environment, which is their primary consideration.
The price electicity of demand for road fuel is 1.1, that is that doubling the price reduces demand by 10%. Just about the only thing less price electric are cigarettes.
The high price of fuel just means that people forego other spending, not that they consume less fuel.
It's elasticity rather than electricity but again - we all know that the only solution is to cut fuel duty - nothing else will solve anything.
And the annoying bit is that fuel duty is dying anyway as people shift to electric cars.
Ha ha, autocorrect stitched me up there, and someone (as always) noticed it before the edit!
Yes, government needs a strategy for how they replace the £40bn of revenue they currently get from taxing cars and petrol, when almost everyone drives an EV. Don’t also forget an unknown number of billions in company car BIK, which is already reducing quickly.
Once electric vehicles become the norm I'm sure they'll be taxed as a standard BiK. I'd be surprised if it raised more than £3-4bn a year currently.
Road-pricing is the solution - and a smart meter on the dashboard. With my annual mileage down from 25k to 5k I am wholeheartedly in favour.
Prevent moronic planning people rejecting phone masts and wind turbines.
Abolish the planning system would fix most of our problems as a society.
We'd get houses, phone masts and turbines all built.
"Planning" should belong to communist societies, not free ones.
What is funny is, you put your family in a car and drive to Cumbria for holidays. not to Slough or Milton Keynes. Why is that?
Because Penrith is 70 miles from where I live and has stuff I'm interested in, whereas Slough and MK are about 200 miles away and don't.
I've also had holidays in Liverpool, Chester, Manchester, London, Edinburgh, overseas and many other places too. I've worked in MK, never saw anything there that I couldn't find in the NW to justify a holiday there though. Its a good city I wouldn't mind living or working in though in the future, well built for cars. 👍
Brains Trust: Is silver a good material for champagne flutes?
(Family member with silver wedding anniversary imminent.)
It tarnishes, in general, especially with sulphur compounds in the air, packing materials, etc. Wine contains sulphur, to some extent. And a quick check confirms that it affects the taste of the wine if drunk from.
Maybe some glasses (they always break sooner or later) and a silver coaster/bottle holder added?
Though lead crystal glasses can leach lead into wine if left too long ...
Champagne is one of the more acidic wines, too.
I would go for stainless steel - you can get some very nice mirror finished champagne flutes in stainless now.
Its not just clean and attractive, its cheaper than coal, cheaper than gas, cheaper than offshore wind, tidal or nuclear.
Yes its not perfectly reliable at all times, but its the cheapest form of electricity available to us so we should get as much of it as we can as fast as we can.
Ramping up investment in onshore wind would mean we need less gas in the winter and have cheaper energy bills. There's no downside.
Between this and Rishi's reported scepticism about backing Ukraine, he's really beginning to look like Putin's useful idiot in this contest. 😠
Aiui offshore wind is now cheaper than onshore wind, and I think I heard that from Boris the other day.
Here we go, from Boris's speech in Monday's confidence debate:-
Last week I went up in one of our 148 Typhoon fighters, and I flew out over the North sea, over Doggerland. The drowned prairies are now being harvested again with tens of gigawatts of clean green energy. We will have 50 GW of offshore wind by 2050, and thanks to this Government’s activism I am proud to say that offshore wind is now cheaper than onshore wind. I looked down at that ghostly white forest of windmills in the sea, financed with ever growing sums from international investors, and I thought, “This is how we will fix our energy problems; this is how Europe should be ending its dependence on Putin’s gas.”
This would nicely justify Rishi siding with nimbies over onshore wind.
It is a bit worrying that HMG is unconcerned about the impact of yet more money flowing out of the country to buy electricity from "international investors" but such is the new orthodoxy.
Prevent moronic planning people rejecting phone masts and wind turbines.
Abolish the planning system would fix most of our problems as a society.
We'd get houses, phone masts and turbines all built.
"Planning" should belong to communist societies, not free ones.
What is funny is, you put your family in a car and drive to Cumbria for holidays. not to Slough or Milton Keynes. Why is that?
Because Penrith is 70 miles from where I live and has stuff I'm interested in, whereas Slough and MK are about 200 miles away and don't.
I've also had holidays in Liverpool, Chester, Manchester, London, Edinburgh, overseas and many other places too. I've worked in MK, never saw anything there that I couldn't find in the NW to justify a holiday there though. Its a good city I wouldn't mind living or working in though in the future, well built for cars. 👍
They don't have concrete cattle in the NW? Huge if true.
Its not just clean and attractive, its cheaper than coal, cheaper than gas, cheaper than offshore wind, tidal or nuclear.
Yes its not perfectly reliable at all times, but its the cheapest form of electricity available to us so we should get as much of it as we can as fast as we can.
Ramping up investment in onshore wind would mean we need less gas in the winter and have cheaper energy bills. There's no downside.
Between this and Rishi's reported scepticism about backing Ukraine, he's really beginning to look like Putin's useful idiot in this contest. 😠
Aiui offshore wind is now cheaper than onshore wind, and I think I heard that from Boris the other day.
Here we go, from Boris's speech in Monday's confidence debate:-
Last week I went up in one of our 148 Typhoon fighters, and I flew out over the North sea, over Doggerland. The drowned prairies are now being harvested again with tens of gigawatts of clean green energy. We will have 50 GW of offshore wind by 2050, and thanks to this Government’s activism I am proud to say that offshore wind is now cheaper than onshore wind. I looked down at that ghostly white forest of windmills in the sea, financed with ever growing sums from international investors, and I thought, “This is how we will fix our energy problems; this is how Europe should be ending its dependence on Putin’s gas.”
This would nicely justify Rishi siding with nimbies over onshore wind.
It is a bit worrying that HMG is unconcerned about the impact of yet more money flowing out of the country to buy electricity from "international investors" but such is the new orthodoxy.
The ad attracted 27, yes 27, total 27, not 27 hundred or 27 thousand, 27 complaints...of which I think half are providing comment in that BBC article....and yet investigation, major news story etc etc etc. So basically if I get 20 of my mates to rant to the ASA about an ad they will investigate?
Pretty much, yes. I've had an ad I've worked on receive complaints and subsequently be investigated (and cleared fwiw). It happens a lot; worth looking at their rulings for context. Sometimes an ad may only garner a few complaints but genuinely does need taking down. We actually have some of the best industry self-regulation in the world when it comes to advertising (and, for what it's worth, the best TV audience measurement).
The ASA is high on my list of "effectively unaccountable things to abolish". They force changes to hundreds of adverts every week, and are proud of their "act on a single complaint" ethos.
Merge them into OFCOM, another QANGO on the bonfire.
To stop a big Labour lead in seats the Tories need to address the blue wall issue, there is no evidence, anywhere, that Labour are making anything more than sluggish to very modest progress against a death roll government.
Truss sadly is likely the kiss of death to Tory MPs in Remain seats in the blue wall, the LDs will be cheering if she wins
Hope you are right but we have had too many false dawns
Poll out today has the LDs up to 16% if Truss is Tory leader and Labour 12% ahead of the Tories
Is there still argument about how best to tackle inflation?
FUEL DUTY, you bunch of muppets in Parliament. Rising transport costs are feeding into inflation everywhere at the moment, yet the Treasury blob and the green lobby can’t even countenance the idea that £2/litre petrol and diesel isn’t fantastic for the environment, which is their primary consideration.
The price electicity of demand for road fuel is 1.1, that is that doubling the price reduces demand by 10%. Just about the only thing less price electric are cigarettes.
The high price of fuel just means that people forego other spending, not that they consume less fuel.
It's elasticity rather than electricity but again - we all know that the only solution is to cut fuel duty - nothing else will solve anything.
And the annoying bit is that fuel duty is dying anyway as people shift to electric cars.
Ha ha, autocorrect stitched me up there, and someone (as always) noticed it before the edit!
Yes, government needs a strategy for how they replace the £40bn of revenue they currently get from taxing cars and petrol, when almost everyone drives an EV. Don’t also forget an unknown number of billions in company car BIK, which is already reducing quickly.
Once electric vehicles become the norm I'm sure they'll be taxed as a standard BiK. I'd be surprised if it raised more than £3-4bn a year currently.
Road-pricing is the solution - and a smart meter on the dashboard. With my annual mileage down from 25k to 5k I am wholeheartedly in favour.
Can scale the pricing by vehicle weight too.
Not just weight - width is increasingly a problem. SUVs halt the traffic to give way to each other where 'normal' cars would pass with no problem.
Its not just clean and attractive, its cheaper than coal, cheaper than gas, cheaper than offshore wind, tidal or nuclear.
Yes its not perfectly reliable at all times, but its the cheapest form of electricity available to us so we should get as much of it as we can as fast as we can.
Ramping up investment in onshore wind would mean we need less gas in the winter and have cheaper energy bills. There's no downside.
Between this and Rishi's reported scepticism about backing Ukraine, he's really beginning to look like Putin's useful idiot in this contest. 😠
Aiui offshore wind is now cheaper than onshore wind, and I think I heard that from Boris the other day.
That was the case for the latest strike price contracts. I think that it's because the turbines used offshore are now significantly larger, and they've probably improved some of the processes for installing the turbines bases, etc.
Onshore winds next to motorways, railway lines etc... would make a lot of sense as there is already disruption to nature anyway. Can't see why anyone would oppose that either.
Agree - especially something like the A9 corridor which already has pylons running through it (despite being in a national park)
Oh for a proper large scale programme of burying high voltage campaigns under the countryside rather than on top of it.
Massive debate/argument over a proposal to do that in Suffolk and Northeast Essex!
The ad attracted 27, yes 27, total 27, not 27 hundred or 27 thousand, 27 complaints...of which I think half are providing comment in that BBC article....and yet investigation, major news story etc etc etc. So basically if I get 20 of my mates to rant to the ASA about an ad they will investigate?
Pretty much, yes. I've had an ad I've worked on receive complaints and subsequently be investigated (and cleared fwiw). It happens a lot; worth looking at their rulings for context. Sometimes an ad may only garner a few complaints but genuinely does need taking down. We actually have some of the best industry self-regulation in the world when it comes to advertising (and, for what it's worth, the best TV audience measurement).
The ASA is high on my list of "effectively unaccountable things to abolish". They force changes to hundreds of adverts every week, and are proud of their "act on a single complaint" ethos.
Merge them into OFCOM, another QANGO on the bonfire.
They are quite fundamentally different.
The ASA is a collection of worthies collected by the industry.
Onshore winds next to motorways, railway lines etc... would make a lot of sense as there is already disruption to nature anyway. Can't see why anyone would oppose that either.
Agree - especially something like the A9 corridor which already has pylons running through it (despite being in a national park)
Oh for a proper large scale programme of burying high voltage campaigns under the countryside rather than on top of it.
Massive debate/argument over a proposal to do that in Suffolk and Northeast Essex!
Its not just clean and attractive, its cheaper than coal, cheaper than gas, cheaper than offshore wind, tidal or nuclear.
Yes its not perfectly reliable at all times, but its the cheapest form of electricity available to us so we should get as much of it as we can as fast as we can.
Ramping up investment in onshore wind would mean we need less gas in the winter and have cheaper energy bills. There's no downside.
Between this and Rishi's reported scepticism about backing Ukraine, he's really beginning to look like Putin's useful idiot in this contest. 😠
Aiui offshore wind is now cheaper than onshore wind, and I think I heard that from Boris the other day.
Here we go, from Boris's speech in Monday's confidence debate:-
Last week I went up in one of our 148 Typhoon fighters, and I flew out over the North sea, over Doggerland. The drowned prairies are now being harvested again with tens of gigawatts of clean green energy. We will have 50 GW of offshore wind by 2050, and thanks to this Government’s activism I am proud to say that offshore wind is now cheaper than onshore wind. I looked down at that ghostly white forest of windmills in the sea, financed with ever growing sums from international investors, and I thought, “This is how we will fix our energy problems; this is how Europe should be ending its dependence on Putin’s gas.”
This would nicely justify Rishi siding with nimbies over onshore wind.
It is a bit worrying that HMG is unconcerned about the impact of yet more money flowing out of the country to buy electricity from "international investors" but such is the new orthodoxy.
Is that in fact true, offshore being cheaper? I can see economies of scale and more intense wind. but obvious costs of offshore work.
The crossover is close. The current offshore designs are 250m (850’) tall, and offer economies of scale beyond anything that would get permission onshore.
The ad attracted 27, yes 27, total 27, not 27 hundred or 27 thousand, 27 complaints...of which I think half are providing comment in that BBC article....and yet investigation, major news story etc etc etc. So basically if I get 20 of my mates to rant to the ASA about an ad they will investigate?
Pretty much, yes. I've had an ad I've worked on receive complaints and subsequently be investigated (and cleared fwiw). It happens a lot; worth looking at their rulings for context. Sometimes an ad may only garner a few complaints but genuinely does need taking down. We actually have some of the best industry self-regulation in the world when it comes to advertising (and, for what it's worth, the best TV audience measurement).
The ASA is high on my list of "effectively unaccountable things to abolish". They force changes to hundreds of adverts every week, and are proud of their "act on a single complaint" ethos.
Merge them into OFCOM, another QANGO on the bonfire.
They are quite fundamentally different.
The ASA is a collection of worthies collected by the industry.
Even more reason to add them to the bonfire. No need for two QANGOs watching TV all day.
Onshore winds next to motorways, railway lines etc... would make a lot of sense as there is already disruption to nature anyway. Can't see why anyone would oppose that either.
Agree - especially something like the A9 corridor which already has pylons running through it (despite being in a national park)
Oh for a proper large scale programme of burying high voltage campaigns under the countryside rather than on top of it.
Massive debate/argument over a proposal to do that in Suffolk and Northeast Essex!
Other than cost, what stands against it?
The generating company wants pylons; many of the locals want an underground cable.
Not far from us but I can't make up my mind which I prefer!
Comments
Who else would all these tory voters in safe seats be voting for? I really can't see it at all; Truss could be disastrous but then... really much more disastrous than Boris?
Worst case for them AFAICS would be dropping to 230-250-ish seats, and even that's at the less likely end of things.
We really aren't going anywhere with this campaign, are we?
A dearth of ideas.
If Putin sues for peace on the present borders I suspect we would, grudgingly, slowly, reluctantly (but with much inner relief) yield and agree
Sanctions would be gradually run down. Realpolitik would prevail. The Ukrainians would run insurgences, Russia would have to cope with that
Everyone would happily wave goodbye to crushing inflation and impending famine. Problem “solved”
Not pretty or noble, and possibly wicked, but that’s how I see it playing out now
The one thing we would do is ensure energy independence from Russia and maintain strong defences on the NATO frontier
We don't need 30+ to have a good summer, and as we found out there are some considerable drawbacks.
https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/4001388#Comment_4001388
FUEL DUTY, you bunch of muppets in Parliament. Rising transport costs are feeding into inflation everywhere at the moment, yet the Treasury blob and the green lobby can’t even countenance the idea that £2/litre petrol and diesel isn’t fantastic for the environment, which is their primary consideration.
The price elactivity of demand for road fuel is 1.1, that is that doubling the price reduces demand by 10%. Just about the only thing less price elastic are cigarettes.
The high price of fuel just means that people forego other spending, not that they consume less fuel.
Maybe some glasses (they always break sooner or later) and a silver coaster/bottle holder added?
Though lead crystal glasses can leach lead into wine if left too long ...
NYT - Maryland’s biggest contest is the race to succeed the term-limited governor, Larry Hogan, a moderate Republican who opposes former President Donald J. Trump.
The DEMOCRATIC primary is wide open and features nine candidates, including: Peter Franchot, the state’s comptroller [longtime MD politic]; Tom Perez, an Obama administration labor secretary [and former chair of Democratic National Committee]; and Wes Moore, an Army veteran (also entrepreneur, TV producer, best-selling author endorsed by Oprah WInfrey]
for Governor, total counted 373,590 (est. 61% reported)
Wes Moore 137,118 (36.7%)
Tom Perez 102,278 (27.4%)
Peter Franchot 73,301 (19.6%)
six others 60,893 (16.3%)
SSI - Moore is leading in Baltimore, Baltimore County, Prince George Co, Annapolis rest of southern MD; Perez leads in Montgomery Co (hello TimT!) and Frederick Co; Franchot is leading in mostly rural Eastern Shore and also in Western MD.
NYT - The two leading candidates in the REPUBLICAN primary are Kelly Schulz, who was Mr. Hogan’s secretary of commerce and has his endorsement, and Dan Cox, a state lawmaker who has Mr. Trump’s endorsement.
for Governor, total counted 235.532 (est. 80%)
Dan Cox 132,428 (56.2%)
Kelly Schulz 94,850 (40.3%)
Robin Ficker 5,060 (2.1%)
Joe Werner 3,194 (1.4%)
Cox is carrying all but two counties.
SSI - looks to me like Wes Moore will be Democratic nominee, while AP has called Republican nomination for Dan Cox. AND in a Fall race between a Trump GOPer and a Democrat, the later must be favored in the Free State of Maryland.
And the annoying bit is that fuel duty is dying anyway as people shift to electric cars.
https://twitter.com/saintjavelin/status/1549588126288445441
Usually a year before the team is merged into a more successful team whos KPIs arent collapsing
Bookies are more sanguine. Currently the Tories are favourites to win most seats next time. Realistically, even if LDs etc do really well, most seats is + half of 510 seats, which is 226.
FWIW I now think for the first time that Labour to form the next next govt (putting together Lab maj, Lab min and all the coalition possibilities) is a higher chance than a Tory one. I put it at 55 - 45.
But you have to hand it to the Tories, they are fighting hard to lose, but Labour are not anything like the finished article of a winning machine.
So its a Johnson's Paint Trophy Final, not the World Cup.
http://ww1centenary.oucs.ox.ac.uk/body-and-mind/the-british-army’s-fight-against-venereal-disease-in-the-‘heroic-age-of-prostitution’/
I look forward to unit commanders being sacked for not having their men tie a knot in it as shown in the VD stats. (That did happen.)
https://twitter.com/ElectCalculus/status/1549692527141322752?s=20&t=1CGs5FcaAHU3qZad_hgcRQ
Sunak 140
Truss: 109
Mordaunt: 106
Truss squeezes through but only just. Also means a good chance she doesn't since the margin of error in my machinations is more than 3.
Betting consequence: Since I'm also of the view that she (Truss) would be no shoo-in against Sunak in the Run-Off I'm going to vandalize my nice all-green book and lay her at evens.
Yes, government needs a strategy for how they replace the £40bn of revenue they currently get from taxing cars and petrol, when almost everyone drives an EV. Don’t also forget an unknown number of billions in company car BIK, which is already reducing quickly.
I want to hear the Tory candidates debate longer term stuff.
Lab would have a majority of 40...
Lib Dems up to 39 (and I suspect that could be higher and the Tories even lower).
The simplest way to explain the behavior of any bureaucratic organization is to assume that it is controlled by a cabal of its enemies.
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=kYPC4HqsCLwC&pg=PA196&lpg=PA196&dq=chickenhawk+vd&source=bl&ots=p8O1PJjbOc&sig=ACfU3U0V40_VeY-xPFNGsISAStnYVgS_pQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiOx4fbnIf5AhWTgVwKHXE0DwkQ6AF6BAgqEAM#v=onepage&q=chickenhawk vd&f=false
AND could that be a factor in Sunak's anti-wind farm announcement? Every mickle makes a muckle!
Its not just clean and attractive, its cheaper than coal, cheaper than gas, cheaper than offshore wind, tidal or nuclear.
Yes its not perfectly reliable at all times, but its the cheapest form of electricity available to us so we should get as much of it as we can as fast as we can.
Ramping up investment in onshore wind would mean we need less gas in the winter and have cheaper energy bills. There's no downside.
Between this and Rishi's reported scepticism about backing Ukraine, he's really beginning to look like Putin's useful idiot in this contest. 😠
It's the huge roads across the moors and hills that are most problematic, imo. Chuck them up near our population centres, or just spam offshore
They might just increase the so-called green levy.
https://www.bbc.com/news/newsbeat-62221314
The ad attracted 27, yes 27, total 27, not 27 hundred or 27 thousand, 27 complaints...of which I think half are providing comment in that BBC article....and yet investigation, major news story etc etc etc. So basically if I get 20 of my mates to rant to the ASA about an ad they will investigate?
Inside the National Park maybe don't put them up, though that's a shame but fair enough, but outside the border? Absolutely put them there.
I think she goes odds on to 60:40 if she goes through but it gets back nearer to 50:50 in a few weeks as he offers more on his policy platform to members and broader public opinion polling comes into focus.
QTWTAIN!!
It seems weird for eabhal to object to putting the vote turbines up outside of the Park, not inside it.
Another example is the hydro scheme in Glen Etive. One of our best spots dug up for the equivalent of just one offshore turbine.
https://www.asa.org.uk/codes-and-rulings/rulings.html
Out of interest, how frequently would you bill people for this?
The park itself should be the border of where development doesn't exist. If you want the 'views' protected then make whatever land that 'view' is should be within the confines of the park, but realistically that has already been done, the parks are already quite big, its easily possible to be in the park and unable to see outside the park's borders.
If you're looking outside of the park from inside it, there's no reason there shouldn't be development outside of the park. There's always going to be a border somewhere, and outside the border should be able to be fully developed.
Windfarms in amongst farmable arable crops.
Food and energy security in one place, hardly an AONB being right next to the M1.
Why is Rishi opposed to this ?
Our wind is mostly offshore anyway. Onshore isn't big potatoes.
Prevent moronic planning people rejecting phone masts and wind turbines.
Nah - much more fun to watch others talk endlessly about stuff they don't much understand.
😀
We'd get houses, phone masts and turbines all built.
"Planning" should belong to communist societies, not free ones.
Radical blueprint for partial loans to repay within 36 months
from @hoffman_noa and me
Great so nothing about housing costs, just more bubble inflation. BUILD MORE HOUSES
I think we should put 150m turbine 10m from Bart Towers. After all, it is outside the boundary, isn't it? And maybe add a waste recycling plant on the other side.
I imagine road charges would be levied monthly by direct debit.
Are you still a non-driver, by the way? At least you'd be hors de combat, and no doubt much-envied.
Fair enough! My understanding was that an objection could be lodged in England on that basis, but not in Scotland.
Last week I went up in one of our 148 Typhoon fighters, and I flew out over the North sea, over Doggerland. The drowned prairies are now being harvested again with tens of gigawatts of clean green energy. We will have 50 GW of offshore wind by 2050, and thanks to this Government’s activism I am proud to say that offshore wind is now cheaper than onshore wind. I looked down at that ghostly white forest of windmills in the sea, financed with ever growing sums from international investors, and I thought, “This is how we will fix our energy problems; this is how Europe should be ending its dependence on Putin’s gas.”
This would nicely justify Rishi siding with nimbies over onshore wind.
It is a bit worrying that HMG is unconcerned about the impact of yet more money flowing out of the country to buy electricity from "international investors" but such is the new orthodoxy.
ETA link to Hansard:-
https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2022-07-18/debates/EA7DB1BF-EC36-4C3B-8F73-D47B2523BA53/ConfidenceInHerMajesty’SGovernment
In turn, this would impact rational expectations of inflation, take pressure off pay negotiations and stop in its tracks the circularity of high inflation expectations chasing up wages which in turn causes higher inflation expectations
We’d have made a meaningful impact on the second half of stag-flation efficiently and without fuss. The easing impact on disposable incomes would also help boost consumer and business spending. While being like crack cocaine to the electorate.
Times like these we need to get creative using fiscal policy as a potent weapon in controlling inflation and impacting growth, not just monetary policy.
I've also had holidays in Liverpool, Chester, Manchester, London, Edinburgh, overseas and many other places too. I've worked in MK, never saw anything there that I couldn't find in the NW to justify a holiday there though. Its a good city I wouldn't mind living or working in though in the future, well built for cars. 👍
I think cameras being plentiful is not so bad as being able to track all those vehicles, even before we get to the competence aspect.
The ASA is a collection of worthies collected by the industry.
Not far from us but I can't make up my mind which I prefer!