I'm pro-free trade, but it's very wrong if trade agreements strongly up the stringency of patents on the sly. Heavy patent law is the equivalent of enshrining monopolies. It's anti-competitive market.
I think there's very little doubt that Margaret Thatcher, were she alive today, would be in favour of withdrawal from the EU, as presently constituted.
So there's no point in Conservatives and Conservative-UKIP defectors throwing rocks and abuse each way, and tearing chunks out of each other.
We've worked successfully together in the past, and we can work together in the future.
Amen to that. There's no point in either group cutting off their nose to spite their face.
Both Thatcher and Blair recognised that the swing voters that mattered were those in the upper working class/lower middle class. Cameron's out of touchness made him think they were in the upper middle class. That's why Blair and Thatcher won three elections on the trot, and Cameron couldn't get a majority.
I think there's very little doubt that Margaret Thatcher, were she alive today, would be in favour of withdrawal from the EU, as presently constituted.
The point I was trying to make (which some seem to have missed) is that there is a good argument to be made that Margaret Thatcher ("our" great leader) was the 1st UKIP Prime Minister. Or, if you prefer, the UKIP-sympathetic leader of a UKIP-Conservative alliance that commanded substantial C1/C2 support. And consequently won three decisive election victories.
There are many similar facets and aspects, and (were it not for her age and historic partisan loyalty, like Tebbit) she might well be a member of UKIP today.
So there's no point in Conservatives and Conservative-UKIP defectors throwing rocks and abuse each way, and tearing chunks out of each other.
We've worked together in the past, and we can work together in the future.
"Nigel Lawson, Thatcher's Chancellor of the Exchequer from 1983 to 1989, listed the Thatcherite ideals as:
"Free markets, financial discipline, firm control over public expenditure, tax cuts, nationalism, 'Victorian values' (of the Samuel Smiles self-help variety), privatisation and a dash of populism."
"Nigel Lawson, Thatcher's Chancellor of the Exchequer from 1983 to 1989, listed the Thatcherite ideals as:
"Free markets, financial discipline, firm control over public expenditure, tax cuts, nationalism, 'Victorian values' (of the Samuel Smiles self-help variety), privatisation and a dash of populism."
i.e. David Cameron, except perhaps on the 'Victorian values', although he's keen on the family and public duty.
The main difference is that he and Osborne have been much more successful in cutting public expenditure than Thatcher was, although admittedly that was through necessity. She had different urgent issues to address.
If we really are into a world of fusion reactors in 10 years time, oil and gas prices are going to drop through the floor.
Anyone who had invested in Lockheed Martin would be doing very well, but all the British pension funds with large holdings of BP and Shell shares would be pretty much sunk.
What happens to the FTSE100 index - and all the index tracker funds - if fusion comes onto the scene and oil and gas prices plummet?
Both Thatcher and Blair recognised that the swing voters that mattered were those in the upper working class/lower middle class. Cameron's out of touchness made him think they were in the upper middle class. That's why Blair and Thatcher won three elections on the trot, and Cameron couldn't get a majority.
I'm not sure about Blair, actually. You could argue that a little for 1997, but the wheels were coming off for him (in terms of electoral engagement) as early as 2001, with its dismal turnout. Possibly even earlier.
If we really are into a world of fusion reactors in 10 years time, oil and gas prices are going to drop through the floor.
Anyone who had invested in Lockheed Martin would be doing very well, but all the British pension funds with large holdings of BP and Shell shares would be pretty much sunk.
What happens to the FTSE100 index - and all the index tracker funds - if fusion comes onto the scene and oil and gas prices plummet?
"Nigel Lawson, Thatcher's Chancellor of the Exchequer from 1983 to 1989, listed the Thatcherite ideals as:
"Free markets, financial discipline, firm control over public expenditure, tax cuts, nationalism, 'Victorian values' (of the Samuel Smiles self-help variety), privatisation and a dash of populism."
i.e. David Cameron, except perhaps on the 'Victorian values', although he's keen on the family and public duty.
The main difference is that he and Osborne have been much more successful in cutting public expenditure than Thatcher was, although admittedly that was through necessity. She had different urgent issues to address.
Denis Healey had cut government spending before the 1979 election.
"...after sterling nearly died in 1976, Healey subjected public spending to a SERIOUS haircut. In one year, he cut spending by 4% in real terms - the biggest decline we have ever seen (ex post-war defence rundowns)."
If we really are into a world of fusion reactors in 10 years time, oil and gas prices are going to drop through the floor.
Anyone who had invested in Lockheed Martin would be doing very well, but all the British pension funds with large holdings of BP and Shell shares would be pretty much sunk.
What happens to the FTSE100 index - and all the index tracker funds - if fusion comes onto the scene and oil and gas prices plummet?
Oil will still be needed for making things rather than burning and it won't all happen overnight. There'll be less need for wars in the Middle East and Climate Change will be helped. But yes not everyone will win.
Denis Healey had cut government spending before the 1979 election.
"...after sterling nearly died in 1976, Healey subjected public spending to a SERIOUS haircut. In one year, he cut spending by 4% in real terms - the biggest decline we have ever seen (ex post-war defence rundowns)."
Yes, and we may see a repeat of similar panic spending cuts under Miliband. It's what happens when governments fudge decisions and don't face up to reality - it bites back.
Amen to that. There's no point in either group cutting off their nose to spite their face.
So why are you?
He's tactically voting Tory in Luton South !
Sure, but he's encouraging others to do otherwise.
Well I sincerely hope the good citizens of Solihull, Colne Valley and Battersea vote true blue but I wouldn't mind seeing the good burgers of Broxtowe electing Nick Palmer as their MP - heck I even hope that Eastleigh remains a Lib Dem stronghold...
As for myself, well my vote won't particularly matter compared to others ^_~
If we really are into a world of fusion reactors in 10 years time, oil and gas prices are going to drop through the floor.
Yes, provided:
a) It's practical. Although I say this about every such development. LM is a company with its roots in the military, and a fusion reactor that is 'practical' for a ballistic submarine might not be practical for civilian use. That's why we don't have loads of Rolls Royce PWR reactors in our towns.
b) Whether its raw materials (from the reports, deuterium and tritium) are easily and cost-effectively available.
c) How radioactive the reactor itself becomes, and consequent waste issues.
One thing to note: proliferation of nuclear weapons material should not be a problem with this sort of reactor.
All in all, I'm intrigued. Although I'm preparing myself for a fall.
"Nigel Lawson, Thatcher's Chancellor of the Exchequer from 1983 to 1989, listed the Thatcherite ideals as:
"Free markets, financial discipline, firm control over public expenditure, tax cuts, nationalism, 'Victorian values' (of the Samuel Smiles self-help variety), privatisation and a dash of populism."
i.e. David Cameron, except perhaps on the 'Victorian values', although he's keen on the family and public duty.
The main difference is that he and Osborne have been much more successful in cutting public expenditure than Thatcher was, although admittedly that was through necessity. She had different urgent issues to address.
You have to wonder why so many people who voted for her prefer UKIP and Farage don't you?
Maybe they're all mad and you're the only one who's sane eh?
I think there's very little doubt that Margaret Thatcher, were she alive today, would be in favour of withdrawal from the EU, as presently constituted.
The point I was trying to make (which some seem to have missed) is that there is a good argument to be made that Margaret Thatcher ("our" great leader) was the 1st UKIP Prime Minister. Or, if you prefer, the UKIP-sympathetic leader of a UKIP-Conservative alliance that commanded substantial C1/C2 support. And consequently won three decisive election victories.
There are many similar facets and aspects, and (were it not for her age and historic partisan loyalty, like Tebbit) she might well be a member of UKIP today.
So there's no point in Conservatives and Conservative-UKIP defectors throwing rocks and abuse each way, and tearing chunks out of each other.
We've worked together in the past, and we can work together in the future.
"Nigel Lawson, Thatcher's Chancellor of the Exchequer from 1983 to 1989, listed the Thatcherite ideals as:
"Free markets, financial discipline, firm control over public expenditure, tax cuts, nationalism, 'Victorian values' (of the Samuel Smiles self-help variety), privatisation and a dash of populism."
Precisely. But the modernisers contrived to deliberately undo that alliance, and split the party, in a vain attempt to reposition it to win future elections.
In so doing, they've simply guaranteed Conservatives win no future elections.
I'm pro-free trade, but it's very wrong if trade agreements strongly up the stringency of patents on the sly. Heavy patent law is the equivalent of enshrining monopolies. It's anti-competitive market.
don't think either TPP or TTIP has much to do with free trade. Only USA attemping to consolidate its power. Japan is probably agreeing in return for some kind of under the table guarantees re certain unihabited rocky islands and the like
Amen to that. There's no point in either group cutting off their nose to spite their face.
So why are you?
Sean posted a very good answer to that question a couple of months back. Well, why he's defected to UKIP - not sure he'd agree he's cutting off his nose to spite his face. Anyway, I won't speak for him, but I totally understood where he was coming from.
A post election Tory/UKIP coalition has been backed down from 66/1 to 14/1. I've tried to explain why I think that's probably a bad bet. http://t.co/1ilAXf4v2E
Lots of typically sober and sensible @JosiasJessop points. ... All in all, I'm intrigued. Although I'm preparing myself for a fall.
Well, this is the thing that I don't quite get. They seem to be asking for money to develop this and the reputational damage if they can't do what they say they will be able to do would surely be pretty large.
Yet, personally, if I were a Lockheed Martin board member and I was confident that my scientists had cracked the fusion problem, I'd want to keep the development in-house and therefore reap the full benefit of the profits in future decades.
They must have some pretty large and expensive hurdles to pass before it becomes commercially practical, so it's probably quite safe to conclude that they have probably misjudged the difficulty of those remaining hurdles - just as many fusion researchers have done before them.
The simple truth is ukip will gift the nation to europhile labour. The rest is hysteria. Deeper into the European Union, closer union with labour and that's before all the socialism. How stupid is that. Zero logic only self serving ignorance prejudice and hysteria. It's no more complicated than that.
I think there's very little doubt that Margaret Thatcher, were she alive today, would be in favour of withdrawal from the EU, as presently constituted.
The point I was trying to make (which some seem to have missed) is that there is a good argument to be made that Margaret Thatcher ("our" great leader) was the 1st UKIP Prime Minister. Or, if you prefer, the UKIP-sympathetic leader of a UKIP-Conservative alliance that commanded substantial C1/C2 support. And consequently won three decisive election victories.
There are many similar facets and aspects, and (were it not for her age and historic partisan loyalty, like Tebbit) she might well be a member of UKIP today.
So there's no point in Conservatives and Conservative-UKIP defectors throwing rocks and abuse each way, and tearing chunks out of each other.
We've worked together in the past, and we can work together in the future.
"Nigel Lawson, Thatcher's Chancellor of the Exchequer from 1983 to 1989, listed the Thatcherite ideals as:
"Free markets, financial discipline, firm control over public expenditure, tax cuts, nationalism, 'Victorian values' (of the Samuel Smiles self-help variety), privatisation and a dash of populism."
I think there's very little doubt that Margaret Thatcher, were she alive today, would be in favour of withdrawal from the EU, as presently constituted.
The point I was trying to make (which some seem to have missed) is that there is a good argument to be made that Margaret Thatcher ("our" great leader) was the 1st UKIP Prime Minister. Or, if you prefer, the UKIP-sympathetic leader of a UKIP-Conservative alliance that commanded substantial C1/C2 support. And consequently won three decisive election victories.
There are many similar facets and aspects, and (were it not for her age and historic partisan loyalty, like Tebbit) she might well be a member of UKIP today.
So there's no point in Conservatives and Conservative-UKIP defectors throwing rocks and abuse each way, and tearing chunks out of each other.
We've worked together in the past, and we can work together in the future.
"Nigel Lawson, Thatcher's Chancellor of the Exchequer from 1983 to 1989, listed the Thatcherite ideals as:
"Free markets, financial discipline, firm control over public expenditure, tax cuts, nationalism, 'Victorian values' (of the Samuel Smiles self-help variety), privatisation and a dash of populism."
I think there's very little doubt that Margaret Thatcher, were she alive today, would be in favour of withdrawal from the EU, as presently constituted.
The point I was trying to make (which some seem to have missed) is that there is a good argument to be made that Margaret Thatcher ("our" great leader) was the 1st UKIP Prime Minister. Or, if you prefer, the UKIP-sympathetic leader of a UKIP-Conservative alliance that commanded substantial C1/C2 support. And consequently won three decisive election victories.
There are many similar facets and aspects, and (were it not for her age and historic partisan loyalty, like Tebbit) she might well be a member of UKIP today.
So there's no point in Conservatives and Conservative-UKIP defectors throwing rocks and abuse each way, and tearing chunks out of each other.
We've worked together in the past, and we can work together in the future.
"Nigel Lawson, Thatcher's Chancellor of the Exchequer from 1983 to 1989, listed the Thatcherite ideals as:
"Free markets, financial discipline, firm control over public expenditure, tax cuts, nationalism, 'Victorian values' (of the Samuel Smiles self-help variety), privatisation and a dash of populism."
It isn't the most fluent jumper but he definitely has good speed for a three miler. Should improve for that, and a nice horse to follow for the season.
Lots of typically sober and sensible @JosiasJessop points. ... All in all, I'm intrigued. Although I'm preparing myself for a fall.
Well, this is the thing that I don't quite get. They seem to be asking for money to develop this and the reputational damage if they can't do what they say they will be able to do would surely be pretty large.
Yet, personally, if I were a Lockheed Martin board member and I was confident that my scientists had cracked the fusion problem, I'd want to keep the development in-house and therefore reap the full benefit of the profits in future decades.
They must have some pretty large and expensive hurdles to pass before it becomes commercially practical, so it's probably quite safe to conclude that they have probably misjudged the difficulty of those remaining hurdles - just as many fusion researchers have done before them.
Their main point (as far as I can tell) is that the reactor is viable as a small unit, therefore the remaining steps to be solved can be iterated through much faster.
If you only need to rebuild something the size of a truck each time you solve the next problem, then the end result will be achieved a lot faster than having to rebuild something the size of a small town.
It isn't the most fluent jumper but he definitely has good speed for a three miler. Should improve for that, and a nice horse to follow for the season.
Well done mate, I stuck a pony on just before the off so the drift was my friend!
Lots of typically sober and sensible @JosiasJessop points. ... All in all, I'm intrigued. Although I'm preparing myself for a fall.
Well, this is the thing that I don't quite get. They seem to be asking for money to develop this and the reputational damage if they can't do what they say they will be able to do would surely be pretty large.
Yet, personally, if I were a Lockheed Martin board member and I was confident that my scientists had cracked the fusion problem, I'd want to keep the development in-house and therefore reap the full benefit of the profits in future decades.
They must have some pretty large and expensive hurdles to pass before it becomes commercially practical, so it's probably quite safe to conclude that they have probably misjudged the difficulty of those remaining hurdles - just as many fusion researchers have done before them.
These are the guys that made the F35, which didn't make Farnborough. They specialise in cutting edge stuff and sometimes there are problems. I hope that it comes off eventually, it would be a boon for the world, although disruptive as has been mentioned. Like Josias, I'm not holding my breath but watching closely.
Amen to that. There's no point in either group cutting off their nose to spite their face.
So why are you?
He's tactically voting Tory in Luton South !
Sure, but he's encouraging others to do otherwise.
I would vote UKIP in a seat which UKIP could win, or in a safe Labour or Lib Dem seat, and encourage others to do so. If it was a marginal Labour or Lib Dem seat, then I'd vote either UKIP or Conservative, depending on which party stood the better chance of winning (hence, my likely vote in Luton South).
If it was a Conservative-held seat, then I'd vote for a Conservative MP who was in favour of withdrawal from the EU. Otherwise, I'd vote UKIP.
The simple truth is ukip will gift the nation to europhile labour. The rest is hysteria. Deeper into the European Union, closer union with labour and that's before all the socialism. How stupid is that. Zero logic only self serving ignorance prejudice and hysteria. It's no more complicated than that.
No, they won't, because the Tories won't get in even if UKIP stepped down.
Amen to that. There's no point in either group cutting off their nose to spite their face.
So why are you?
He's tactically voting Tory in Luton South !
Sure, but he's encouraging others to do otherwise.
Well I sincerely hope the good citizens of Solihull, Colne Valley and Battersea vote true blue but I wouldn't mind seeing the good burgers of Broxtowe electing Nick Palmer as their MP - heck I even hope that Eastleigh remains a Lib Dem stronghold...
As for myself, well my vote won't particularly matter compared to others ^_~
Why? He is undoubtedly a gentleman and would give added kudos to pb. But, why?
So he can renege on manifesto commitments (viz Lisbon referendum in 2005). Or so he can prioritise immigrants for social housing as he happily admitted a few days ago. But I presume that won´t make it to his manifesto.
So he can happily import more third world immigrants to pad up the Labour vote? Will he at least come clean and tell his constituents why more immigration is good for them? Perhaps mention the Somali restaurants and the Afghan music scene. At least he´ll be getting brownie points for honesty.
The worrying thing is I do believe he passionately believes in these things. Despite being an intelligent man (a war gamer!!), how can he believe such tosh? How exactly does Muslim immigration benefit Britain? Curries aside.
Both Thatcher and Blair recognised that the swing voters that mattered were those in the upper working class/lower middle class. Cameron's out of touchness made him think they were in the upper middle class. That's why Blair and Thatcher won three elections on the trot, and Cameron couldn't get a majority.
Kippers using Labour troll lines. How funny.
It's not a Labour troll line to mention how Cameron isn't very good.
Lots of typically sober and sensible @JosiasJessop points. ... All in all, I'm intrigued. Although I'm preparing myself for a fall.
Well, this is the thing that I don't quite get. They seem to be asking for money to develop this and the reputational damage if they can't do what they say they will be able to do would surely be pretty large.
Yet, personally, if I were a Lockheed Martin board member and I was confident that my scientists had cracked the fusion problem, I'd want to keep the development in-house and therefore reap the full benefit of the profits in future decades.
They must have some pretty large and expensive hurdles to pass before it becomes commercially practical, so it's probably quite safe to conclude that they have probably misjudged the difficulty of those remaining hurdles - just as many fusion researchers have done before them.
Their main point (as far as I can tell) is that the reactor is viable as a small unit, therefore the remaining steps to be solved can be iterated through much faster.
If you only need to rebuild something the size of a truck each time you solve the next problem, then the end result will be achieved a lot faster than having to rebuild something the size of a small town.
Good news for Tesla, Lockheed Martin, consumers generally, (and probably quite good for utilities in the short term, at least), energy importers (Europe, China)
Bad news for big oil, traditional car companies, the Saudi Arabian government, Russia
Amen to that. There's no point in either group cutting off their nose to spite their face.
So why are you?
He's tactically voting Tory in Luton South !
Sure, but he's encouraging others to do otherwise.
Well I sincerely hope the good citizens of Solihull, Colne Valley and Battersea vote true blue but I wouldn't mind seeing the good burgers of Broxtowe electing Nick Palmer as their MP - heck I even hope that Eastleigh remains a Lib Dem stronghold...
As for myself, well my vote won't particularly matter compared to others ^_~
.
PLEASE I BEG!!!
Delete that post before anyone sees it.. we cant go round in circles forever!!
It isn't the most fluent jumper but he definitely has good speed for a three miler. Should improve for that, and a nice horse to follow for the season.
Well done mate, I stuck a pony on just before the off so the drift was my friend!
Thank you for the tip
That's OK.
Just remember it when you are MP for Basildon. ;-)
I think there's very little doubt that Margaret Thatcher, were she alive today, would be in favour of withdrawal from the EU, as presently constituted.
There are many similar facets and aspects, and (were it not for her age and historic partisan loyalty, like Tebbit) she might well be a member of UKIP today.
So there's no point in Conservatives and Conservative-UKIP defectors throwing rocks and abuse each way, and tearing chunks out of each other.
We've worked together in the past, and we can work together in the future.
"Nigel Lawson, Thatcher's Chancellor of the Exchequer from 1983 to 1989, listed the Thatcherite ideals as:
"Free markets, financial discipline, firm control over public expenditure, tax cuts, nationalism, 'Victorian values' (of the Samuel Smiles self-help variety), privatisation and a dash of populism."
On grammar schools, Charles Moore makes a good case in his biography of Thatcher. In those days, the decision to close them was down to local authorities, who had much more control over education provision in those days than today.
He provides good primary evidence that suggests she was (personally) reluctant to do this, but felt powerless to intervene in it particularly when many Tory authorities were calling for abolition. So she rubber stamped them.
I think there's very little doubt that Margaret Thatcher, were she alive today, would be in favour of withdrawal from the EU, as presently constituted.
The point I was trying to make (which some seem to have missed) is that there is a good argument to be made that Margaret Thatcher ("our" great leader) was the 1st UKIP Prime Minister. Or, if you prefer, the UKIP-sympathetic leader of a UKIP-Conservative alliance that commanded substantial C1/C2 support. And consequently won three decisive election victories.
There are many similar facets and aspects, and (were it not for her age and historic partisan loyalty, like Tebbit) she might well be a member of UKIP today.
So there's no point in Conservatives and Conservative-UKIP defectors throwing rocks and abuse each way, and tearing chunks out of each other.
We've worked together in the past, and we can work together in the future.
"Nigel Lawson, Thatcher's Chancellor of the Exchequer from 1983 to 1989, listed the Thatcherite ideals as:
"Free markets, financial discipline, firm control over public expenditure, tax cuts, nationalism, 'Victorian values' (of the Samuel Smiles self-help variety), privatisation and a dash of populism."
Precisely. But the modernisers contrived to deliberately undo that alliance, and split the party, in a vain attempt to reposition it to win future elections.
In so doing, they've simply guaranteed Conservatives win no future elections.
Modernise to appeal to those who will never vote Tory - the trendy "values-driven" metropolitan elite.
At the same time everyone else knows elections are won with the lower mc and upper wc. Say the C1C2 of old? How many votes does wittering on about climate change, gay marriage and lentil burgers win with them?
Lots of typically sober and sensible @JosiasJessop points. ... All in all, I'm intrigued. Although I'm preparing myself for a fall.
Well, this is the thing that I don't quite get. They seem to be asking for money to develop this and the reputational damage if they can't do what they say they will be able to do would surely be pretty large.
Yet, personally, if I were a Lockheed Martin board member and I was confident that my scientists had cracked the fusion problem, I'd want to keep the development in-house and therefore reap the full benefit of the profits in future decades.
They must have some pretty large and expensive hurdles to pass before it becomes commercially practical, so it's probably quite safe to conclude that they have probably misjudged the difficulty of those remaining hurdles - just as many fusion researchers have done before them.
I was wondering if it was a share-price issue. If you've got some good news coming out ("we've built a working fusion reactor!") it's easy to insider-trade on the news beforehand, which is illegal.
Charles would know, but isn't it the same for listed drugs companies? They have to release major milestone progress on all new drugs, both positive and negative?
The Feb 2013 'announcement' might have protected them from that a little. Perhaps they've made further progress, and another 'update' is necessary.
Then there's the issue of whether this work was funded by the US taxpayer, and whether this is part of a keep-the-taxpayer-alert program. If it was taxpayer-funded, it might also be why they're looking for outside investors; the US govt may not be keen on LM getting all the cherries from the pie.
Or perhaps I'm way off-base. In fact, I probably am. ;-)
I think there's very little doubt that Margaret Thatcher, were she alive today, would be in favour of withdrawal from the EU, as presently constituted.
The point I was trying to make (which some seem to have missed) is that there is a good argument to be made that Margaret Thatcher ("our" great leader) was the 1st UKIP Prime Minister. Or, if you prefer, the UKIP-sympathetic leader of a UKIP-Conservative alliance that commanded substantial C1/C2 support. And consequently won three decisive election victories.
There are many similar facets and aspects, and (were it not for her age and historic partisan loyalty, like Tebbit) she might well be a member of UKIP today.
So there's no point in Conservatives and Conservative-UKIP defectors throwing rocks and abuse each way, and tearing chunks out of each other.
We've worked together in the past, and we can work together in the future.
"Nigel Lawson, Thatcher's Chancellor of the Exchequer from 1983 to 1989, listed the Thatcherite ideals as:
"Free markets, financial discipline, firm control over public expenditure, tax cuts, nationalism, 'Victorian values' (of the Samuel Smiles self-help variety), privatisation and a dash of populism."
Precisely. But the modernisers contrived to deliberately undo that alliance, and split the party, in a vain attempt to reposition it to win future elections.
In so doing, they've simply guaranteed Conservatives win no future elections.
Modernise to appeal to those who will never vote Tory - the trendy "values-driven" metropolitan elite.
At the same time everyone else knows elections are won with the lower mc and upper wc. Say the C1C2 of old? How many votes does wittering on about climate change, gay marriage and lentil burgers win with them?
Not many. But it's worse than that - many modernising Tories are now starting to self-identify with that group, and (bizarrely) claim that *they* are the abused ones.
I pointed out this problem. TSE (a fellow Tory, who I disagree with on this) decided to attack me for it rather than engage with the argument.
And that *is* the problem. This is what is driving the party apart.
Lots of typically sober and sensible @JosiasJessop points. ... All in all, I'm intrigued. Although I'm preparing myself for a fall.
Well, this is the thing that I don't quite get. They seem to be asking for money to develop this and the reputational damage if they can't do what they say they will be able to do would surely be pretty large.
Yet, personally, if I were a Lockheed Martin board member and I was confident that my scientists had cracked the fusion problem, I'd want to keep the development in-house and therefore reap the full benefit of the profits in future decades.
They must have some pretty large and expensive hurdles to pass before it becomes commercially practical, so it's probably quite safe to conclude that they have probably misjudged the difficulty of those remaining hurdles - just as many fusion researchers have done before them.
Their main point (as far as I can tell) is that the reactor is viable as a small unit, therefore the remaining steps to be solved can be iterated through much faster.
If you only need to rebuild something the size of a truck each time you solve the next problem, then the end result will be achieved a lot faster than having to rebuild something the size of a small town.
Good news for Tesla, Lockheed Martin, consumers generally, (and probably quite good for utilities in the short term, at least), energy importers (Europe, China)
Bad news for big oil, traditional car companies, the Saudi Arabian government, Russia
Lots of typically sober and sensible @JosiasJessop points. ... All in all, I'm intrigued. Although I'm preparing myself for a fall.
Well, this is the thing that I don't quite get. They seem to be asking for money to develop this and the reputational damage if they can't do what they say they will be able to do would surely be pretty large.
Yet, personally, if I were a Lockheed Martin board member and I was confident that my scientists had cracked the fusion problem, I'd want to keep the development in-house and therefore reap the full benefit of the profits in future decades.
They must have some pretty large and expensive hurdles to pass before it becomes commercially practical, so it's probably quite safe to conclude that they have probably misjudged the difficulty of those remaining hurdles - just as many fusion researchers have done before them.
Their main point (as far as I can tell) is that the reactor is viable as a small unit, therefore the remaining steps to be solved can be iterated through much faster.
If you only need to rebuild something the size of a truck each time you solve the next problem, then the end result will be achieved a lot faster than having to rebuild something the size of a small town.
Good news for Tesla, Lockheed Martin, consumers generally, (and probably quite good for utilities in the short term, at least), energy importers (Europe, China)
Bad news for big oil, traditional car companies, the Saudi Arabian government, Russia
I'd have though cheap oil would be excellent news for traditional car companies. A lovely V8 in every car, and no guilt! VROOOM!!
I'm guessing Qs 2&3 relate to VI, but are being held back till the weekend - Herald on Saturday (if Lab vote has not gone down massively) : Sunday Herald (if it has)
Fieldwork is a little dated in what seems to be a febrile situation - done between 24th September and 5th October.
It isn't the most fluent jumper but he definitely has good speed for a three miler. Should improve for that, and a nice horse to follow for the season.
Well done mate, I stuck a pony on just before the off so the drift was my friend!
Thank you for the tip
That's OK.
Just remember it when you are MP for Basildon. ;-)
I will rename it Bas Vegas and make it the gambling capital of Europe!
I think there's very little doubt that Margaret Thatcher, were she alive today, would be in favour of withdrawal from the EU, as presently constituted.
The point I was trying to make (which some seem to have missed) is that there is a good argument to be made that Margaret Thatcher ("our" great leader) was the 1st UKIP Prime Minister. Or, if you prefer, the UKIP-sympathetic leader of a UKIP-Conservative alliance that commanded substantial C1/C2 support. And consequently won three decisive election victories.
There are many similar facets and aspects, and (were it not for her age and historic partisan loyalty, like Tebbit) she might well be a member of UKIP today.
So there's no point in Conservatives and Conservative-UKIP defectors throwing rocks and abuse each way, and tearing chunks out of each other.
We've worked together in the past, and we can work together in the future.
"Nigel Lawson, Thatcher's Chancellor of the Exchequer from 1983 to 1989, listed the Thatcherite ideals as:
"Free markets, financial discipline, firm control over public expenditure, tax cuts, nationalism, 'Victorian values' (of the Samuel Smiles self-help variety), privatisation and a dash of populism."
Well you keep saying that, but I can think of any socialist policies from UKIP
Don't bother with the WAG VAT its not a policy and never was.
So what are they?
Low tax Out of EU Low Immigration Grammar Schools Less foreign aid No green subsidies
None of this seems Socialist to me
Didn't Mrs Thatcher close down more grammar schools than any other education secretary (including all the labour ones)?
Didn't foreign aid as a percentage of GDP rise during 1979 to 1990?
Didn't the first green subsidies (for insulation) get enacted under Mrs Thatcher?
Didn't asylum applications rise 100-fold between 1979 and 1990?
The welfare state was certainly a lot more generous back then that it was under either the last Labour government or the current Coalition. As a student I got a full grant and had my fees paid, I got housing benefit and I got to sign on in the summer. Later when I was unemployed I got my mortgage paid and was never forced into taking a job I did not want to do. The State invested in me and it has been paid back pretty handsomely. Good old State.
It isn't the most fluent jumper but he definitely has good speed for a three miler. Should improve for that, and a nice horse to follow for the season.
Well done mate, I stuck a pony on just before the off so the drift was my friend!
Thank you for the tip
That's OK.
Just remember it when you are MP for Basildon. ;-)
I think there's very little doubt that Margaret Thatcher, were she alive today, would be in favour of withdrawal from the EU, as presently constituted.
The point I was trying to make (which some seem to have missed) is that there is a good argument to be made that Margaret Thatcher ("our" great leader) was the 1st UKIP Prime Minister. Or, if you prefer, the UKIP-sympathetic leader of a UKIP-Conservative alliance that commanded substantial C1/C2 support. And consequently won three decisive election victories.
There are many similar facets and aspects, and (were it not for her age and historic partisan loyalty, like Tebbit) she might well be a member of UKIP today.
So there's no point in Conservatives and Conservative-UKIP defectors throwing rocks and abuse each way, and tearing chunks out of each other.
We've worked together in the past, and we can work together in the future.
"Nigel Lawson, Thatcher's Chancellor of the Exchequer from 1983 to 1989, listed the Thatcherite ideals as:
"Free markets, financial discipline, firm control over public expenditure, tax cuts, nationalism, 'Victorian values' (of the Samuel Smiles self-help variety), privatisation and a dash of populism."
Well you keep saying that, but I can think of any socialist policies from UKIP
Don't bother with the WAG VAT its not a policy and never was.
So what are they?
Low tax Out of EU Low Immigration Grammar Schools Less foreign aid No green subsidies
None of this seems Socialist to me
Didn't Mrs Thatcher close down more grammar schools than any other education secretary (including all the labour ones)?
Didn't foreign aid as a percentage of GDP rise during 1979 to 1990?
Didn't the first green subsidies (for insulation) get enacted under Mrs Thatcher?
Didn't asylum applications rise 100-fold between 1979 and 1990?
The welfare state was certainly a lot more generous back then that it was under either the last Labour government or the current Coalition. As a student I got a full grant and had my fees paid, I got housing benefit and I got to sign on in the summer. Later when I was unemployed I got my mortgage paid and was never forced into taking a job I did not want to do. The State invested in me and it has been paid back pretty handsomely. Good old State.
Indeed. One wonders why all those benefits were removed and fees and loans introduced instead.
I think there's very little doubt that Margaret Thatcher, were she alive today, would be in favour of withdrawal from the EU, as presently constituted.
The point I was trying to make (which some seem to have missed) is that there is a good argument to be made that Margaret Thatcher ("our" great leader) was the 1st UKIP Prime Minister. Or, if you prefer, the UKIP-sympathetic leader of a UKIP-Conservative alliance that commanded substantial C1/C2 support. And consequently won three decisive election victories.
There are many similar facets and aspects, and (were it not for her age and historic partisan loyalty, like Tebbit) she might well be a member of UKIP today.
So there's no point in Conservatives and Conservative-UKIP defectors throwing rocks and abuse each way, and tearing chunks out of each other.
We've worked together in the past, and we can work together in the future.
"Nigel Lawson, Thatcher's Chancellor of the Exchequer from 1983 to 1989, listed the Thatcherite ideals as:
"Free markets, financial discipline, firm control over public expenditure, tax cuts, nationalism, 'Victorian values' (of the Samuel Smiles self-help variety), privatisation and a dash of populism."
Well you keep saying that, but I can think of any socialist policies from UKIP
The welfare state was certainly a lot more generous back then that it was under either the last Labour government or the current Coalition. As a student I got a full grant and had my fees paid, I got housing benefit and I got to sign on in the summer. Later when I was unemployed I got my mortgage paid and was never forced into taking a job I did not want to do. The State invested in me and it has been paid back pretty handsomely. Good old State.
The welfare State was more generous when there were fewer demands on it. Back in the Seventies, you could get a grant to go through Law School for example. But, far fewer people went to Law School (or University) than today.
I think there's very little doubt that Margaret Thatcher, were she alive today, would be in favour of withdrawal from the EU, as presently constituted.
So there's no point in Conservatives and Conservative-UKIP defectors throwing rocks and abuse each way, and tearing chunks out of each other.
We've worked together in the past, and we can work together in the future.
"Nigel Lawson, Thatcher's Chancellor of the Exchequer from 1983 to 1989, listed the Thatcherite ideals as:
"Free markets, financial discipline, firm control over public expenditure, tax cuts, nationalism, 'Victorian values' (of the Samuel Smiles self-help variety), privatisation and a dash of populism."
Well you keep saying that, but I can think of any socialist policies from UKIP
Don't bother with the WAG VAT its not a policy and never was.
So what are they?
Low tax Out of EU Low Immigration Grammar Schools Less foreign aid No green subsidies
None of this seems Socialist to me
Didn't Mrs Thatcher close down more grammar schools than any other education secretary (including all the labour ones)?
Didn't foreign aid as a percentage of GDP rise during 1979 to 1990?
Didn't the first green subsidies (for insulation) get enacted under Mrs Thatcher?
Didn't asylum applications rise 100-fold between 1979 and 1990?
The welfare state was certainly a lot more generous back then that it was under either the last Labour government or the current Coalition. As a student I got a full grant and had my fees paid, I got housing benefit and I got to sign on in the summer. Later when I was unemployed I got my mortgage paid and was never forced into taking a job I did not want to do. The State invested in me and it has been paid back pretty handsomely. Good old State.
Times change. Society and attitudes were different back then, particularly on welfare:
Hi all. Went into hospital yesterday to have op on prostate but it has been postponed due to me having an irregular heart beat. I well, now I will have to have more outpatients tests. What a drag. Now back home, sulking.
Amen to that. There's no point in either group cutting off their nose to spite their face.
So why are you?
He's tactically voting Tory in Luton South !
Sure, but he's encouraging others to do otherwise.
Well I sincerely hope the good citizens of Solihull, Colne Valley and Battersea vote true blue but I wouldn't mind seeing the good burgers of Broxtowe electing Nick Palmer as their MP - heck I even hope that Eastleigh remains a Lib Dem stronghold...
As for myself, well my vote won't particularly matter compared to others ^_~
Why? He is undoubtedly a gentleman and would give added kudos to pb. But, why?
So he can renege on manifesto commitments (viz Lisbon referendum in 2005). Or so he can prioritise immigrants for social housing as he happily admitted a few days ago. But I presume that won´t make it to his manifesto.
So he can happily import more third world immigrants to pad up the Labour vote? Will he at least come clean and tell his constituents why more immigration is good for them? Perhaps mention the Somali restaurants and the Afghan music scene. At least he´ll be getting brownie points for honesty.
The worrying thing is I do believe he passionately believes in these things. Despite being an intelligent man (a war gamer!!), how can he believe such tosh? How exactly does Muslim immigration benefit Britain? Curries aside.
I'm afraid my motivations for these outcomes are more about personal gain than any higher concept.
It isn't the most fluent jumper but he definitely has good speed for a three miler. Should improve for that, and a nice horse to follow for the season.
Well done mate, I stuck a pony on just before the off so the drift was my friend!
Thank you for the tip
That's OK.
Just remember it when you are MP for Basildon. ;-)
Hi all. Went into hospital yesterday to have op on prostate but it has been postponed due to me having an irregular heart beat. I well, now I will have to have more outpatients tests. What a drag. Now back home, sulking.
Welcome back, Mike.
The UKIP corner of the ring isn't the same without you. (Surprised about the heart though. How long have you had one? ;-) )
Hi all. Went into hospital yesterday to have op on prostate but it has been postponed due to me having an irregular heart beat. I well, now I will have to have more outpatients tests. What a drag. Now back home, sulking.
Hi all. Went into hospital yesterday to have op on prostate but it has been postponed due to me having an irregular heart beat. I well, now I will have to have more outpatients tests. What a drag. Now back home, sulking.
That's a bummer, Mr K. Surprised the pre-op check-up didn't pick up on the heart beat thing. Good luck with the tests.
Lots of typically sober and sensible @JosiasJessop points. ... All in all, I'm intrigued. Although I'm preparing myself for a fall.
Well, this is the thing that I don't quite get. They seem to be asking for money to develop this and the reputational damage if they can't do what they say they will be able to do would surely be pretty large.
Yet, personally, if I were a Lockheed Martin board member and I was confident that my scientists had cracked the fusion problem, I'd want to keep the development in-house and therefore reap the full benefit of the profits in future decades.
They must have some pretty large and expensive hurdles to pass before it becomes commercially practical, so it's probably quite safe to conclude that they have probably misjudged the difficulty of those remaining hurdles - just as many fusion researchers have done before them.
Their main point (as far as I can tell) is that the reactor is viable as a small unit, therefore the remaining steps to be solved can be iterated through much faster.
If you only need to rebuild something the size of a truck each time you solve the next problem, then the end result will be achieved a lot faster than having to rebuild something the size of a small town.
Good news for Tesla, Lockheed Martin, consumers generally, (and probably quite good for utilities in the short term, at least), energy importers (Europe, China)
Bad news for big oil, traditional car companies, the Saudi Arabian government, Russia
I'm guessing Qs 2&3 relate to VI, but are being held back till the weekend - Herald on Saturday (if Lab vote has not gone down massively) : Sunday Herald (if it has)
Fieldwork is a little dated in what seems to be a febrile situation - done between 24th September and 5th October.
Interesting
When given a list of prominent politicians, 24% said they trust the likely new Scottish National Party leader Nicola Sturgeon most to deliver more powers, double the figure for outgoing leader Alex Salmond. There is a very low level of trust in the three UK party leaders who published the eve-of-referendum vow on more powers for Holyrood – 6% trust David Cameron most, 1% trust Ed Miliband most and only a handful named Nick Clegg.
In spite of not being a party leader, Gordon Brown (15%) is the UK politician most trusted to deliver more powers. Once again, a quarter of those surveyed (26%) said they did not trust any of those named.
Salmond probably went at the right time, a perfectly timed exit of the scene.
Lots of typically sober and sensible @JosiasJessop points. ... All in all, I'm intrigued. Although I'm preparing myself for a fall.
Well, this is the thing that I don't quite get. They seem to be asking for money to develop this and the reputational damage if they can't do what they say they will be able to do would surely be pretty large.
Yet, personally, if I were a Lockheed Martin board member and I was confident that my scientists had cracked the fusion problem, I'd want to keep the development in-house and therefore reap the full benefit of the profits in future decades.
They must have some pretty large and expensive hurdles to pass before it becomes commercially practical, so it's probably quite safe to conclude that they have probably misjudged the difficulty of those remaining hurdles - just as many fusion researchers have done before them.
Their main point (as far as I can tell) is that the reactor is viable as a small unit, therefore the remaining steps to be solved can be iterated through much faster.
If you only need to rebuild something the size of a truck each time you solve the next problem, then the end result will be achieved a lot faster than having to rebuild something the size of a small town.
Good news for Tesla, Lockheed Martin, consumers generally, (and probably quite good for utilities in the short term, at least), energy importers (Europe, China)
Bad news for big oil, traditional car companies, the Saudi Arabian government, Russia
Lots of typically sober and sensible @JosiasJessop points. ... All in all, I'm intrigued. Although I'm preparing myself for a fall.
Well, this is the thing that I don't quite get. They seem to be asking for money to develop this and the reputational damage if they can't do what they say they will be able to do would surely be pretty large.
Yet, personally, if I were a Lockheed Martin board member and I was confident that my scientists had cracked the fusion problem, I'd want to keep the development in-house and therefore reap the full benefit of the profits in future decades.
They must have some pretty large and expensive hurdles to pass before it becomes commercially practical, so it's probably quite safe to conclude that they have probably misjudged the difficulty of those remaining hurdles - just as many fusion researchers have done before them.
Their main point (as far as I can tell) is that the reactor is viable as a small unit, therefore the remaining steps to be solved can be iterated through much faster.
If you only need to rebuild something the size of a truck each time you solve the next problem, then the end result will be achieved a lot faster than having to rebuild something the size of a small town.
Good news for Tesla, Lockheed Martin, consumers generally, (and probably quite good for utilities in the short term, at least), energy importers (Europe, China)
Bad news for big oil, traditional car companies, the Saudi Arabian government, Russia
I'd have though cheap oil would be excellent news for traditional car companies. A lovely V8 in every car, and no guilt! VROOOM!!
Cheaper energy = good for energy consumers generally.
However, as much of the oil in the ground (artcic, deep water, tight oil in the US, oil sand in Canada) needs high oil prices to be economic, the downside to oil prices (beyond $70-75) is probably quite limited. Supply leaves as prices fall.
And if this fusion works, then the differential between the cost of a calorie delivered through electricity and one delivered through burning hydrocarbons inverts: electricity will become cheaper than oil.
Hi all. Went into hospital yesterday to have op on prostate but it has been postponed due to me having an irregular heart beat. I well, now I will have to have more outpatients tests. What a drag. Now back home, sulking.
Hope you can get the procedure done as soon as possible!
Lots of typically sober and sensible @JosiasJessop points. ... All in all, I'm intrigued. Although I'm preparing myself for a fall.
Well, this is the thing that I don't quite get. They seem to be asking for money to develop this and the reputational damage if they can't do what they say they will be able to do would surely be pretty large.
Yet, personally, if I were a Lockheed Martin board member and I was confident that my scientists had cracked the fusion problem, I'd want to keep the development in-house and therefore reap the full benefit of the profits in future decades.
They must have some pretty large and expensive hurdles to pass before it becomes commercially practical, so it's probably quite safe to conclude that they have probably misjudged the difficulty of those remaining hurdles - just as many fusion researchers have done before them.
Their main point (as far as I can tell) is that the reactor is viable as a small unit, therefore the remaining steps to be solved can be iterated through much faster.
If you only need to rebuild something the size of a truck each time you solve the next problem, then the end result will be achieved a lot faster than having to rebuild something the size of a small town.
Good news for Tesla, Lockheed Martin, consumers generally, (and probably quite good for utilities in the short term, at least), energy importers (Europe, China)
Bad news for big oil, traditional car companies, the Saudi Arabian government, Russia
I'm guessing Qs 2&3 relate to VI, but are being held back till the weekend - Herald on Saturday (if Lab vote has not gone down massively) : Sunday Herald (if it has)
Fieldwork is a little dated in what seems to be a febrile situation - done between 24th September and 5th October.
A useful reality check;
Contributed to online discussion: 11% Distributed leaflets for Yes/No: 3% / 2%
Hi all. Went into hospital yesterday to have op on prostate but it has been postponed due to me having an irregular heart beat. I well, now I will have to have more outpatients tests. What a drag. Now back home, sulking.
Hi all. Went into hospital yesterday to have op on prostate but it has been postponed due to me having an irregular heart beat. I well, now I will have to have more outpatients tests. What a drag. Now back home, sulking.
Lots of typically sober and sensible @JosiasJessop points. ... All in all, I'm intrigued. Although I'm preparing myself for a fall.
Well, this is the thing that I don't quite get. They seem to be asking for money to develop this and the reputational damage if they can't do what they say they will be able to do would surely be pretty large.
Yet, personally, if I were a Lockheed Martin board member and I was confident that my scientists had cracked the fusion problem, I'd want to keep the development in-house and therefore reap the full benefit of the profits in future decades.
They must have some pretty large and expensive hurdles to pass before it becomes commercially practical, so it's probably quite safe to conclude that they have probably misjudged the difficulty of those remaining hurdles - just as many fusion researchers have done before them.
Their main point (as far as I can tell) is that the reactor is viable as a small unit, therefore the remaining steps to be solved can be iterated through much faster.
If you only need to rebuild something the size of a truck each time you solve the next problem, then the end result will be achieved a lot faster than having to rebuild something the size of a small town.
Good news for Tesla, Lockheed Martin, consumers generally, (and probably quite good for utilities in the short term, at least), energy importers (Europe, China)
Bad news for big oil, traditional car companies, the Saudi Arabian government, Russia
Cheaper, essentially unlimited, electricity makes electric cars more economic.
Certainly would. Oil should be used for non-fuel purposes, e.g. plastics etc if possible rather than being burnt. Leaving aside Climate Change, oil is a limited resource and burning it is a bit of a waste if there are other options. IF fusion can be made to work it would mean we were less dependant on Russia and the Middle East. Cheap power could help in any number of areas, e.g. desalination.
For all his education, he forgets his manners quite often #hermaj
"MPs came away impressed by Crouch, but unimpressed by the Prime Minister, who messed up a bit by failing to thank her in his speech to the meeting. One senior Tory said ‘typical Cameron to forget to thank Tracey as he was winding up’.
This is classic David Cameron stuff: he regularly forgets the importance of little civilities like thanking colleagues for their hard work and giving the impression that he’s interested in them. He does try to rectify it by holding breakfast receptions for MPs on momentous days such as the second reading of the EU Referendum Bill. But if he managed to manage his party properly, some of its worst troubles might have been rather smaller."
I think there's very little doubt that Margaret Thatcher, were she alive today, would be in favour of withdrawal from the EU, as presently constituted.
The point I was trying to make (which some seem to have missed) is that there is a good argument to be made that Margaret Thatcher ("our" great leader) was the 1st UKIP Prime Minister. Or, if you prefer, the UKIP-sympathetic leader of a UKIP-Conservative alliance that commanded substantial C1/C2 support. And consequently won three decisive election victories.
There are many similar facets and aspects, and (were it not for her age and historic partisan loyalty, like Tebbit) she might well be a member of UKIP today.
So there's no point in Conservatives and Conservative-UKIP defectors throwing rocks and abuse each way, and tearing chunks out of each other.
We've worked together in the past, and we can work together in the future.
"Nigel Lawson, Thatcher's Chancellor of the Exchequer from 1983 to 1989, listed the Thatcherite ideals as:
"Free markets, financial discipline, firm control over public expenditure, tax cuts, nationalism, 'Victorian values' (of the Samuel Smiles self-help variety), privatisation and a dash of populism."
Modernise to appeal to those who will never vote Tory - the trendy "values-driven" metropolitan elite.
At the same time everyone else knows elections are won with the lower mc and upper wc. Say the C1C2 of old? How many votes does wittering on about climate change, gay marriage and lentil burgers win with them?
Not many. But it's worse than that - many modernising Tories are now starting to self-identify with that group, and (bizarrely) claim that *they* are the abused ones.
I pointed out this problem. TSE (a fellow Tory, who I disagree with on this) decided to attack me for it rather than engage with the argument.
And that *is* the problem. This is what is driving the party apart.
What do you think is driving this behaviour. I'd self identify as a LMC product of WWC/LMC stock. We lived above the shop literally, I was sent to public school to escape it all. I'd consider myself to be wet Tory who will side with the Blue Team when I think it's all gone pear shaped/the threat of pears is clear and present. On my electoral holidays, I flirted about with Tony The Tory/Paddy The Action Man.
Lots of typically sober and sensible @JosiasJessop points. ... All in all, I'm intrigued. Although I'm preparing myself for a fall.
Well, this is the thing that I don't quite get. They seem to be asking for money to develop this and the reputational damage if they can't do what they say they will be able to do would surely be pretty large.
Yet, personally, if I were a Lockheed Martin board member and I was confident that my scientists had cracked the fusion problem, I'd want to keep the development in-house and therefore reap the full benefit of the profits in future decades.
They must have some pretty large and expensive hurdles to pass before it becomes commercially practical, so it's probably quite safe to conclude that they have probably misjudged the difficulty of those remaining hurdles - just as many fusion researchers have done before them.
Their main point (as far as I can tell) is that the reactor is viable as a small unit, therefore the remaining steps to be solved can be iterated through much faster.
If you only need to rebuild something the size of a truck each time you solve the next problem, then the end result will be achieved a lot faster than having to rebuild something the size of a small town.
Good news for Tesla, Lockheed Martin, consumers generally, (and probably quite good for utilities in the short term, at least), energy importers (Europe, China)
Bad news for big oil, traditional car companies, the Saudi Arabian government, Russia
Hi all. Went into hospital yesterday to have op on prostate but it has been postponed due to me having an irregular heart beat. I well, now I will have to have more outpatients tests. What a drag. Now back home, sulking.
Sorry to be donning my tinfoil once again, but I just don't buy this Lockheed Martin thing. The fact that they are looking for 'governmental' partners rings particular alarm bells. Surely not our cash strapped rainy haven? They probably have more money than our Government does! Reminds me of when our Government inexplicably chose the same company to compile our census data rather than the manifold British companies who could have done it. It also comes at a time when the USA is trying to depress the oil price to hurt the Russians. Quite convenient.
On, topic, the irony of the AV campaign is palpable. I remember at the time saying that I'd not now vote for any party that opposed it and later asked for my vote 'to keep x out'.
After all, it'd obviously be a lower preference for me than whoever I'd have otherwise voted for. We don't want to end up with a Government elected by mild preferences.
What a bugger. All that getting psyched up and then nothing.
Hopefully your HB cause will get sorted out soon and you're back on track. I've got intermittent tachycardia and thoroughly sick of those little sticky monitor thingies.
Hi all. Went into hospital yesterday to have op on prostate but it has been postponed due to me having an irregular heart beat. I well, now I will have to have more outpatients tests. What a drag. Now back home, sulking.
Cameron can't out Ukip Ukip because nobody believes him.
He gave a pretty good speech at the Conservative party conference, but it only served to remind people of the speech he made to become party leader in the first place.
If you look at what's he's done rather than what he says the conclusion that he's a liberal is unescapable.
Ukip are the only hope to break the strangle hold that progressives have on our political system.
This is just the latest worrying indication that Ukip have been seduced to the dark side. Even Nigel Farage is now censoring himself to the point of shiftiness.
There's a pretty good post analysing his reaction to leftie Panorama journalists called"Tell It Like It Is..." at:
Hi all. Went into hospital yesterday to have op on prostate but it has been postponed due to me having an irregular heart beat. I well, now I will have to have more outpatients tests. What a drag. Now back home, sulking.
Lots of typically sober and sensible @JosiasJessop points. ... All in all, I'm intrigued. Although I'm preparing myself for a fall.
Well, this is the thing that I don't quite get. They seem to be asking for money to develop this and the reputational damage if they can't do what they say they will be able to do would surely be pretty large.
Yet, personally, if I were a Lockheed Martin board member and I was confident that my scientists had cracked the fusion problem, I'd want to keep the development in-house and therefore reap the full benefit of the profits in future decades.
They must have some pretty large and expensive hurdles to pass before it becomes commercially practical, so it's probably quite safe to conclude that they have probably misjudged the difficulty of those remaining hurdles - just as many fusion researchers have done before them.
Their main point (as far as I can tell) is that the reactor is viable as a small unit, therefore the remaining steps to be solved can be iterated through much faster.
If you only need to rebuild something the size of a truck each time you solve the next problem, then the end result will be achieved a lot faster than having to rebuild something the size of a small town.
Good news for Tesla, Lockheed Martin, consumers generally, (and probably quite good for utilities in the short term, at least), energy importers (Europe, China)
Bad news for big oil, traditional car companies, the Saudi Arabian government, Russia
Lots of typically sober and sensible @JosiasJessop points. ... All in all, I'm intrigued. Although I'm preparing myself for a fall.
Well, this is the thing that I don't quite get. They seem to be asking for money to develop this and the reputational damage if they can't do what they say they will be able to do would surely be pretty large.
Yet, personally, if I were a Lockheed Martin board member and I was confident that my scientists had cracked the fusion problem, I'd want to keep the development in-house and therefore reap the full benefit of the profits in future decades.
They must have some pretty large and expensive hurdles to pass before it becomes commercially practical, so it's probably quite safe to conclude that they have probably misjudged the difficulty of those remaining hurdles - just as many fusion researchers have done before them.
Their main point (as far as I can tell) is that the reactor is viable as a small unit, therefore the remaining steps to be solved can be iterated through much faster.
If you only need to rebuild something the size of a truck each time you solve the next problem, then the end result will be achieved a lot faster than having to rebuild something the size of a small town.
Good news for Tesla, Lockheed Martin, consumers generally, (and probably quite good for utilities in the short term, at least), energy importers (Europe, China)
Bad news for big oil, traditional car companies, the Saudi Arabian government, Russia
Lots of typically sober and sensible @JosiasJessop points. ... All in all, I'm intrigued. Although I'm preparing myself for a fall.
Well, this is the thing that I don't quite get. They seem to be asking for money to develop this and the reputational damage if they can't do what they say they will be able to do would surely be pretty large.
Yet, personally, if I were a Lockheed Martin board member and I was confident that my scientists had cracked the fusion problem, I'd want to keep the development in-house and therefore reap the full benefit of the profits in future decades.
They must have some pretty large and expensive hurdles to pass before it becomes commercially practical, so it's probably quite safe to conclude that they have probably misjudged the difficulty of those remaining hurdles - just as many fusion researchers have done before them.
Their main point (as far as I can tell) is that the reactor is viable as a small unit, therefore the remaining steps to be solved can be iterated through much faster.
If you only need to rebuild something the size of a truck each time you solve the next problem, then the end result will be achieved a lot faster than having to rebuild something the size of a small town.
Good news for Tesla, Lockheed Martin, consumers generally, (and probably quite good for utilities in the short term, at least), energy importers (Europe, China)
Bad news for big oil, traditional car companies, the Saudi Arabian government, Russia
I'd have though cheap oil would be excellent news for traditional car companies. A lovely V8 in every car, and no guilt! VROOOM!!
Cheaper energy = good for energy consumers generally.
However, as much of the oil in the ground (artcic, deep water, tight oil in the US, oil sand in Canada) needs high oil prices to be economic, the downside to oil prices (beyond $70-75) is probably quite limited. Supply leaves as prices fall.
And if this fusion works, then the differential between the cost of a calorie delivered through electricity and one delivered through burning hydrocarbons inverts: electricity will become cheaper than oil.
Depending on how cheap electricity becomes, it may well become more economic to synthesise hydrcarbon fuel.
Disruptive isn't a big enough word. It would lead to a major war unless the tech was shared (and even then...).
On, topic, the irony of the AV campaign is palpable. I remember at the time saying that I'd not now vote for any party that opposed it and later asked for my vote 'to keep x out'.
After all, it'd obviously be a lower preference for me than whoever I'd have otherwise voted for. We don't want to end up with a Government elected by mild preferences.
At the risk of giving people flashbacks dragging up this discussion, there's a serious misunderstanding here.
The strength or mildness of the preference doesn't correspond to having the thing in first position. A lot of people here would be:
And using a supercharger, you can get 150 miles range in 20 minutes. That means you can go 450 miles (London to Edinburgh) with one comfort stop.
I don't think so. According to the site you pointed me to, 20 minutes on a supercharger, if there is one available (there are only 75 in the whole of Europe), will give half a full charge or about 134 miles (though they claim 170 miles worth of charge in half an hour). The type of charger found at motorway service stations will give, again according to the Telsa site, 68 miles per hour of charge).
Though with the upgraded battery Telsa claim a range of 306 miles (244 on the standard battery pack), they are silent on what conditions are necessary for that to be achieved. The Nissan Leaf for example has a range of about 100 miles when it is warm, dry and in daylight. When its cold, wet and dark the range drops to about 48 miles. I see no reason why such a drop should not also apply to the Telsa.
So a practical serious car? Would you spend £50,000 on car that you couldn't guarantee to take you to Birmingham and back with finding somewhere to plug it in for an hour or two?
Given this latest surge I thought I'd have a look at the 'dip' in LAB+CON combined share in a historical context. These types of dips have happened before - European election periods seem particularly conducive to them, as smaller parties get increased attention.
But of course, none of this approaches the situation at the height of the Alliance surge in December 1981 (after the Crosby by-election) when Gallup had the Liberal SDP combined share at 50.5%.
And using a supercharger, you can get 150 miles range in 20 minutes. That means you can go 450 miles (London to Edinburgh) with one comfort stop.
I don't think so. According to the site you pointed me to, 20 minutes on a supercharger, if there is one available (there are only 75 in the whole of Europe), will give half a full charge or about 134 miles (though they claim 170 miles worth of charge in half an hour). The type of charger found at motorway service stations will give, again according to the Telsa site, 68 miles per hour of charge).
Though with the upgraded battery Telsa claim a range of 306 miles (244 on the standard battery pack), they are silent on what conditions are necessary for that to be achieved. The Nissan Leaf for example has a range of about 100 miles when it is warm, dry and in daylight. When its cold, wet and dark the range drops to about 48 miles. I see no reason why such a drop should not also apply to the Telsa.
So a practical serious car? Would you spend £50,000 on car that you couldn't guarantee to take you to Birmingham and back with finding somewhere to plug it in for an hour or two?
Looks to me like the sort of car someone buys to show they're both green and loaded. If I had that sort of cash to spend on a car it's definitely not what I'd buy.
Hi all. Went into hospital yesterday to have op on prostate but it has been postponed due to me having an irregular heart beat. I well, now I will have to have more outpatients tests. What a drag. Now back home, sulking.
Rotten luck MrK - now put your feet up and get the old ticker sorted - get well soon.
Mark Reckless is clearly trying to out-Labour Labour in hypocrisy and rewriting of history:
2014: Mark Reckless, the RSPB and many local residents petitioned the government to “call in” the decision and have it reconsidered by a planning inspector. This is justified because the country’s whole system for protecting the environment will be undermined if building is allowed in this Site of Special Scientific Interest that is home to the UK’s largest nightingale colony.
2013: Earlier this month, Natural England declared Ministry of Defence land at Lodge Hill in my constituency to be a site of special scientific interest. In numerous plans over 18 years, the site has been clearly designated for 5,000 homes and for employment opportunities for 5,000 people. A total of £35.5 million has been spent to get to the point of planning consent being granted. After all this time and money, the council is concerned, to put it mildly, to be thwarted at the last hurdle by Natural England, which does not consider the economic impacts...The reason for this, we are told by Natural England, is that a study of some description has discovered that 84 nightingales might use the site. The comparison to be drawn is between those 84 nightingales and homes for 12,000 people and jobs for a further 5,000 people. ... It is not surprising that council leaders in the area say that we need to end the absurd situation of a non-elected Government agency dictating to national and local government on how to run things. Medway is an example of a council that is pro-development, that wants to support the Minister and that wants to show that it is open for business. Will the Minister assure me that our local council will be able to decide where it is best for development to go, not Ministers or their inspectors, and still less these quangos?
And using a supercharger, you can get 150 miles range in 20 minutes. That means you can go 450 miles (London to Edinburgh) with one comfort stop.
I don't think so. According to the site you pointed me to, 20 minutes on a supercharger, if there is one available (there are only 75 in the whole of Europe), will give half a full charge or about 134 miles (though they claim 170 miles worth of charge in half an hour). The type of charger found at motorway service stations will give, again according to the Telsa site, 68 miles per hour of charge).
Though with the upgraded battery Telsa claim a range of 306 miles (244 on the standard battery pack), they are silent on what conditions are necessary for that to be achieved. The Nissan Leaf for example has a range of about 100 miles when it is warm, dry and in daylight. When its cold, wet and dark the range drops to about 48 miles. I see no reason why such a drop should not also apply to the Telsa.
So a practical serious car? Would you spend £50,000 on car that you couldn't guarantee to take you to Birmingham and back with finding somewhere to plug it in for an hour or two?
Battery capability is improving every year, and unit prices are falling - I can see a cross-over to a genuinely affordable and useable car within 5-7 years.
On, topic, the irony of the AV campaign is palpable. I remember at the time saying that I'd not now vote for any party that opposed it and later asked for my vote 'to keep x out'.
After all, it'd obviously be a lower preference for me than whoever I'd have otherwise voted for. We don't want to end up with a Government elected by mild preferences.
At the risk of giving people flashbacks dragging up this discussion, there's a serious misunderstanding here.
The strength or mildness of the preference doesn't correspond to having the thing in first position. A lot of people here would be:
Hi all. Went into hospital yesterday to have op on prostate but it has been postponed due to me having an irregular heart beat. I well, now I will have to have more outpatients tests. What a drag. Now back home, sulking.
Sorry to hear that. Hope both issues get sorted out and you're back in fine fettle soon.
Mark Reckless is clearly trying to out-Labour Labour in hypocrisy and rewriting of history:
2014: Mark Reckless, the RSPB and many local residents petitioned the government to “call in” the decision and have it reconsidered by a planning inspector. This is justified because the country’s whole system for protecting the environment will be undermined if building is allowed in this Site of Special Scientific Interest that is home to the UK’s largest nightingale colony.
2013: Earlier this month, Natural England declared Ministry of Defence land at Lodge Hill in my constituency to be a site of special scientific interest. In numerous plans over 18 years, the site has been clearly designated for 5,000 homes and for employment opportunities for 5,000 people. A total of £35.5 million has been spent to get to the point of planning consent being granted. After all this time and money, the council is concerned, to put it mildly, to be thwarted at the last hurdle by Natural England, which does not consider the economic impacts...The reason for this, we are told by Natural England, is that a study of some description has discovered that 84 nightingales might use the site. The comparison to be drawn is between those 84 nightingales and homes for 12,000 people and jobs for a further 5,000 people. ... It is not surprising that council leaders in the area say that we need to end the absurd situation of a non-elected Government agency dictating to national and local government on how to run things. Medway is an example of a council that is pro-development, that wants to support the Minister and that wants to show that it is open for business. Will the Minister assure me that our local council will be able to decide where it is best for development to go, not Ministers or their inspectors, and still less these quangos?
Comments
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/nov/13/wikileaks-trans-pacific-partnership-chapter-secret
I'm pro-free trade, but it's very wrong if trade agreements strongly up the stringency of patents on the sly. Heavy patent law is the equivalent of enshrining monopolies. It's anti-competitive market.
Don't bother with the WAG VAT its not a policy and never was.
So what are they?
Low tax
Out of EU
Low Immigration
Grammar Schools
Less foreign aid
No green subsidies
None of this seems Socialist to me
The main difference is that he and Osborne have been much more successful in cutting public expenditure than Thatcher was, although admittedly that was through necessity. She had different urgent issues to address.
What happens to the FTSE100 index - and all the index tracker funds - if fusion comes onto the scene and oil and gas prices plummet?
"...after sterling nearly died in 1976, Healey subjected public spending to a SERIOUS haircut. In one year, he cut spending by 4% in real terms - the biggest decline we have ever seen (ex post-war defence rundowns)."
http://burningourmoney.blogspot.co.uk/2009/04/nearly-men-on-job.html
There'll be less need for wars in the Middle East and Climate Change will be helped.
But yes not everyone will win.
As for myself, well my vote won't particularly matter compared to others ^_~
a) It's practical. Although I say this about every such development. LM is a company with its roots in the military, and a fusion reactor that is 'practical' for a ballistic submarine might not be practical for civilian use. That's why we don't have loads of Rolls Royce PWR reactors in our towns.
b) Whether its raw materials (from the reports, deuterium and tritium) are easily and cost-effectively available.
c) How radioactive the reactor itself becomes, and consequent waste issues.
One thing to note: proliferation of nuclear weapons material should not be a problem with this sort of reactor.
All in all, I'm intrigued. Although I'm preparing myself for a fall.
Maybe they're all mad and you're the only one who's sane eh?
In so doing, they've simply guaranteed Conservatives win no future elections.
I came very, very close to doing the same thing.
http://t.co/1ilAXf4v2E
Yet, personally, if I were a Lockheed Martin board member and I was confident that my scientists had cracked the fusion problem, I'd want to keep the development in-house and therefore reap the full benefit of the profits in future decades.
They must have some pretty large and expensive hurdles to pass before it becomes commercially practical, so it's probably quite safe to conclude that they have probably misjudged the difficulty of those remaining hurdles - just as many fusion researchers have done before them.
Didn't foreign aid as a percentage of GDP rise during 1979 to 1990?
Didn't the first green subsidies (for insulation) get enacted under Mrs Thatcher?
Didn't asylum applications rise 100-fold between 1979 and 1990?
If you think Thatcher was a Socialist, then you can argue that if you like!
It isn't the most fluent jumper but he definitely has good speed for a three miler. Should improve for that, and a nice horse to follow for the season.
^_~
If you only need to rebuild something the size of a truck each time you solve the next problem, then the end result will be achieved a lot faster than having to rebuild something the size of a small town.
Thank you for the tip
If it was a Conservative-held seat, then I'd vote for a Conservative MP who was in favour of withdrawal from the EU. Otherwise, I'd vote UKIP.
Why? He is undoubtedly a gentleman and would give added kudos to pb. But, why?
So he can renege on manifesto commitments (viz Lisbon referendum in 2005). Or so he can prioritise immigrants for social housing as he happily admitted a few days ago. But I presume that won´t make it to his manifesto.
So he can happily import more third world immigrants to pad up the Labour vote? Will he at least come clean and tell his constituents why more immigration is good for them? Perhaps mention the Somali restaurants and the Afghan music scene. At least he´ll be getting brownie points for honesty.
The worrying thing is I do believe he passionately believes in these things. Despite being an intelligent man (a war gamer!!), how can he believe such tosh? How exactly does Muslim immigration benefit Britain? Curries aside.
Bad news for big oil, traditional car companies, the Saudi Arabian government, Russia
Delete that post before anyone sees it.. we cant go round in circles forever!!
..and NEVER mention the M word without prompting
Just remember it when you are MP for Basildon. ;-)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:UK_asylum_applications_1979-2009.jpg
Thatcher introduced the primary purpose rule in 1983. Immigration levels were broadly under control during the 1980s:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:UK_Migration_1970-2013.svg
On grammar schools, Charles Moore makes a good case in his biography of Thatcher. In those days, the decision to close them was down to local authorities, who had much more control over education provision in those days than today.
He provides good primary evidence that suggests she was (personally) reluctant to do this, but felt powerless to intervene in it particularly when many Tory authorities were calling for abolition. So she rubber stamped them.
Modernise to appeal to those who will never vote Tory - the trendy "values-driven" metropolitan elite.
At the same time everyone else knows elections are won with the lower mc and upper wc. Say the C1C2 of old? How many votes does wittering on about climate change, gay marriage and lentil burgers win with them?
Charles would know, but isn't it the same for listed drugs companies? They have to release major milestone progress on all new drugs, both positive and negative?
The Feb 2013 'announcement' might have protected them from that a little. Perhaps they've made further progress, and another 'update' is necessary.
Then there's the issue of whether this work was funded by the US taxpayer, and whether this is part of a keep-the-taxpayer-alert program. If it was taxpayer-funded, it might also be why they're looking for outside investors; the US govt may not be keen on LM getting all the cherries from the pie.
Or perhaps I'm way off-base. In fact, I probably am. ;-)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/nigeria/11169959/Nigerias-missing-schoolgirls-to-be-released-after-ceasefire-deal.html
Bad News
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/11169598/Four-men-charged-with-terror-offences-following-Isil-linked-London-raids.html
I pointed out this problem. TSE (a fellow Tory, who I disagree with on this) decided to attack me for it rather than engage with the argument.
And that *is* the problem. This is what is driving the party apart.
Apparently in the US about 14% of oil is used for non-fuel purposes:
http://askville.amazon.com/percentage-oil-consumption-consumer-products-fuel/AnswerViewer.do?requestId=2317764
http://www.tns-bmrb.co.uk/news/referendum-effect-set-to-increase-political-activity-but-trust-in-main-part
I'm guessing Qs 2&3 relate to VI, but are being held back till the weekend - Herald on Saturday (if Lab vote has not gone down massively) : Sunday Herald (if it has)
Fieldwork is a little dated in what seems to be a febrile situation - done between 24th September and 5th October.
Lab 33.7% (-0.4)
Con 31.3% (-0.2)
UKIP 16.6% (+0.4)
LD 8.3% (+0.2)
Lab lead 2.4% (-0.2)
Friday afternoon. Time to drink wine and kiss your wife.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sponsored/business/sme-home/11121432/business-funding.html?WT.mc_id=605654&source=Polar#!/
http://www.bsa-data.natcen.ac.uk/
Challenges change too. Welfare was simply more affordable back then. Health and Pension costs, in particular, because we weren't living as long.
The UKIP corner of the ring isn't the same without you. (Surprised about the heart though. How long have you had one? ;-) )
When given a list of prominent politicians, 24% said they trust the likely new Scottish National Party leader Nicola Sturgeon most to deliver more powers, double the figure for outgoing leader Alex Salmond. There is a very low level of trust in the three UK party leaders who published the eve-of-referendum vow on more powers for Holyrood – 6% trust David Cameron most, 1% trust Ed Miliband most and only a handful named Nick Clegg.
In spite of not being a party leader, Gordon Brown (15%) is the UK politician most trusted to deliver more powers. Once again, a quarter of those surveyed (26%) said they did not trust any of those named.
Salmond probably went at the right time, a perfectly timed exit of the scene.
However, as much of the oil in the ground (artcic, deep water, tight oil in the US, oil sand in Canada) needs high oil prices to be economic, the downside to oil prices (beyond $70-75) is probably quite limited. Supply leaves as prices fall.
And if this fusion works, then the differential between the cost of a calorie delivered through electricity and one delivered through burning hydrocarbons inverts: electricity will become cheaper than oil.
And using a supercharger, you can get 150 miles range in 20 minutes. That means you can go 450 miles (London to Edinburgh) with one comfort stop.
Contributed to online discussion: 11%
Distributed leaflets for Yes/No: 3% / 2%
The words in bold were all coined by this man:-
http://images.dailylife.com.au/2013/03/31/4154636/1_psi-nethercote-narrow-20130331214800845835-300x0.jpg
David Butler, of Nuffield College, Oxford, the father of British election forecasting, who turns 90 today.
Many Happy returns, sir!
IF fusion can be made to work it would mean we were less dependant on Russia and the Middle East.
Cheap power could help in any number of areas, e.g. desalination.
Dr Éoin Clarke @LabourEoin 2m2 minutes ago
According to the most recent poll, Labour are on course to lose 35 seats in Scotland in 2015
"MPs came away impressed by Crouch, but unimpressed by the Prime Minister, who messed up a bit by failing to thank her in his speech to the meeting. One senior Tory said ‘typical Cameron to forget to thank Tracey as he was winding up’.
This is classic David Cameron stuff: he regularly forgets the importance of little civilities like thanking colleagues for their hard work and giving the impression that he’s interested in them. He does try to rectify it by holding breakfast receptions for MPs on momentous days such as the second reading of the EU Referendum Bill. But if he managed to manage his party properly, some of its worst troubles might have been rather smaller."
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/isabel-hardman/2014/10/why-the-tories-think-they-can-win-in-rochester/
http://www.theairwheel.com
Hope you are ok
After all, it'd obviously be a lower preference for me than whoever I'd have otherwise voted for. We don't want to end up with a Government elected by mild preferences.
Hopefully your HB cause will get sorted out soon and you're back on track. I've got intermittent tachycardia and thoroughly sick of those little sticky monitor thingies.
He gave a pretty good speech at the Conservative party conference, but it only served to remind people of the speech he made to become party leader in the first place.
If you look at what's he's done rather than what he says the conclusion that he's a liberal is unescapable.
Ukip are the only hope to break the strangle hold that progressives have on our
political system.
This is just the latest worrying indication that Ukip have been seduced to the dark
side. Even Nigel Farage is now censoring himself to the point of shiftiness.
There's a pretty good post analysing his reaction to leftie Panorama journalists
called"Tell It Like It Is..." at:
http://john-moloney.blogspot.com/2014/10/tell-it-as-it-is-and-walk-toward-fire.html
Disruptive isn't a big enough word. It would lead to a major war unless the tech was shared (and even then...).
The strength or mildness of the preference doesn't correspond to having the thing in first position. A lot of people here would be:
1) UKIP
⇕ mild preference ⇕
2) Con
⇕ strong preference ⇕
3) LibDem
⇕ mild preference ⇕
4) Lab
Though with the upgraded battery Telsa claim a range of 306 miles (244 on the standard battery pack), they are silent on what conditions are necessary for that to be achieved. The Nissan Leaf for example has a range of about 100 miles when it is warm, dry and in daylight. When its cold, wet and dark the range drops to about 48 miles. I see no reason why such a drop should not also apply to the Telsa.
So a practical serious car? Would you spend £50,000 on car that you couldn't guarantee to take you to Birmingham and back with finding somewhere to plug it in for an hour or two?
http://numbercruncheruk.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/declining-duopoly.html
But of course, none of this approaches the situation at the height of the Alliance surge in December 1981 (after the Crosby by-election) when Gallup had the Liberal SDP combined share at 50.5%.
2014: Mark Reckless, the RSPB and many local residents petitioned the government to “call in” the decision and have it reconsidered by a planning inspector. This is justified because the country’s whole system for protecting the environment will be undermined if building is allowed in this Site of Special Scientific Interest that is home to the UK’s largest nightingale colony.
http://markreckless.com/2014/10/15/tory-stitch-up-on-lodge-hill/
2013: Earlier this month, Natural England declared Ministry of Defence land at Lodge Hill in my constituency to be a site of special scientific interest. In numerous plans over 18 years, the site has been clearly designated for 5,000 homes and for employment opportunities for 5,000 people. A total of £35.5 million has been spent to get to the point of planning consent being granted. After all this time and money, the council is concerned, to put it mildly, to be thwarted at the last hurdle by Natural England, which does not consider the economic impacts...The reason for this, we are told by Natural England, is that a study of some description has discovered that 84 nightingales might use the site. The comparison to be drawn is between those 84 nightingales and homes for 12,000 people and jobs for a further 5,000 people.
...
It is not surprising that council leaders in the area say that we need to end the absurd situation of a non-elected Government agency dictating to national and local government on how to run things. Medway is an example of a council that is pro-development, that wants to support the Minister and that wants to show that it is open for business. Will the Minister assure me that our local council will be able to decide where it is best for development to go, not Ministers or their inspectors, and still less these quangos?
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmhansrd/cm130326/debtext/130326-0003.htm#13032655002116
And Kippers complain about Cameron and say he can't be trusted! You really couldn't make it up.
http://rameznaam.com/2014/09/30/the-learning-curve-for-energy-storage/
Good spot.