politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Betting on will Boris Johnson’s tenure as Foreign Secretary will end
Like many I suspect Boris thought his ambition to be Prime Minister was over after Michael Gove’s transformation into Frank Underwood, but Gove is now looking more like Frank Spencer than Frank Underwood whilst Boris is now Foreign Secretary.
"Knuckled down" is not how I would describe Boris's time as London Mayor. He was hardly ever on the job, and when he was there he treated the whole thing as some kind of joke.
"Knuckled down" is not how I would describe Boris's time as London Mayor. He was hardly ever on the job, and when he was there he treated the whole thing as some kind of joke.
Well, to be fair, Mayor of London is a bit of joke.
"Knuckled down" is not how I would describe Boris's time as London Mayor. He was hardly ever on the job, and when he was there he treated the whole thing as some kind of joke.
No one needs to own it now although the Commonwealth will come to be its foremost institute in time.
You think the USA will join the Commonwealth or that the Commonwealth will surpass it?
What political framework will the Commonwealth use?
There are plenty of Republics in the Commonwealth, like India.
And it wont become something like the EU, more like ICANN and the Anglosphere will be like the internet (and the current Commonwealth) nobody will really own it.
That will make it incredibly successful. An alliance of free trading sovereign democracies sharing common values with the Queen or King as its titular head - much as the Statute of Westminster intended.
And yes, I suspect both the USA and Ireland will eventually join it.
Johnson insisted that there was no chance of the Brexit vote being reversed. “The British have decided to leave. It is like cricket – when the umpire tells you you are out, you are out,” he said. “It is curious how effective that metaphor is.”
The most likely reason for Boris to leave the Foreign Office will be as the result of a Cabinet re-shuffle approx 12-18 months before the scheduled May 2020 General Election. Consequently, not only is 2019 the most likely year, it's also inexplicably the most generously priced at 10/1. Accordingly, I've invested a pint's worth of Old Speckled Hen.
The Boris bet is also about Theresa May. We know David Cameron hated reshuffles but we don't know the same is true of our new Prime Minister. No bet for me.
No one needs to own it now although the Commonwealth will come to be its foremost institute in time.
You think the USA will join the Commonwealth or that the Commonwealth will surpass it?
What political framework will the Commonwealth use?
There are plenty of Republics in the Commonwealth, like India.
And it wont become something like the EU, more like ICANN and the Anglosphere will be like the internet (and the current Commonwealth) nobody will really own it.
That will make it incredibly successful. An alliance of free trading sovereign democracies sharing common values with the Queen or King as its titular head - much as the Statute of Westminster intended.
And yes, I suspect both the USA and Ireland will eventually join it.
George Washington, Benjamin Franklin................they are just spinning in their graves right now !
Johnson insisted that there was no chance of the Brexit vote being reversed. “The British have decided to leave. It is like cricket – when the umpire tells you you are out, you are out,” he said. “It is curious how effective that metaphor is.”
No one needs to own it now although the Commonwealth will come to be its foremost institute in time.
You think the USA will join the Commonwealth or that the Commonwealth will surpass it?
What political framework will the Commonwealth use?
There are plenty of Republics in the Commonwealth, like India.
And it wont become something like the EU, more like ICANN and the Anglosphere will be like the internet (and the current Commonwealth) nobody will really own it.
That will make it incredibly successful. An alliance of free trading sovereign democracies sharing common values with the Queen or King as its titular head - much as the Statute of Westminster intended.
And yes, I suspect both the USA and Ireland will eventually join it.
If only the Statute had applied to the non-white colonies (as were) in 1931!
Johnson insisted that there was no chance of the Brexit vote being reversed. “The British have decided to leave. It is like cricket – when the umpire tells you you are out, you are out,” he said. “It is curious how effective that metaphor is.”
Actually not. Replays can decide otherwise.
52% LEAVE 48% REMAIN
As long as the Brexiters leave it to Parliament to decide the final settlement, I am onside. We will get what we want.
An alliance of free trading sovereign democracies sharing common values with the Queen or King as its titular head - much as the Statute of Westminster intended.
And yes, I suspect both the USA and Ireland will eventually join it.
"Knuckled down" is not how I would describe Boris's time as London Mayor. He was hardly ever on the job, and when he was there he treated the whole thing as some kind of joke.
Evidence?
Testimony of people who work at city hall and personal experience
Johnson insisted that there was no chance of the Brexit vote being reversed. “The British have decided to leave. It is like cricket – when the umpire tells you you are out, you are out,” he said. “It is curious how effective that metaphor is.”
Actually not. Replays can decide otherwise.
52% LEAVE 48% REMAIN
As long as the Brexiters leave it to Parliament to decide the final settlement, I am onside. We will get what we want.
A thousand pardons for being thick - but I am tired and struggling against sleep. This is a genuinely friendly question because I am unsure what you mean.
OT I was reading around the case for (and against!) Hinckley-C.
Decided to have a look back at the last nuclear power station that we built, Sizewell-B. It just confirms that we're crap at planning and making decisions. It was originally envisaged in 1969(!). Design decision for an AGR was announced in 1980. the public enquiry took over three years. Ground was broken in 1987 and it entered service in 1995.
No one needs to own it now although the Commonwealth will come to be its foremost institute in time.
You think the USA will join the Commonwealth or that the Commonwealth will surpass it?
What political framework will the Commonwealth use?
There are plenty of Republics in the Commonwealth, like India.
And it wont become something like the EU, more like ICANN and the Anglosphere will be like the internet (and the current Commonwealth) nobody will really own it.
That will make it incredibly successful. An alliance of free trading sovereign democracies sharing common values with the Queen or King as its titular head - much as the Statute of Westminster intended.
And yes, I suspect both the USA and Ireland will eventually join it.
If only the Statute had applied to the non-white colonies (as were) in 1931!
Most of them didn't have the governance infrastructure in place - you would I fear have ended up with twenty or thirty Rhodesias..
But India did and it was a disaster that they were not included, had they been partition might have been avoided.
Johnson insisted that there was no chance of the Brexit vote being reversed. “The British have decided to leave. It is like cricket – when the umpire tells you you are out, you are out,” he said. “It is curious how effective that metaphor is.” Actually not. Replays can decide otherwise.
What happens in a cricket match if one side breaks all the rules? It maks a nonsense of the whole thing, and certainly you would not be "out" if the game were played properly.
Similarly with a Referendum or an election. When one side goes in for downright lies and promises that it knows cannot be implemented, that also makes nonsense of the result.
Our political system depends on respect for the rules. With his dishonesty and buffoonery, Boris Johnson runs the risk of bringing down our whole democratic system. I have no respect for the result of the referendum, nor for this government.
Johnson insisted that there was no chance of the Brexit vote being reversed. “The British have decided to leave. It is like cricket – when the umpire tells you you are out, you are out,” he said. “It is curious how effective that metaphor is.” Actually not. Replays can decide otherwise.
What happens in a cricket match if one side breaks all the rules? It maks a nonsense of the whole thing, and certainly you would not be "out" if the game were played properly.
Similarly with a Referendum or an election. When one side goes in for downright lies and promises that it knows cannot be implemented, that also makes nonsense of the result.
Our political system depends on respect for the rules. With his dishonesty and buffoonery, Boris Johnson runs the risk of bringing down our whole democratic system. I have no respect for the result of the referendum, nor for this government.
I can't imagine Boris resigning of his own volition. However, I bet at some point there's going to be a nasty bust-up involving Boris, Fox and DD. Fox or DD will flounce off amid fireworks, probably claiming that May and her acolytes are sabotaging their Brexit agenda, and Boris will be brought down in the ensuing mayhem. This is the Tory euro-sceptic hard-right we're talking about. It's bound to happen.
Johnson insisted that there was no chance of the Brexit vote being reversed. “The British have decided to leave. It is like cricket – when the umpire tells you you are out, you are out,” he said. “It is curious how effective that metaphor is.” Actually not. Replays can decide otherwise.
What happens in a cricket match if one side breaks all the rules? It maks a nonsense of the whole thing, and certainly you would not be "out" if the game were played properly.
Similarly with a Referendum or an election. When one side goes in for downright lies and promises that it knows cannot be implemented, that also makes nonsense of the result.
Our political system depends on respect for the rules. With his dishonesty and buffoonery, Boris Johnson runs the risk of bringing down our whole democratic system. I have no respect for the result of the referendum, nor for this government.
Yawn. Brexit won, get over it.
Says the person who hasn't got over the American War of Independence.
If Hillary Clinton is blaming the Russians for leaking DNC emails, why did she decide to have an unauthorised private email server while Secretary of State?
It's a replay of what has already occurred, not a re-run. So by all means have a recount. I suspect you'll find that Leave wins no matter how many times you count the ballot papers.
Rejoice Surby, the people have spoken and the verdict is clear.
OT I was reading around the case for (and against!) Hinckley-C.
Decided to have a look back at the last nuclear power station that we built, Sizewell-B. It just confirms that we're crap at planning and making decisions. It was originally envisaged in 1969(!). Design decision for an AGR was announced in 1980. the public enquiry took over three years. Ground was broken in 1987 and it entered service in 1995.
We have got to be more decisive as a country.
Yup agree.
Probably do it quicker as well if they didn't keep finding rare species on the site that are not even domicile or haven't been seen in the area for centuries but just happen to "reappear" right st the point the planning is being considered.
Johnson insisted that there was no chance of the Brexit vote being reversed. “The British have decided to leave. It is like cricket – when the umpire tells you you are out, you are out,” he said. “It is curious how effective that metaphor is.” Actually not. Replays can decide otherwise.
Similarly with a Referendum or an election. When one side goes in for downright lies and promises that it knows cannot be implemented, that also makes nonsense of the result.
.
Not in any legal sense, as far as I'm aware, unless they are direct lies about one's specific opponent. Making promises in a manifesto and immediately dropping them after victyory is not against the rules for instance.
...Britain still has a vast cultural empire covering about a third of the worlds surface...[reply excised...we created it and are still a big player in it, we made up the rules they run on to this day...
If by "it" you mean the Anglosphere, we don't own it and are not the sole creators of it.
[EDIT: unnest blockquotes]
I never said we were.
We don't need to own it because we created it.
Legal system and common law - check.
Language - check.
Parliamentary system - check, even for USA which has an elected Georgian Monarch.
Thats the framework. No one needs to own it now although the Commonwealth will come to be its foremost institute in time.
If you didn't intend to say that we owned the Anglosphere, then your use of the word "has" in the statement "...Britain still has a vast cultural empire..." was ill-chosen
We did not create the legal system of the United States (although we are recognised as a source).
We did not create the Parliamentary system: from memory, parliaments (in the sense of people coming together to discuss problems - hence "parlement", from the Old French) existed prior to England.
We did create the Westminster System, but the USA does not use it: in fact they specifically rejected it after the Revolution. The Australians also use a variation (the "Washminster Mutation") which no longer easily maps to it.
Stating that we created the Anglosphere is like the middle guy in a relay race saying he created the win, or like saying one man wrote a Wikipedia article. People before us developed principles, we developed them further and included different sources, people after us developed them further still. We are not the progenitor nor owner of it.
Johnson insisted that there was no chance of the Brexit vote being reversed. “The British have decided to leave. It is like cricket – when the umpire tells you you are out, you are out,” he said. “It is curious how effective that metaphor is.” Actually not. Replays can decide otherwise.
What happens in a cricket match if one side breaks all the rules? It maks a nonsense of the whole thing, and certainly you would not be "out" if the game were played properly.
Similarly with a Referendum or an election. When one side goes in for downright lies and promises that it knows cannot be implemented, that also makes nonsense of the result.
Our political system depends on respect for the rules. With his dishonesty and buffoonery, Boris Johnson runs the risk of bringing down our whole democratic system. I have no respect for the result of the referendum, nor for this government.
Yawn. Brexit won, get over it.
Says the person who hasn't got over the American War of Independence.
I can't imagine Boris resigning of his own volition. However, I bet at some point there's going to be a nasty bust-up involving Boris, Fox and DD. Fox or DD will flounce off amid fireworks, probably claiming that May and her acolytes are sabotaging their Brexit agenda, and Boris will be brought down in the ensuing mayhem. This is the Tory euro-sceptic hard-right we're talking about. It's bound to happen.
I agree.
He has a lot of potential enemies on the right of the party who see him as a useful idiot that should be disposed of asap.
Johnson insisted that there was no chance of the Brexit vote being reversed. “The British have decided to leave. It is like cricket – when the umpire tells you you are out, you are out,” he said. “It is curious how effective that metaphor is.” Actually not. Replays can decide otherwise.
What happens in a cricket match if one side breaks all the rules? It maks a nonsense of the whole thing, and certainly you would not be "out" if the game were played properly.
Similarly with a Referendum or an election. When one side goes in for downright lies and promises that it knows cannot be implemented, that also makes nonsense of the result.
Our political system depends on respect for the rules. With his dishonesty and buffoonery, Boris Johnson runs the risk of bringing down our whole democratic system. I have no respect for the result of the referendum, nor for this government.
Mr PClipp, we were originally taken into the EU (or "EEC" as it was known at the time) with some of the biggest political lies ever told - larger than anything told by the LEAVE or REMAIN side in the recent referendum. These lies were repeated in the 1975 referendum, which I lived through as an adult.
So don't preach to me about lies and the EU. I've had a bellyfull from the europhiles over the years - the worst culprits being the LibDems.
Johnson insisted that there was no chance of the Brexit vote being reversed. “The British have decided to leave. It is like cricket – when the umpire tells you you are out, you are out,” he said. “It is curious how effective that metaphor is.” Actually not. Replays can decide otherwise.
Similarly with a Referendum or an election. When one side goes in for downright lies and promises that it knows cannot be implemented, that also makes nonsense of the result.
.
Not in any legal sense, as far as I'm aware, unless they are direct lies about one's specific opponent. Making promises in a manifesto and immediately dropping them after victyory is not against the rules for instance.
I believe you can restate manifesto commitments as 'ambitions' and then 'beliefs'. The problem for His Imperial Majesty's Remainer holdouts is that their campaign told some absolute whoppers. Exhibit A: George Osborne's £4,300 per household cost for Brexit. Even the IFS called him on it.
Debbie Wasserman Schultz has announced she's resigning after the Democratic convention.
We should expect some fireworks this week.
It wasn't voluntary. She will gavel the convention in and out and be gone. CNN correspondent and Democratic activist Donna Brazile will serve out the balance of Schultz' term.
Johnson insisted that there was no chance of the Brexit vote being reversed. “The British have decided to leave. It is like cricket – when the umpire tells you you are out, you are out,” he said. “It is curious how effective that metaphor is.” Actually not. Replays can decide otherwise.
What happens in a cricket match if one side breaks all the rules? It maks a nonsense of the whole thing, and certainly you would not be "out" if the game were played properly.
Similarly with a Referendum or an election. When one side goes in for downright lies and promises that it knows cannot be implemented, that also makes nonsense of the result.
Our political system depends on respect for the rules. With his dishonesty and buffoonery, Boris Johnson runs the risk of bringing down our whole democratic system. I have no respect for the result of the referendum, nor for this government.
Ahhh bless......what a shame...... never mind heh?
"So don't preach to me about lies and the EU. I've had a bellyfull from the europhiles over the years."
The sulky Remainers tend to be those of tender years - the "Snowflake generation." All their childhood dreams have died in a burst of reality. Tread softly with them.
Johnson insisted that there was no chance of the Brexit vote being reversed. “The British have decided to leave. It is like cricket – when the umpire tells you you are out, you are out,” he said. “It is curious how effective that metaphor is.” Actually not. Replays can decide otherwise.
Similarly with a Referendum or an election. When one side goes in for downright lies and promises that it knows cannot be implemented, that also makes nonsense of the result.
.
Not in any legal sense, as far as I'm aware, unless they are direct lies about one's specific opponent. Making promises in a manifesto and immediately dropping them after victyory is not against the rules for instance.
Johnson insisted that there was no chance of the Brexit vote being reversed. “The British have decided to leave. It is like cricket – when the umpire tells you you are out, you are out,” he said. “It is curious how effective that metaphor is.” Actually not. Replays can decide otherwise.
What happens in a cricket match if one side breaks all the rules? It maks a nonsense of the whole thing, and certainly you would not be "out" if the game were played properly.
Similarly with a Referendum or an election. When one side goes in for downright lies and promises that it knows cannot be implemented, that also makes nonsense of the result.
Our political system depends on respect for the rules. With his dishonesty and buffoonery, Boris Johnson runs the risk of bringing down our whole democratic system. I have no respect for the result of the referendum, nor for this government.
Yawn. Brexit won, get over it.
Says the person who hasn't got over the American War of Independence.
23rd June is our Independence Day!
*crowd cheers*
We'll celebrate the anniversary each year by placing bets on when Article 50 will be triggered.
"So don't preach to me about lies and the EU. I've had a bellyfull from the europhiles over the years."
The sulky Remainers tend to be those of tender years - the "Snowflake generation." All their childhood dreams have died in a burst of reality. Tread softly with them.
I've discovered here that saying that a glorious future in the Anglosphere-Commonwealth now awaits us really gets under the skin of remainers.
Johnson insisted that there was no chance of the Brexit vote being reversed. “The British have decided to leave. It is like cricket – when the umpire tells you you are out, you are out,” he said. “It is curious how effective that metaphor is.” Actually not. Replays can decide otherwise.
Simi
.
Not in any legal sense, as far as I'm aware, unless they are direct lies about one's specific opponent. Making promises in a manifesto and immediately dropping them after victyory is not against the rules for instance.
I believe you can restate manifesto commitments as 'ambitions' and then 'beliefs'. The problem for His Imperial Majesty's Remainer holdouts is that their campaign told some absolute whoppers. Exhibit A: George Osborne's £4,300 per household cost for Brexit. Even the IFS called him on it.
The main problem with the 'lies were told' argument is not even that - it's that each side pointed out what it said were the lies of its opponents, very vocally, and people still voted the way they did knowing that, or willfully ignoring the warnings. I was angry about Leave peddling the Turkey nonsense for instance, but Remain pointed out the problems with it, and someone out there may still have decided to vote Leave on that basis regardless.
It's all very well being angry about lies or misleading statements made - they were definitely made - but people who heard them and were affected by them were given the 'truth' from the other side and made their own judgement to ignore it. People vote for stupid reasons all the time, we cannot know precisely which stupid reason they voted for, so you cannot exactly screen out the votes or invalidate the contest because of stupid claims made during the campaign, and the same applies to lies - tell people reason x they voted was a lie, and most, if they believe it, will say they voted for another reason.
But let's pretend we live in a world where only one side ever tells lies, that we know exactly why people voted as they did en masse, and that despite the claims being countered publicly and apparently ignored, that it is fair to overturn it. Let's pretend similar claims like because old people won't experience the aftermath as much, they shouldn't get to vote on certain matters (presumably if life expectancy is within 5 years of death at an election they should be disqualified). This is all terribly helpful in figuring out the next step.
Mr Clipp and others - the fight for the best possible Brexit terms is still on. Plenty of Leavers and Remainers may now have common cause. But it is also possible they don't work together and Harder Brexiteers will win the day. Is that better?
"Knuckled down" is not how I would describe Boris's time as London Mayor. He was hardly ever on the job, and when he was there he treated the whole thing as some kind of joke.
Evidence?
Testimony of people who work at city hall and personal experience
From what I hear, Boris was a very effective delegator, who surrounded himself with good people, and let them do their jobs. (Albeit, he liked to be front and centre of any successes.)
I don't know how well that skill set moves to the role of Foreign Secretary.
"So don't preach to me about lies and the EU. I've had a bellyfull from the europhiles over the years."
The sulky Remainers tend to be those of tender years - the "Snowflake generation." All their childhood dreams have died in a burst of reality. Tread softly with them.
I've discovered here that saying that a glorious future in the Anglosphere-Commonwealth now awaits us really gets under the skin of remainers.
I think it's all part of a nefarious scheme to get the Americans to play cricket.
"Knuckled down" is not how I would describe Boris's time as London Mayor. He was hardly ever on the job, and when he was there he treated the whole thing as some kind of joke.
Evidence?
Testimony of people who work at city hall and personal experience
From what I hear, Boris was a very effective delegator, who surrounded himself with good people, and let them do their jobs. (Albeit, he liked to be front and centre of any successes.)
I don't know how well that skill set moves to the role of Foreign Secretary.
"Knuckled down" is not how I would describe Boris's time as London Mayor. He was hardly ever on the job, and when he was there he treated the whole thing as some kind of joke.
Evidence?
Testimony of people who work at city hall and personal experience
From what I hear, Boris was a very effective delegator, who surrounded himself with good people, and let them do their jobs. (Albeit, he liked to be front and centre of any successes.)
I don't know how well that skill set moves to the role of Foreign Secretary.
Indeed. Lies are the conversation of politics and your definition of lie depends on whether it's said by your side or the other side. When people mature, they begin to realise this. Hence I try not to be too unkind to those young people who have problems facing reality.
"Knuckled down" is not how I would describe Boris's time as London Mayor. He was hardly ever on the job, and when he was there he treated the whole thing as some kind of joke.
Evidence?
Testimony of people who work at city hall and personal experience
From what I hear, Boris was a very effective delegator, who surrounded himself with good people, and let them do their jobs. (Albeit, he liked to be front and centre of any successes.)
I don't know how well that skill set moves to the role of Foreign Secretary.
He will wholeheartedly thrust himself deeply into foreign affairs......
"So don't preach to me about lies and the EU. I've had a bellyfull from the europhiles over the years."
The sulky Remainers tend to be those of tender years - the "Snowflake generation." All their childhood dreams have died in a burst of reality. Tread softly with them.
I've discovered here that saying that a glorious future in the Anglosphere-Commonwealth now awaits us really gets under the skin of remainers.
I think it's all part of a nefarious scheme to get the Americans to play cricket.
They do play Cricket. The first first class international was US v Canada. Indeed the only reason that the first first class England international was against Australia was due to the civil war making a tour of the US impossible.
Said civil war also resulted in baseball eclipsing it because it was easier to set up baseball.
Fortunately immigrants from India are doing good work in helping to revive it in US and Canada.
OT I was reading around the case for (and against!) Hinckley-C.
Decided to have a look back at the last nuclear power station that we built, Sizewell-B. It just confirms that we're crap at planning and making decisions. It was originally envisaged in 1969(!). Design decision for an AGR was announced in 1980. the public enquiry took over three years. Ground was broken in 1987 and it entered service in 1995.
We have got to be more decisive as a country.
Indecisiveness will hopefully save us a fortune as regards to Hinckley-C.
In the old days, the electricity generation model (predict and provision), was based around getting a bunch of baseload (inflexibly, high capital cost, low marginal cost) that constantly provided the minimum electricity levels for the country. So, you'd look to fill (say) 60% of minimum demand with nuclear, and another 50% or so with coal. (One of the pains about nuclear is that load factors - i.e. how often the plant is on-line and generating - are almost always sub 80%. In other words, one week in five, they're off-line for scheduled, or more often unschedule, maintenance work.) The rest of the generating capacity would be taken up with peaking plants: these would vary from CCGTs, which took a while to spin up; OCGTs; and diesel generators.
Two things have changed: 1. Gas was always considered the expensive option, which you'd use to provide additional power on top of coal. Gas is now a lot cheaper than coal because (a) gas plants require a lot less maintenance (no troublesome ash to deal with, no difficult mechanical belts to get coal into the furnace); (b) the cost of gas has collapsed; and (c) CCGTs are a lot more efficient at turning calories into kilowatts.
2. We've introduced renewables into the mix, which mean that the grid prefers electricity sources that can ramp up and ramp down incredibly quickly. Those old coal plants can take up to nine hours to reach full efficiency; if the wind stops blowing, they are genuinely useless. As renewables - and particularly "behind the meter" renewables - become more common, they start eating into baseload.
Finally, we now have metric shit tonnes (that's a technical term) of gas available from friendly countries. Two friendly countries - Australia, and the United States - will be 2020 be producing as much LNG as the world market was in 2010.
Anyone building anything other than a CCGT today needs their head examining.
Donald Trump has said people from France and Germany could face 'extreme vetting' before entering the United States because their countries have been 'compromised by terrorism'. In his nomination acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention, he said he wanted to crack down on immigration with countries where terror attacks were rife.
Donald Trump has said people from France and Germany could face 'extreme vetting' before entering the United States because their countries have been 'compromised by terrorism'. In his nomination acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention, he said he wanted to crack down on immigration with countries where terror attacks were rife.
OT I was reading around the case for (and against!) Hinckley-C.
Decided to have a look back at the last nuclear power station that we built, Sizewell-B. It just confirms that we're crap at planning and making decisions. It was originally envisaged in 1969(!). Design decision for an AGR was announced in 1980. the public enquiry took over three years. Ground was broken in 1987 and it entered service in 1995.
We have got to be more decisive as a country.
Indecisiveness will hopefully save us a fortune as regards to Hinckley-C.
Anyone building anything other than a CCGT today needs their head examining.
But Robert, you barbarian, what about the CO2 emissions? Won't somebody think of the children polar bears? Now excuse me, I'm off to make a flower bracelet.
"Knuckled down" is not how I would describe Boris's time as London Mayor. He was hardly ever on the job, and when he was there he treated the whole thing as some kind of joke.
Evidence?
Testimony of people who work at city hall and personal experience
From what I hear, Boris was a very effective delegator, who surrounded himself with good people, and let them do their jobs. (Albeit, he liked to be front and centre of any successes.)
I don't know how well that skill set moves to the role of Foreign Secretary.
Depends how much say in choosing his team he has.
I think there is an issue that the role of FS requires you do a chunk of negotiations yourself. Something he delegated in the role of mayor.
Johnson insisted that there was no chance of the Brexit vote being reversed. “The British have decided to leave. It is like cricket – when the umpire tells you you are out, you are out,” he said. “It is curious how effective that metaphor is.”
Actually not. Replays can decide otherwise.
52% LEAVE 48% REMAIN
As long as the Brexiters leave it to Parliament to decide the final settlement, I am onside. We will get what we want.
OT I was reading around the case for (and against!) Hinckley-C.
Decided to have a look back at the last nuclear power station that we built, Sizewell-B. It just confirms that we're crap at planning and making decisions. It was originally envisaged in 1969(!). Design decision for an AGR was announced in 1980. the public enquiry took over three years. Ground was broken in 1987 and it entered service in 1995.
We have got to be more decisive as a country.
Indecisiveness will hopefully save us a fortune as regards to Hinckley-C.
Anyone building anything other than a CCGT today needs their head examining.
But Robert, you barbarian, what about the CO2 emissions? Won't somebody think of the children polar bears? Now excuse me, I'm off to make a flower bracelet.
OT I was reading around the case for (and against!) Hinckley-C.
Decided to have a look back at the last nuclear power station that we built, Sizewell-B. It just confirms that we're crap at planning and making decisions. It was originally envisaged in 1969(!). Design decision for an AGR was announced in 1980. the public enquiry took over three years. Ground was broken in 1987 and it entered service in 1995.
We have got to be more decisive as a country.
Indecisiveness will hopefully save us a fortune as regards to Hinckley-C.
Anyone building anything other than a CCGT today needs their head examining.
But Robert, you barbarian, what about the CO2 emissions? Won't somebody think of the children polar bears? Now excuse me, I'm off to make a flower bracelet.
CCGTs emit pretty modest quantities of CO2.
Logical thing would seem to be to can that Nuke Station in Somerset and bung Rolls Royce a wodge of taxpayers money to turn their sub nuke geberators into medium size power plants
OT I was reading around the case for (and against!) Hinckley-C.
Decided to have a look back at the last nuclear power station that we built, Sizewell-B. It just confirms that we're crap at planning and making decisions. It was originally envisaged in 1969(!). Design decision for an AGR was announced in 1980. the public enquiry took over three years. Ground was broken in 1987 and it entered service in 1995.
We have got to be more decisive as a country.
Indecisiveness will hopefully save us a fortune as regards to Hinckley-C.
Anyone building anything other than a CCGT today needs their head examining.
But Robert, you barbarian, what about the CO2 emissions? Won't somebody think of the children polar bears? Now excuse me, I'm off to make a flower bracelet.
CCGTs emit pretty modest quantities of CO2.
Logical thing would seem to be to can that Nuke Station in Somerset and bung Rolls Royce a wodge of taxpayers money to turn their sub nuke geberators into medium size power plants
The modular nuclear power station won't be viable. We need to make better long term bets like laser fusion and tidal.
"Knuckled down" is not how I would describe Boris's time as London Mayor. He was hardly ever on the job, and when he was there he treated the whole thing as some kind of joke.
Evidence?
Testimony of people who work at city hall and personal experience
From what I hear, Boris was a very effective delegator, who surrounded himself with good people, and let them do their jobs. (Albeit, he liked to be front and centre of any successes.)
I don't know how well that skill set moves to the role of Foreign Secretary.
Depends how much say in choosing his team he has.
I think there is an issue that the role of FS requires you do a chunk of negotiations yourself. Something he delegated in the role of mayor.
Isnt that why May put Davis in charge of brexit negotiations?
This seems to be an example of entirely rational behaviour. One's plucky, independent, strong-minded and argumentative daughter will eventually leave home. After that, you can relax with your bimbo cum doormat of a wife. Sue me .
OT I was reading around the case for (and against!) Hinckley-C.
Decided to have a look back at the last nuclear power station that we built, Sizewell-B. It just confirms that we're crap at planning and making decisions. It was originally envisaged in 1969(!). Design decision for an AGR was announced in 1980. the public enquiry took over three years. Ground was broken in 1987 and it entered service in 1995.
We have got to be more decisive as a country.
Indecisiveness will hopefully save us a fortune as regards to Hinckley-C.
Anyone building anything other than a CCGT today needs their head examining.
But Robert, you barbarian, what about the CO2 emissions? Won't somebody think of the children polar bears? Now excuse me, I'm off to make a flower bracelet.
CCGTs emit pretty modest quantities of CO2.
Logical thing would seem to be to can that Nuke Station in Somerset and bung Rolls Royce a wodge of taxpayers money to turn their sub nuke geberators into medium size power plants
The modular nuclear power station won't be viable. We need to make better long term bets like laser fusion and tidal.
I struggle to find any cheaper way of generating power that will be cheaper than Distributed Solar + CCGTs for the next 50 years.
This seems to be an example of entirely rational behaviour. One's plucky, independent, strong-minded and argumentative daughter will eventually leave home. After that, you can relax with your bimbo cum doormat of a wife. Sue me .
OT I was reading around the case for (and against!) Hinckley-C.
Decided to have a look back at the last nuclear power station that we built, Sizewell-B. It just confirms that we're crap at planning and making decisions. It was originally envisaged in 1969(!). Design decision for an AGR was announced in 1980. the public enquiry took over three years. Ground was broken in 1987 and it entered service in 1995.
We have got to be more decisive as a country.
Indecisiveness will hopefully save us a fortune as regards to Hinckley-C.
Anyone building anything other than a CCGT today needs their head examining.
But Robert, you barbarian, what about the CO2 emissions? Won't somebody think of the children polar bears? Now excuse me, I'm off to make a flower bracelet.
CCGTs emit pretty modest quantities of CO2.
Logical thing would seem to be to can that Nuke Station in Somerset and bung Rolls Royce a wodge of taxpayers money to turn their sub nuke geberators into medium size power plants
The modular nuclear power station won't be viable. We need to make better long term bets like laser fusion and tidal.
I struggle to find any cheaper way of generating power that will be cheaper than Distributed Solar + CCGTs for the next 50 years.
Nuclear Fusion is the way to go but the path to getting there is fraught with peril. Oh for Fusion in a Bottle.
OT I was reading around the case for (and against!) Hinckley-C.
Decided to have a look back at the last nuclear power station that we built, Sizewell-B. It just confirms that we're crap at planning and making decisions. It was originally envisaged in 1969(!). Design decision for an AGR was announced in 1980. the public enquiry took over three years. Ground was broken in 1987 and it entered service in 1995.
We have got to be more decisive as a country.
Indecisiveness will hopefully save us a fortune as regards to Hinckley-C.
Anyone building anything other than a CCGT today needs their head examining.
But Robert, you barbarian, what about the CO2 emissions? Won't somebody think of the children polar bears? Now excuse me, I'm off to make a flower bracelet.
CCGTs emit pretty modest quantities of CO2.
Logical thing would seem to be to can that Nuke Station in Somerset and bung Rolls Royce a wodge of taxpayers money to turn their sub nuke geberators into medium size power plants
The modular nuclear power station won't be viable. We need to make better long term bets like laser fusion and tidal.
I struggle to find any cheaper way of generating power that will be cheaper than Distributed Solar + CCGTs for the next 50 years.
Nuclear Fusion is the way to go but the path to getting there is fraught with peril. Oh for Fusion in a Bottle.
My PhD was on the magnetic confinement of plasma in toroidal devices such as tokamaks. Fusion power generation is indeed fraught with difficulties, and fusion power stations won't be a viable source of electricity for a long time, if ever. While their potential is enormous, the technical challenges are formidable, making fusion power a real long shot.
OT I was reading around the case for (and against!) Hinckley-C.
Decided to have a look back at the last nuclear power station that we built, Sizewell-B. It just confirms that we're crap at planning and making decisions. It was originally envisaged in 1969(!). Design decision for an AGR was announced in 1980. the public enquiry took over three years. Ground was broken in 1987 and it entered service in 1995.
We have got to be more decisive as a country.
Indecisiveness will hopefully save us a fortune as regards to Hinckley-C.
Anyone building anything other than a CCGT today needs their head examining.
But Robert, you barbarian, what about the CO2 emissions? Won't somebody think of the children polar bears? Now excuse me, I'm off to make a flower bracelet.
CCGTs emit pretty modest quantities of CO2.
Logical thing would seem to be to can that Nuke Station in Somerset and bung Rolls Royce a wodge of taxpayers money to turn their sub nuke geberators into medium size power plants
The modular nuclear power station won't be viable. We need to make better long term bets like laser fusion and tidal.
I struggle to find any cheaper way of generating power that will be cheaper than Distributed Solar + CCGTs for the next 50 years.
Nuclear Fusion is the way to go but the path to getting there is fraught with peril. Oh for Fusion in a Bottle.
Billions have been thrown at nuclear fusion. The problem is that it's really, really hard.
Police in Germany have arrested another teenager in connection with the 'lone wolf' shooting in Munich.
cover up incoming............
16 year old Afghani national, according to Munich Police official Twitter feed.
"locally known as Derek"?
Alright, Dave?
This is going to be a bigger cover up than Cologne isn't it?
That's just absurd. Why are people on this site so desperate for this to have been anything more than it very obviously appears to be: a rampage by a deranged kid with a grudge?
Comments
(only kidding!)
What political framework will the Commonwealth use?
Typical of the buffoon. Shooting from his hip.
Evidence?
That will make it incredibly successful. An alliance of free trading sovereign democracies sharing common values with the Queen or King as its titular head - much as the Statute of Westminster intended.
And yes, I suspect both the USA and Ireland will eventually join it.
Actually not. Replays can decide otherwise.
Consequently, not only is 2019 the most likely year, it's also inexplicably the most generously priced at 10/1. Accordingly, I've invested a pint's worth of Old Speckled Hen.
DYOR.
48% REMAIN
When you say "We will get what we want." .....
Who is "we", and what is "what we want"?
Decided to have a look back at the last nuclear power station that we built, Sizewell-B. It just confirms that we're crap at planning and making decisions. It was originally envisaged in 1969(!). Design decision for an AGR was announced in 1980. the public enquiry took over three years. Ground was broken in 1987 and it entered service in 1995.
We have got to be more decisive as a country.
But India did and it was a disaster that they were not included, had they been partition might have been avoided.
Similarly with a Referendum or an election. When one side goes in for downright lies and promises that it knows cannot be implemented, that also makes nonsense of the result.
Our political system depends on respect for the rules. With his dishonesty and buffoonery, Boris Johnson runs the risk of bringing down our whole democratic system. I have no respect for the result of the referendum, nor for this government.
"Actually not. Replays can decide otherwise."
It's a replay of what has already occurred, not a re-run. So by all means have a recount. I suspect you'll find that Leave wins no matter how many times you count the ballot papers.
Rejoice Surby, the people have spoken and the verdict is clear.
Probably do it quicker as well if they didn't keep finding rare species on the site that are not even domicile or haven't been seen in the area for centuries but just happen to "reappear" right st the point the planning is being considered.
Swampy up a tree doesn't help either.
Pokemon Go player calls the police because someone 'stole their Pokemon'
We did not create the legal system of the United States (although we are recognised as a source).
We did not create the Parliamentary system: from memory, parliaments (in the sense of people coming together to discuss problems - hence "parlement", from the Old French) existed prior to England.
We did create the Westminster System, but the USA does not use it: in fact they specifically rejected it after the Revolution. The Australians also use a variation (the "Washminster Mutation") which no longer easily maps to it.
Stating that we created the Anglosphere is like the middle guy in a relay race saying he created the win, or like saying one man wrote a Wikipedia article. People before us developed principles, we developed them further and included different sources, people after us developed them further still. We are not the progenitor nor owner of it.
We should expect some fireworks this week.
*crowd cheers*
He has a lot of potential enemies on the right of the party who see him as a useful idiot that should be disposed of asap.
So don't preach to me about lies and the EU. I've had a bellyfull from the europhiles over the years - the worst culprits being the LibDems.
"I have no respect for the result of the referendum."
Oh, the horror. I'll never sleep peacefully again.
Diddums.
"So don't preach to me about lies and the EU. I've had a bellyfull from the europhiles over the years."
The sulky Remainers tend to be those of tender years - the "Snowflake generation." All their childhood dreams have died in a burst of reality. Tread softly with them.
It's all very well being angry about lies or misleading statements made - they were definitely made - but people who heard them and were affected by them were given the 'truth' from the other side and made their own judgement to ignore it. People vote for stupid reasons all the time, we cannot know precisely which stupid reason they voted for, so you cannot exactly screen out the votes or invalidate the contest because of stupid claims made during the campaign, and the same applies to lies - tell people reason x they voted was a lie, and most, if they believe it, will say they voted for another reason.
But let's pretend we live in a world where only one side ever tells lies, that we know exactly why people voted as they did en masse, and that despite the claims being countered publicly and apparently ignored, that it is fair to overturn it. Let's pretend similar claims like because old people won't experience the aftermath as much, they shouldn't get to vote on certain matters (presumably if life expectancy is within 5 years of death at an election they should be disqualified). This is all terribly helpful in figuring out the next step.
Mr Clipp and others - the fight for the best possible Brexit terms is still on. Plenty of Leavers and Remainers may now have common cause. But it is also possible they don't work together and Harder Brexiteers will win the day. Is that better?
I don't know how well that skill set moves to the role of Foreign Secretary.
What is wrong with Helmut Hans and A....
Indeed. Lies are the conversation of politics and your definition of lie depends on whether it's said by your side or the other side. When people mature, they begin to realise this. Hence I try not to be too unkind to those young people who have problems facing reality.
Said civil war also resulted in baseball eclipsing it because it was easier to set up baseball.
Fortunately immigrants from India are doing good work in helping to revive it in US and Canada.
In the old days, the electricity generation model (predict and provision), was based around getting a bunch of baseload (inflexibly, high capital cost, low marginal cost) that constantly provided the minimum electricity levels for the country. So, you'd look to fill (say) 60% of minimum demand with nuclear, and another 50% or so with coal. (One of the pains about nuclear is that load factors - i.e. how often the plant is on-line and generating - are almost always sub 80%. In other words, one week in five, they're off-line for scheduled, or more often unschedule, maintenance work.) The rest of the generating capacity would be taken up with peaking plants: these would vary from CCGTs, which took a while to spin up; OCGTs; and diesel generators.
Two things have changed:
1. Gas was always considered the expensive option, which you'd use to provide additional power on top of coal. Gas is now a lot cheaper than coal because (a) gas plants require a lot less maintenance (no troublesome ash to deal with, no difficult mechanical belts to get coal into the furnace); (b) the cost of gas has collapsed; and (c) CCGTs are a lot more efficient at turning calories into kilowatts.
2. We've introduced renewables into the mix, which mean that the grid prefers electricity sources that can ramp up and ramp down incredibly quickly. Those old coal plants can take up to nine hours to reach full efficiency; if the wind stops blowing, they are genuinely useless. As renewables - and particularly "behind the meter" renewables - become more common, they start eating into baseload.
Finally, we now have metric shit tonnes (that's a technical term) of gas available from friendly countries. Two friendly countries - Australia, and the United States - will be 2020 be producing as much LNG as the world market was in 2010.
Anyone building anything other than a CCGT today needs their head examining.
Donald Trump has said people from France and Germany could face 'extreme vetting' before entering the United States because their countries have been 'compromised by terrorism'.
In his nomination acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention, he said he wanted to crack down on immigration with countries where terror attacks were rife.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3705400/Trump-says-French-Germans-face-extreme-vetting-entering-compromised-terrorism.html#ixzz4FMQ06tf5
[EDIT: Unnest blockquotes]
The qualities men want in a wife versus those they want in an adult daughter. https://t.co/ibcI4S0KOm https://t.co/phBpYLCcPk
Times like these you actually wish for it to be a gas cylinder accident.
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/07/poll-americans-fear-election-clinton-trump-160715092852340.html