Given the way prices of offshore wind are falling and the new generation batteries becoming available is it possible that the reason we don't need Hinckley Point built is because other solutions are now available..
It's not that we need to only replace the 3,200 MWh that Hinkley Point would have delivered, but also the capacity that will be lost when old plants are decommissioned.
But isn't demand falling (slightly - I think certain household generation, e.g. solar, reduces demand rather than increases supply) - I'm not sure HInkley Point was for *additional* capacity was it?
No, but that was my point exactly.
Sorry I don't follow. I read you as contrasting (a) the output Hinkley Point would have created with (b) old plants being decommissioned. To my mind that seems like double counting?
Probably should have caveated the world also, sorry about that! We have a load of power plants due to be decommissioned, plants which supply baseline load. Wind can't do that.
Given the way prices of offshore wind are falling and the new generation batteries becoming available is it possible that the reason we don't need Hinckley Point built is because other solutions are now available..
It's not that we need to only replace the 3,200 MWh that Hinkley Point would have delivered, but also the capacity that will be lost when old plants are decommissioned.
But isn't demand falling (slightly - I think certain household generation, e.g. solar, reduces demand rather than increases supply) - I'm not sure HInkley Point was for *additional* capacity was it?
Almost half our existing nuclear capacity is due for decommissioning by 2025.
That's only 4GW. Worth remembering that we have about 22GW of coal capacity in the UK that is currently sitting completely idle, and another 3.5GW of OCGT and 2.5GW of oil. Or, to put another way, 28GW of generating capacity in the UK is currently compeltely unused due to:
- falling electricity demand - cheap gas displacing coal - behind the meter solar - wind
Wow, I didn't know there was so much spare capacity. Why do the papers always bleat on about the lights going out, and wasn't there a point a few years ago that some power was being supplied via diesel generators?
"He was caught still wearing his flying suit and carrying £500 in British currency, forged identity papers, a radio transmitter, and a German sausage.[1]"
I'm amazed a Nazi combatant, caught in flagrante conducting an act of espionage, by the army, during the second world war, was afforded the luxury of a court martial.
"He was caught still wearing his flying suit and carrying £500 in British currency, forged identity papers, a radio transmitter, and a German sausage.[1]"
I'm amazed a Nazi combatant, caught in flagrante conducting an act of espionage, by the army, during the second world war, was afforded the luxury of a court martial.
I thought you only court martialed your own troops?
"He was caught still wearing his flying suit and carrying £500 in British currency, forged identity papers, a radio transmitter, and a German sausage.[1]"
I'm amazed a Nazi combatant, caught in flagrante conducting an act of espionage, by the army, during the second world war, was afforded the luxury of a court martial.
Looks like somebody on Wiki "inserted" the sausage as a joke! (But it wasn't me!)
"He was caught still wearing his flying suit and carrying £500 in British currency, forged identity papers, a radio transmitter, and a German sausage.[1]"
I'm amazed a Nazi combatant, caught in flagrante conducting an act of espionage, by the army, during the second world war, was afforded the luxury of a court martial.
I thought you only court martialed your own troops?
Because he was wearing uniform upon capture, he wasn't hanged. Firing squad instead.
Much as I'm glad to see the back of that individual for a while I feel most uncomfortable about what he has been convicted of. 'Inciting Support for ISIS'
It sounds dreadfully Illiberal, repressive and McCarthyite.
We could have had half the Labour Party imprisoned in the 1950s including Ed Milibands Father if we had made inciting support for the USSR or inciting support for communism illegal.
That law might have been used to snare a wrongun this time but the scope for such a law to be misused by a capricious government is dreadful.
Much as I detest the opinions expressed by these 2 individuals, I also have a big problem with them being prosecuted for it. 'Free Speech' is not just a good thing in its own right, it is the foundation on which other freedoms are based, both individual, social and economic.
Ones attitude to free speech can not be judged, when the speech in question is things you would like to hear anyway, its your willingness to support somebodies right to say things that explicitly do not which to be voiced.
I hate what they say, I hate everything they stand for, and I'm sorry if saying this upset's anybody, but even if I'm the only person saying this no one should ever be persecuted for saying something.
"He was caught still wearing his flying suit and carrying £500 in British currency, forged identity papers, a radio transmitter, and a German sausage.[1]"
I'm amazed a Nazi combatant, caught in flagrante conducting an act of espionage, by the army, during the second world war, was afforded the luxury of a court martial.
I thought you only court martialed your own troops?
Because he was wearing uniform upon capture, he wasn't hanged. Firing squad instead.
Given the way prices of offshore wind are falling and the new generation batteries becoming available is it possible that the reason we don't need Hinckley Point built is because other solutions are now available..
It's not that we need to only replace the 3,200 MWh that Hinkley Point would have delivered, but also the capacity that will be lost when old plants are decommissioned.
But isn't demand falling (slightly - I think certain household generation, e.g. solar, reduces demand rather than increases supply) - I'm not sure HInkley Point was for *additional* capacity was it?
Almost half our existing nuclear capacity is due for decommissioning by 2025.
That's only 4GW. Worth remembering that we have about 22GW of coal capacity in the UK that is currently sitting completely idle, and another 3.5GW of OCGT and 2.5GW of oil. Or, to put another way, 28GW of generating capacity in the UK is currently compeltely unused due to:
- falling electricity demand - cheap gas displacing coal - behind the meter solar - wind
I thought a significant reason for that non use of coal was also Government regulation and environmental concerns? I note that in March alone we removed 8.4GW worth of generation from our portfolio by closing coal fired power stations for political rather than economic reasons.
Given the way prices of offshore wind are falling and the new generation batteries becoming available is it possible that the reason we don't need Hinckley Point built is because other solutions are now available..
It's not that we need to only replace the 3,200 MWh that Hinkley Point would have delivered, but also the capacity that will be lost when old plants are decommissioned.
But isn't demand falling (slightly - I think certain household generation, e.g. solar, reduces demand rather than increases supply) - I'm not sure HInkley Point was for *additional* capacity was it?
Almost half our existing nuclear capacity is due for decommissioning by 2025.
That's only 4GW. Worth remembering that we have about 22GW of coal capacity in the UK that is currently sitting completely idle, and another 3.5GW of OCGT and 2.5GW of oil. Or, to put another way, 28GW of generating capacity in the UK is currently compeltely unused due to:
- falling electricity demand - cheap gas displacing coal - behind the meter solar - wind
Heh. I fell below my own standards there. I blame the sunshine . I was helping a remainer this morning by pointing out that it sounded much better to say that the inflation rate had jumped by 20%.
The old AGRs are tiny - 500-600MW apiece. Sorry about the hyperbole.
Much as I'm glad to see the back of that individual for a while I feel most uncomfortable about what he has been convicted of. 'Inciting Support for ISIS'
It sounds dreadfully Illiberal, repressive and McCarthyite.
We could have had half the Labour Party imprisoned in the 1950s including Ed Milibands Father if we had made inciting support for the USSR or inciting support for communism illegal.
That law might have been used to snare a wrongun this time but the scope for such a law to be misused by a capricious government is dreadful.
Given the extra info revealed today behind the British cycling new marginal gain strategy...I hate to think what they would suggest if they ran the Pole Vaulting and this guy was part of the team.
"He was caught still wearing his flying suit and carrying £500 in British currency, forged identity papers, a radio transmitter, and a German sausage.[1]"
I'm amazed a Nazi combatant, caught in flagrante conducting an act of espionage, by the army, during the second world war, was afforded the luxury of a court martial.
Looks like somebody on Wiki "inserted" the sausage as a joke! (But it wasn't me!)
I've read the anecdote about him carrying 'sausages' be for in a few books, (but not fully fact checked by readying the court Martial records) so suspect it is real.
Given the extra info revealed today behind the British cycling new marginal gain strategy...I hate to think what they would suggest if they ran the Pole Vaulting and this guy was part of the team.
"He was caught still wearing his flying suit and carrying £500 in British currency, forged identity papers, a radio transmitter, and a German sausage.[1]"
I'm amazed a Nazi combatant, caught in flagrante conducting an act of espionage, by the army, during the second world war, was afforded the luxury of a court martial.
Looks like somebody on Wiki "inserted" the sausage as a joke! (But it wasn't me!)
I've read the anecdote about him carrying 'sausages' be for in a few books, (but not fully fact checked by readying the court Martial records) so suspect it is real.
Did the sausage have a forged painting hidden in it?
Given the extra info revealed today behind the British cycling new marginal gain strategy...I hate to think what they would suggest if they ran the Pole Vaulting and this guy was part of the team.
Given the extra info revealed today behind the British cycling new marginal gain strategy...I hate to think what they would suggest if they ran the Pole Vaulting and this guy was part of the team.
"He was caught still wearing his flying suit and carrying £500 in British currency, forged identity papers, a radio transmitter, and a German sausage.[1]"
I'm amazed a Nazi combatant, caught in flagrante conducting an act of espionage, by the army, during the second world war, was afforded the luxury of a court martial.
Looks like somebody on Wiki "inserted" the sausage as a joke! (But it wasn't me!)
I've read the anecdote about him carrying 'sausages' be for in a few books, (but not fully fact checked by readying the court Martial records) so suspect it is real.
Did the sausage have a forged painting hidden in it?
You can tell if it is genuine if it has the little swastika on it.
Given the extra info revealed today behind the British cycling new marginal gain strategy...I hate to think what they would suggest if they ran the Pole Vaulting and this guy was part of the team.
Or Google 'tucking' for rather more information on the topic than you might wish .
Its all about the aerodynamics....Team GB cycling bods would for sure wind tunnel test it.
That article showed how much effort they put into finding solutions to problems, convening medical experts and scientists to not only advise the team on changes to the athletes' physical care, but also to look at a simple rule change to the angle of the seat that would help all competitors with the same problem. That's where all the money goes, and it's delivered another hatfull of medals again in Rio.
I see that there is a growing belief, and big allegations coming in, that judges have been nobbled, given two unbelievable decisions in Russian boxer's favour.
"He was caught still wearing his flying suit and carrying £500 in British currency, forged identity papers, a radio transmitter, and a German sausage.[1]"
I'm amazed a Nazi combatant, caught in flagrante conducting an act of espionage, by the army, during the second world war, was afforded the luxury of a court martial.
Looks like somebody on Wiki "inserted" the sausage as a joke! (But it wasn't me!)
I've read the anecdote about him carrying 'sausages' be for in a few books, (but not fully fact checked by readying the court Martial records) so suspect it is real.
Did the sausage have a forged painting hidden in it?
Of a fallen 'Madonna' with the big......
Sadly I don't think so, but it may have been wrapped up in the £500 of forged bank notes.
"He was caught still wearing his flying suit and carrying £500 in British currency, forged identity papers, a radio transmitter, and a German sausage.[1]"
I'm amazed a Nazi combatant, caught in flagrante conducting an act of espionage, by the army, during the second world war, was afforded the luxury of a court martial.
Looks like somebody on Wiki "inserted" the sausage as a joke! (But it wasn't me!)
I've read the anecdote about him carrying 'sausages' be for in a few books, (but not fully fact checked by readying the court Martial records) so suspect it is real.
Did the sausage have a forged painting hidden in it?
Of a fallen 'Madonna' with the big......
Sadly I don't think so, but it may have been wrapped up in the £500 of forged bank notes.
As well as the series I went to the west end stage show of that. People literally rolling in the aisles with laughter
"He was caught still wearing his flying suit and carrying £500 in British currency, forged identity papers, a radio transmitter, and a German sausage.[1]"
I'm amazed a Nazi combatant, caught in flagrante conducting an act of espionage, by the army, during the second world war, was afforded the luxury of a court martial.
Looks like somebody on Wiki "inserted" the sausage as a joke! (But it wasn't me!)
I've read the anecdote about him carrying 'sausages' be for in a few books, (but not fully fact checked by readying the court Martial records) so suspect it is real.
Did the sausage have a forged painting hidden in it?
Of a fallen 'Madonna' with the big......
Sadly I don't think so, but it may have been wrapped up in the £500 of forged bank notes.
As well as the series I went to the west end stage show of that. People literally rolling in the aisles with laughter
it was some of the best TV ever made, IMHO. I'v been tolled that it was also popular in The Netherlands, how it translates with all the innuendoes I don't know, but they loved it.
"He was caught still wearing his flying suit and carrying £500 in British currency, forged identity papers, a radio transmitter, and a German sausage.[1]"
I'm amazed a Nazi combatant, caught in flagrante conducting an act of espionage, by the army, during the second world war, was afforded the luxury of a court martial.
Looks like somebody on Wiki "inserted" the sausage as a joke! (But it wasn't me!)
I've read the anecdote about him carrying 'sausages' be for in a few books, (but not fully fact checked by readying the court Martial records) so suspect it is real.
Did the sausage have a forged painting hidden in it?
Of a fallen 'Madonna' with the big......
Sadly I don't think so, but it may have been wrapped up in the £500 of forged bank notes.
As well as the series I went to the west end stage show of that. People literally rolling in the aisles with laughter
it was some of the best TV ever made, IMHO. I'v been tolled that it was also popular in The Netherlands, how it translates with all the innuendoes I don't know, but they loved it.
Most of the cloggies speak very good English and they have a very similar sense of humour to us. The big surprise for me was that German TV bought the show and it was very popular there too.
Perceived wisdom on here seems to be that Corbyn's Labour is going to be absolutely hammered at the next general election. Yet I see no real evidence for that proposition. OK, he is down a couple of percent from Labour's score last year but it hardly a dreadful fall.
As discussed on here umpteen times before, Corbyn's personal ratings are awful, and most of the electorate don't think about politics between elections. So maybe Labour vote share will plummet come the day, but I suggest there is very little evidence of it so far.
Perceived wisdom on here seems to be that Corbyn's Labour is going to be absolutely hammered at the next general election. Yet I see no real evidence for that proposition. OK, he is down a couple of percent from Labour's score last year but it hardly a dreadful fall.
As discussed on here umpteen times before, Corbyn's personal ratings are awful, and most of the electorate don't think about politics between elections. So maybe Labour vote share will plummet come the day, but I suggest there is very little evidence of it so far.
Paddy Power have paid out on Conlon winning gold, even though he was, inexplicably, defeated by the judging. The Paddy Power set of tweets this afternoon is very angry.
From that article "One boxing judge who was prepared to go on the record, Ireland’s Seamus Kelly, told the Guardian he had been asked to cheat at the Arab Games in Doha in 2011 by indicating who was winning during the fight."
I mean, are they not even trying to hide what they are doing?
I suppose you could profit from betting on any Russian boxer but you would have to sign away your soul.
Perceived wisdom on here seems to be that Corbyn's Labour is going to be absolutely hammered at the next general election. Yet I see no real evidence for that proposition. OK, he is down a couple of percent from Labour's score last year but it hardly a dreadful fall.
As discussed on here umpteen times before, Corbyn's personal ratings are awful, and most of the electorate don't think about politics between elections. So maybe Labour vote share will plummet come the day, but I suggest there is very little evidence of it so far.
I think the only reasonably solid evidence is that the score is only just down on last year when generally oppositions rack up big leads at this point, but counter to that apparently that is not consistent across the entire period of opposition.
I think the assumption of Labour being hammered is on the basis they do even worse than polling currently suggests on the idea they are still being overstated. Now, frankly I do not know how Labour can be so high when they are tearing themselves to bits, but then I didn't know how the Tories were maintaining their position while tearing themselves to pieces pre-Brexit. I would not be surprised if Labour under Corbyn would be hammered, but it is not as certain as it seems like it should be.
Perceived wisdom on here seems to be that Corbyn's Labour is going to be absolutely hammered at the next general election. Yet I see no real evidence for that proposition. OK, he is down a couple of percent from Labour's score last year but it hardly a dreadful fall.
As discussed on here umpteen times before, Corbyn's personal ratings are awful, and most of the electorate don't think about politics between elections. So maybe Labour vote share will plummet come the day, but I suggest there is very little evidence of it so far.
That's a very 2010-2015 way of looking at it.
Possibly, Mr Paris. What would be the 2016 way of looking at it?
That UKIP figure must be irritating to some on here too, given that they have been saying the party is in collapse.
Corbyn would lose a favourability poll with a lemon among the general populace. The Labour leadership vote though will be decided by a self-selected group. Some of them paid £25 for the privilege. I'm not sure anyone wants to spend £25 to vote for Owen Smith.
I think the next leader will be other than Mr Smith. Having been rather ambushed by TSE and friends on Burgon (99/1) though I'd not care to choose. (I think Burgon is basically impossible, but I thought that about Corbyn too)
Perceived wisdom on here seems to be that Corbyn's Labour is going to be absolutely hammered at the next general election. Yet I see no real evidence for that proposition. OK, he is down a couple of percent from Labour's score last year but it hardly a dreadful fall.
As discussed on here umpteen times before, Corbyn's personal ratings are awful, and most of the electorate don't think about politics between elections. So maybe Labour vote share will plummet come the day, but I suggest there is very little evidence of it so far.
That's a very 2010-2015 way of looking at it.
Possibly, Mr Paris. What would be the 2016 way of looking at it?
That UKIP figure must be irritating to some on here too, given that they have been saying the party is in collapse.
I don't know, but the one thing I'd probably take with a pinch of salt is the headline figure (for both sides) and I'd perhaps be wary of making any predictions 4 years out.
FWIW, without a split, I can't see it plummeting. But events, etc etc
Paddy Power have paid out on Conlon winning gold, even though he was, inexplicably, defeated by the judging. The Paddy Power set of tweets this afternoon is very angry.
From that article "One boxing judge who was prepared to go on the record, Ireland’s Seamus Kelly, told the Guardian he had been asked to cheat at the Arab Games in Doha in 2011 by indicating who was winning during the fight."
I mean, are they not even trying to hide what they are doing?
I suppose you could profit from betting on any Russian boxer but you would have to sign away your soul.
Inverdale earlier made it VERY plain that the Russians were playing silly buggers here. He talked about the inexplicable judging decisions for two Russian boxers. I was startled by his clear innuendo. I'm no boxing buff, but the Irish guy looked a winner - not a unanimous loser.
Perceived wisdom on here seems to be that Corbyn's Labour is going to be absolutely hammered at the next general election. Yet I see no real evidence for that proposition. OK, he is down a couple of percent from Labour's score last year but it hardly a dreadful fall.
As discussed on here umpteen times before, Corbyn's personal ratings are awful, and most of the electorate don't think about politics between elections. So maybe Labour vote share will plummet come the day, but I suggest there is very little evidence of it so far.
28% is an awful score. Similar to the Conservatives' ratings in 1997-2003.
Perceived wisdom on here seems to be that Corbyn's Labour is going to be absolutely hammered at the next general election. Yet I see no real evidence for that proposition. OK, he is down a couple of percent from Labour's score last year but it hardly a dreadful fall.
As discussed on here umpteen times before, Corbyn's personal ratings are awful, and most of the electorate don't think about politics between elections. So maybe Labour vote share will plummet come the day, but I suggest there is very little evidence of it so far.
You are forgetting about the actual campaign. Five weeks of relentless tax bombshell campaign ads, front page DM stuff about the IRA and Corbyn, articles on threat to national security, £500billion deficit etc etc.
And these polls aren't directly reflective of the marginals.
Paddy Power have paid out on Conlon winning gold, even though he was, inexplicably, defeated by the judging. The Paddy Power set of tweets this afternoon is very angry.
From that article "One boxing judge who was prepared to go on the record, Ireland’s Seamus Kelly, told the Guardian he had been asked to cheat at the Arab Games in Doha in 2011 by indicating who was winning during the fight."
I mean, are they not even trying to hide what they are doing?
I suppose you could profit from betting on any Russian boxer but you would have to sign away your soul.
I don't understand how the ABA can keep going given the horrendous and obvious corruption Olympics after Olympics.
Oh for heaven's sake! He has been convicted for pledging allegiance to an organization which has killed and expressed its intention to kill British citizens at home and abroad. He's not being locked up for saying that Mrs May is a ghastly bitch or that the Queen smells or that he thinks that the Irish are retarded.
We really need to get away from this mindset that just because a law might be used in an oppressive way (true of any law in the wrong hands) that means that we mustn't have any law at all or, if we do, must not use it because someone rightly convicted under it might be thought of by some people as a "martyr". It's the same mentality which leads people to say that the Prevent programme is bad because it risks alienating Muslims when that criticism is generally leveled by people who don't want any action at all taken to prevent radicalization. All too easy to use reductio ad absurdum arguments to freeze ourselves into doing nothing. (We saw the same thing on here last night over not wanting to take action to protect Muslim girls subject to abuse despite the fact that there are specific laws designed to do just that, which some on here seemed not to want to use because that would involve us changing "attitudes", as if there isn't plenty of that going on with laws relating to homosexuality and racism etc.)
Our judicial system and juries are perfectly capable of working out when the authorities overreach themselves (see Ponting) and perfectly capable of ensuring that a Home Secretary does not proscribe the WI or the RHS or that if she tries to she is stopped.
I tend to agree that Blair had a terrible tendency to inflict authoritarian measures on all of us rather than to focus on those who were the greatest risk. But the answer to that is to focus our efforts on the greatest risk not to do nothing. What this case shows us is that patient relentless forensic old-fashioned detective work can be effective. The more we can criminalise and lock up those who are implicated in the radicalization of others, the harder we make it for this to happen; the higher the price those who do it pay; and the greater the chance we have of beating those who would do us harm.
Perceived wisdom on here seems to be that Corbyn's Labour is going to be absolutely hammered at the next general election. Yet I see no real evidence for that proposition. OK, he is down a couple of percent from Labour's score last year but it hardly a dreadful fall.
As discussed on here umpteen times before, Corbyn's personal ratings are awful, and most of the electorate don't think about politics between elections. So maybe Labour vote share will plummet come the day, but I suggest there is very little evidence of it so far.
That's a very 2010-2015 way of looking at it.
Possibly, Mr Paris. What would be the 2016 way of looking at it?
That UKIP figure must be irritating to some on here too, given that they have been saying the party is in collapse.
I don't know, but the one thing I'd probably take with a pinch of salt is the headline figure (for both sides) and I'd perhaps be wary of making any predictions 4 years out.
FWIW, without a split, I can't see it plummeting. But events, etc etc
Quite so, Mr. Paris, but we are asked regularly to believe that Corbyn will be a disaster. I merely ask for the evidence to back up such an assertion because I am damned if I can find it at the moment. I doubt he would win a GE, but I don't think he would lose too many seats either.
UKIP remaining in the low teens is also a complete mystery to me. Job done I would have thought and their voters would be drifting off to their natural homes. Apparently not.
Maybe the polls are genuinely complete nonsense, which would be a bit of a bugger for this site.
Perceived wisdom on here seems to be that Corbyn's Labour is going to be absolutely hammered at the next general election. Yet I see no real evidence for that proposition. OK, he is down a couple of percent from Labour's score last year but it hardly a dreadful fall.
As discussed on here umpteen times before, Corbyn's personal ratings are awful, and most of the electorate don't think about politics between elections. So maybe Labour vote share will plummet come the day, but I suggest there is very little evidence of it so far.
I think the only reasonably solid evidence is that the score is only just down on last year when generally oppositions rack up big leads at this point, but counter to that apparently that is not consistent across the entire period of opposition.
I think the assumption of Labour being hammered is on the basis they do even worse than polling currently suggests on the idea they are still being overstated. Now, frankly I do not know how Labour can be so high when they are tearing themselves to bits, but then I didn't know how the Tories were maintaining their position while tearing themselves to pieces pre-Brexit. I would not be surprised if Labour under Corbyn would be hammered, but it is not as certain as it seems like it should be.
Labour is actually down 3% on the 31% polled in GB in May 2015. A 12% Tory lead is an appalling poll for Labour despite being 4% down on the last ICM poll. Maybe some sign of May's honeymoon beginning to fade. In order to make like for like comparisons it would be good to know the estimated impact of any adjustments made by the pollster since last year.
Perceived wisdom on here seems to be that Corbyn's Labour is going to be absolutely hammered at the next general election. Yet I see no real evidence for that proposition. OK, he is down a couple of percent from Labour's score last year but it hardly a dreadful fall.
As discussed on here umpteen times before, Corbyn's personal ratings are awful, and most of the electorate don't think about politics between elections. So maybe Labour vote share will plummet come the day, but I suggest there is very little evidence of it so far.
I think the only reasonably solid evidence is that the score is only just down on last year when generally oppositions rack up big leads at this point, but counter to that apparently that is not consistent across the entire period of opposition.
I think the assumption of Labour being hammered is on the basis they do even worse than polling currently suggests on the idea they are still being overstated. Now, frankly I do not know how Labour can be so high when they are tearing themselves to bits, but then I didn't know how the Tories were maintaining their position while tearing themselves to pieces pre-Brexit. I would not be surprised if Labour under Corbyn would be hammered, but it is not as certain as it seems like it should be.
Labour is actually down 3% on the 31% polled in GB in May 2015. A 12% Tory lead is an appalling poll for Labour despite being 4% down on the last ICM poll. Maybe some sign of May's honeymoon beginning to fade. In order to make like for like comparisons it would be good to know the estimated impact of any adjustments made by the pollster since last year.
?How is this ICM poll evidence May's honeymoon is fading?
Perceived wisdom on here seems to be that Corbyn's Labour is going to be absolutely hammered at the next general election. Yet I see no real evidence for that proposition. OK, he is down a couple of percent from Labour's score last year but it hardly a dreadful fall.
As discussed on here umpteen times before, Corbyn's personal ratings are awful, and most of the electorate don't think about politics between elections. So maybe Labour vote share will plummet come the day, but I suggest there is very little evidence of it so far.
That's a very 2010-2015 way of looking at it.
Possibly, Mr Paris. What would be the 2016 way of looking at it?
That UKIP figure must be irritating to some on here too, given that they have been saying the party is in collapse.
I don't know, but the one thing I'd probably take with a pinch of salt is the headline figure (for both sides) and I'd perhaps be wary of making any predictions 4 years out.
FWIW, without a split, I can't see it plummeting. But events, etc etc
Quite so, Mr. Paris, but we are asked regularly to believe that Corbyn will be a disaster. I merely ask for the evidence to back up such an assertion because I am damned if I can find it at the moment. I doubt he would win a GE, but I don't think he would lose too many seats either.
UKIP remaining in the low teens is also a complete mystery to me. Job done I would have thought and their voters would be drifting off to their natural homes. Apparently not.
Maybe the polls are genuinely complete nonsense, which would be a bit of a bugger for this site.
Job is clearly not done for UKIP until the UK is out of the single market as well as the EU and freedom of movement is brought to an end
Perceived wisdom on here seems to be that Corbyn's Labour is going to be absolutely hammered at the next general election. Yet I see no real evidence for that proposition. OK, he is down a couple of percent from Labour's score last year but it hardly a dreadful fall.
As discussed on here umpteen times before, Corbyn's personal ratings are awful, and most of the electorate don't think about politics between elections. So maybe Labour vote share will plummet come the day, but I suggest there is very little evidence of it so far.
That's a very 2010-2015 way of looking at it.
Possibly, Mr Paris. What would be the 2016 way of looking at it?
That UKIP figure must be irritating to some on here too, given that they have been saying the party is in collapse.
I don't know, but the one thing I'd probably take with a pinch of salt is the headline figure (for both sides) and I'd perhaps be wary of making any predictions 4 years out.
FWIW, without a split, I can't see it plummeting. But events, etc etc
Quite so, Mr. Paris, but we are asked regularly to believe that Corbyn will be a disaster. I merely ask for the evidence to back up such an assertion because I am damned if I can find it at the moment. I doubt he would win a GE, but I don't think he would lose too many seats either.
UKIP remaining in the low teens is also a complete mystery to me. Job done I would have thought and their voters would be drifting off to their natural homes. Apparently not.
Maybe the polls are genuinely complete nonsense, which would be a bit of a bugger for this site.
Job is clearly not done for UKIP until the UK is out of the single market as well as the EU and freedom of movement is brought to an end
Not forgetting the Provisional wing of UKIP who won't rest easy until the UK has been towed several hundred miles out into the Atlantic.
Perceived wisdom on here seems to be that Corbyn's Labour is going to be absolutely hammered at the next general election. Yet I see no real evidence for that proposition. OK, he is down a couple of percent from Labour's score last year but it hardly a dreadful fall.
As discussed on here umpteen times before, Corbyn's personal ratings are awful, and most of the electorate don't think about politics between elections. So maybe Labour vote share will plummet come the day, but I suggest there is very little evidence of it so far.
That's a very 2010-2015 way of looking at it.
Possibly, Mr Paris. What would be the 2016 way of looking at it?
That UKIP figure must be irritating to some on here too, given that they have been saying the party is in collapse.
I don't know, but the one thing I'd probably take with a pinch of salt is the headline figure (for both sides) and I'd perhaps be wary of making any predictions 4 years out.
FWIW, without a split, I can't see it plummeting. But events, etc etc
Quite so, Mr. Paris, but we are asked regularly to believe that Corbyn will be a disaster. I merely ask for the evidence to back up such an assertion because I am damned if I can find it at the moment. I doubt he would win a GE, but I don't think he would lose too many seats either.
UKIP remaining in the low teens is also a complete mystery to me. Job done I would have thought and their voters would be drifting off to their natural homes. Apparently not.
Maybe the polls are genuinely complete nonsense, which would be a bit of a bugger for this site.
Job is clearly not done for UKIP until the UK is out of the single market as well as the EU and freedom of movement is brought to an end
Not forgetting the Provisional wing of UKIP who won't rest easy until the UK has been towed several hundred miles out into the Atlantic.
Perceived wisdom on here seems to be that Corbyn's Labour is going to be absolutely hammered at the next general election. Yet I see no real evidence for that proposition. OK, he is down a couple of percent from Labour's score last year but it hardly a dreadful fall.
As discussed on here umpteen times before, Corbyn's personal ratings are awful, and most of the electorate don't think about politics between elections. So maybe Labour vote share will plummet come the day, but I suggest there is very little evidence of it so far.
I think the only reasonably solid evidence is that the score is only just down on last year when generally oppositions rack up big leads at this point, but counter to that apparently that is not consistent across the entire period of opposition.
I think the assumption of Labour being hammered is on the basis they do even worse than polling currently suggests on the idea they are still being overstated. Now, frankly I do not know how Labour can be so high when they are tearing themselves to bits, but then I didn't know how the Tories were maintaining their position while tearing themselves to pieces pre-Brexit. I would not be surprised if Labour under Corbyn would be hammered, but it is not as certain as it seems like it should be.
Labour is actually down 3% on the 31% polled in GB in May 2015. A 12% Tory lead is an appalling poll for Labour despite being 4% down on the last ICM poll. Maybe some sign of May's honeymoon beginning to fade. In order to make like for like comparisons it would be good to know the estimated impact of any adjustments made by the pollster since last year.
?How is this ICM poll evidence May's honeymoon is fading?
Simply because the Tory lead has fallen from 16% to 12% with the Tory share now at 40% rather than 43%.
Possibly, Mr Paris. What would be the 2016 way of looking at it?
That UKIP figure must be irritating to some on here too, given that they have been saying the party is in collapse.
I don't know, but the one thing I'd probably take with a pinch of salt is the headline figure (for both sides) and I'd perhaps be wary of making any predictions 4 years out.
FWIW, without a split, I can't see it plummeting. But events, etc etc
Quite so, Mr. Paris, but we are asked regularly to believe that Corbyn will be a disaster. I merely ask for the evidence to back up such an assertion because I am damned if I can find it at the moment. I doubt he would win a GE, but I don't think he would lose too many seats either.
UKIP remaining in the low teens is also a complete mystery to me. Job done I would have thought and their voters would be drifting off to their natural homes. Apparently not.
Maybe the polls are genuinely complete nonsense, which would be a bit of a bugger for this site.
Corbyn would be a disaster mainly on the grounds of his economic views. However as Owen Smith shares the same views then its much the same. There's no evidence for my conclusion here - the UK hasn't ever tried a truly socialist economic model (or whatever JC believes in). Most of the economists think its bad though, and (to my mind, more importantly) virtually all of the people that have a financial head on their shoulders are aghast at the prospect of Corbyn in power.
It doesn't really matter though anyway. Corbyn, if elected, will entirely fail in delivering his ideas - the status quo is simply too strong, and his ideas are far from developed. We had the worst of all worlds in my view when Brown was in power, and even his buffoonery didn't actually hurt us that much. There's a small degree to which Brexit made us more lunatic-vulnerable. Anyway overall I think Corbyn would just make the UK a small percentage worse than it would otherwise be. Heterosexual twice-married tall-people with four adopted children of eastern european background (to choose a random small category) who are on the council house waiting list in Islington may well benefit. Joe-normal won't.
Perceived wisdom on here seems to be that Corbyn's Labour is going to be absolutely hammered at the next general election. Yet I see no real evidence for that proposition. OK, he is down a couple of percent from Labour's score last year but it hardly a dreadful fall.
As discussed on here umpteen times before, Corbyn's personal ratings are awful, and most of the electorate don't think about politics between elections. So maybe Labour vote share will plummet come the day, but I suggest there is very little evidence of it so far.
That's a very 2010-2015 way of looking at it.
Possibly, Mr Paris. What would be the 2016 way of looking at it?
That UKIP figure must be irritating to some on here too, given that they have been saying the party is in collapse.
I don't know, but the one thing I'd probably take with a pinch of salt is the headline figure (for both sides) and I'd perhaps be wary of making any predictions 4 years out.
FWIW, without a split, I can't see it plummeting. But events, etc etc
Quite so, Mr. Paris, but we are asked regularly to believe that Corbyn will be a disaster. I merely ask for the evidence to back up such an assertion because I am damned if I can find it at the moment. I doubt he would win a GE, but I don't think he would lose too many seats either.
UKIP remaining in the low teens is also a complete mystery to me. Job done I would have thought and their voters would be drifting off to their natural homes. Apparently not.
Maybe the polls are genuinely complete nonsense, which would be a bit of a bugger for this site.
Job is clearly not done for UKIP until the UK is out of the single market as well as the EU and freedom of movement is brought to an end
Not forgetting the Provisional wing of UKIP who won't rest easy until the UK has been towed several hundred miles out into the Atlantic.
Honolulu is more remote from Washington, DC than London is
Possibly, Mr Paris. What would be the 2016 way of looking at it?
That UKIP figure must be irritating to some on here too, given that they have been saying the party is in collapse.
I don't know, but the one thing I'd probably take with a pinch of salt is the headline figure (for both sides) and I'd perhaps be wary of making any predictions 4 years out.
FWIW, without a split, I can't see it plummeting. But events, etc etc
Quite so, Mr. Paris, but we are asked regularly to believe that Corbyn will be a disaster. I merely ask for the evidence to back up such an assertion because I am damned if I can find it at the moment. I doubt he would win a GE, but I don't think he would lose too many seats either.
UKIP remaining in the low teens is also a complete mystery to me. Job done I would have thought and their voters would be drifting off to their natural homes. Apparently not.
Maybe the polls are genuinely complete nonsense, which would be a bit of a bugger for this site.
Corbyn would be a disaster mainly on the grounds of his economic views. However as Owen Smith shares the same views then its much the same. There's no evidence for my conclusion here - the UK hasn't ever tried a truly socialist economic model (or whatever JC believes in). Most of the economists think its bad though, and (to my mind, more importantly) virtually all of the people that have a financial head on their shoulders are aghast at the prospect of Corbyn in power.
It doesn't really matter though anyway. Corbyn, if elected, will entirely fail in delivering his ideas - the status quo is simply too strong, and his ideas are far from developed. We had the worst of all worlds in my view when Brown was in power, and even his buffoonery didn't actually hurt us that much. There's a small degree to which Brexit made us more lunatic-vulnerable. Anyway overall I think Corbyn would just make the UK a small percentage worse than it would otherwise be. Heterosexual twice-married tall-people with four adopted children of eastern european background (to choose a random small category) who are on the council house waiting list in Islington may well benefit. Joe-normal won't.
If Corbyn ever got elected half the population would emigrate to Australia within 5 minutes, followed by most of the remaining half before he finished his first term!
Perceived wisdom on here seems to be that Corbyn's Labour is going to be absolutely hammered at the next general election. Yet I see no real evidence for that proposition. OK, he is down a couple of percent from Labour's score last year but it hardly a dreadful fall.
As discussed on here umpteen times before, Corbyn's personal ratings are awful, and most of the electorate don't think about politics between elections. So maybe Labour vote share will plummet come the day, but I suggest there is very little evidence of it so far.
That's a very 2010-2015 way of looking at it.
Possibly, Mr Paris. What would be the 2016 way of looking at it?
That UKIP figure must be irritating to some on here too, given that they have been saying the party is in collapse.
I don't know, but the one thing I'd probably take with a pinch of salt is the headline figure (for both sides) and I'd perhaps be wary of making any predictions 4 years out.
FWIW, without a split, I can't see it plummeting. But events, etc etc
Quite so, Mr. Paris, but we are asked regularly to believe that Corbyn will be a disaster. I merely ask for the evidence to back up such an assertion because I am damned if I can find it at the moment. I doubt he would win a GE, but I don't think he would lose too many seats either.
UKIP remaining in the low teens is also a complete mystery to me. Job done I would have thought and their voters would be drifting off to their natural homes. Apparently not.
Maybe the polls are genuinely complete nonsense, which would be a bit of a bugger for this site.
Job is clearly not done for UKIP until the UK is out of the single market as well as the EU and freedom of movement is brought to an end
Not forgetting the Provisional wing of UKIP who won't rest easy until the UK has been towed several hundred miles out into the Atlantic.
Honolulu is more remote from Washington, DC than London is
Honolulu is rather a long way from absolutely anywhere!!
Given the way prices of offshore wind are falling and the new generation batteries becoming available is it possible that the reason we don't need Hinckley Point built is because other solutions are now available..
I am not sure that the storage problem has been fully solved yet but it almost certainly will be by the time Hinkley Point is built. So it will a massively expensive white elephant.
Changing the building regs so that all new builds are obliged to have solar panels and heat exchangers, then Gas topping up solar and off-shore wind will do the trick once the new battery technology is perfected.
Paddy's Twitter feed linked below has a link to what happened when someone put a microphone in front of the Irish boxer just after he stepped out of the ring. To say he turned the airwaves blue and directly alleged corruption would be something of an understatement.
Perceived wisdom on here seems to be that Corbyn's Labour is going to be absolutely hammered at the next general election. Yet I see no real evidence for that proposition. OK, he is down a couple of percent from Labour's score last year but it hardly a dreadful fall.
As discussed on here umpteen times before, Corbyn's personal ratings are awful, and most of the electorate don't think about politics between elections. So maybe Labour vote share will plummet come the day, but I suggest there is very little evidence of it so far.
I think the only reasonably solid evidence is that the score is only just down on last year when generally oppositions rack up big leads at this point, but counter to that apparently that is not consistent across the entire period of opposition.
I think the assumption of Labour being hammered is on the basis they do even worse than polling currently suggests on the idea they are still being overstated. Now, frankly I do not know how Labour can be so high when they are tearing themselves to bits, but then I didn't know how the Tories were maintaining their position while tearing themselves to pieces pre-Brexit. I would not be surprised if Labour under Corbyn would be hammered, but it is not as certain as it seems like it should be.
Labour is actually down 3% on the 31% polled in GB in May 2015. A 12% Tory lead is an appalling poll for Labour despite being 4% down on the last ICM poll. Maybe some sign of May's honeymoon beginning to fade. In order to make like for like comparisons it would be good to know the estimated impact of any adjustments made by the pollster since last year.
?How is this ICM poll evidence May's honeymoon is fading?
Simply because the Tory lead has fallen from 16% to 12% with the Tory share now at 40% rather than 43%.
On its own, it is a fairly damning indictment of Labour's awful position that we are talking about a 28% share - less than they got in 2010 and only one point more than 1983 - and a gap of twelve points to the leaders as a relative improvement.
Paddy's Twitter feed linked below has a link to what happened when someone put a microphone in front of the Irish boxer just after he stepped out of the ring. To say he turned the airwaves blue and directly alleged corruption would be something of an understatement.
I watched him in the ring - he shouted Eff Off several times. Livid.
Paddy's Twitter feed linked below has a link to what happened when someone put a microphone in front of the Irish boxer just after he stepped out of the ring. To say he turned the airwaves blue and directly alleged corruption would be something of an understatement.
Perceived wisdom on here seems to be that Corbyn's Labour is going to be absolutely hammered at the next general election. Yet I see no real evidence for that proposition. OK, he is down a couple of percent from Labour's score last year but it hardly a dreadful fall.
As discussed on here umpteen times before, Corbyn's personal ratings are awful, and most of the electorate don't think about politics between elections. So maybe Labour vote share will plummet come the day, but I suggest there is very little evidence of it so far.
I think the only reasonably solid evidence is that the score is only just down on last year when generally oppositions rack up big leads at this point, but counter to that apparently that is not consistent across the entire period of opposition.
I think the assumption of Labour being hammered is on the basis they do even worse than polling currently suggests on the idea they are still being overstated. Now, frankly I do not know how Labour can be so high when they are tearing themselves to bits, but then I didn't know how the Tories were maintaining their position while tearing themselves to pieces pre-Brexit. I would not be surprised if Labour under Corbyn would be hammered, but it is not as certain as it seems like it should be.
Labour is actually down 3% on the 31% polled in GB in May 2015. A 12% Tory lead is an appalling poll for Labour despite being 4% down on the last ICM poll. Maybe some sign of May's honeymoon beginning to fade. In order to make like for like comparisons it would be good to know the estimated impact of any adjustments made by the pollster since last year.
?How is this ICM poll evidence May's honeymoon is fading?
Simply because the Tory lead has fallen from 16% to 12% with the Tory share now at 40% rather than 43%.
On its own, it is a fairly damning indictment of Labour's awful position that we are talking about a 28% share - less than they got in 2010 and only one point more than 1983 - and a gap of twelve points to the leaders as a relative improvement.
I agree with that . Labour actually polled 28.3% in GB in 1983.
Comments
https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2016/aug/16/the-great-british-bake-off-meet-the-2016-contestants?client=safari
Mike Smithson @MSmithsonPB 2 mins2 minutes ago
CON back with 12% lead with ICM.
Ones attitude to free speech can not be judged, when the speech in question is things you would like to hear anyway, its your willingness to support somebodies right to say things that explicitly do not which to be voiced.
I hate what they say, I hate everything they stand for, and I'm sorry if saying this upset's anybody, but even if I'm the only person saying this no one should ever be persecuted for saying something.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/aug/16/jeremy-corbyn-floor-three-hour-train-journey-london-newcastle
Er, yes, as it frees up space in the standard carriage!!
The old AGRs are tiny - 500-600MW apiece. Sorry about the hyperbole.
It stuck and I've been him ever since. Still, he was exceptionally pretty cream tabby Oriental.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3743180/The-time-man-wishes-SMALLER-penis-Japanese-pole-vaulter-s-Olympic-dream-crushed-manhood-knocks-bar-off.html
Labour behind the Tories in every region and closing in on 4th among >75's
http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/31970289/the-uks-highest-paid-politicians-who-gets-what
Pew Research
Clinton, Trump backers differ on whether big obstacles remain to women getting ahead https://t.co/juydF7sAzR https://t.co/15qEJAEHNU
Well, what a surprise.....
Sadly I don't think so, but it may have been wrapped up in the £500 of forged bank notes.
https://twitter.com/AdamBienkov/status/765586492047691776
OGH = TORY!!!
Forrest GumpSunil Prasannan. People call meForrest GumpSunil PrasannanPerceived wisdom on here seems to be that Corbyn's Labour is going to be absolutely hammered at the next general election. Yet I see no real evidence for that proposition. OK, he is down a couple of percent from Labour's score last year but it hardly a dreadful fall.
As discussed on here umpteen times before, Corbyn's personal ratings are awful, and most of the electorate don't think about politics between elections. So maybe Labour vote share will plummet come the day, but I suggest there is very little evidence of it so far.
Some background to the wall collapse at a Scottish school that led to many schools closing:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-37093904
Pretty shoddy workmanship.
https://twitter.com/paddypower/status/765567890376552453
Article that there would be corrupt judges from a couple of weeks ago in The Guardian - https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/aug/01/rio-2016-olympics-boxing-corruption-allegations?CMP=share_btn_tw
From that article "One boxing judge who was prepared to go on the record, Ireland’s Seamus Kelly, told the Guardian he had been asked to cheat at the Arab Games in Doha in 2011 by indicating who was winning during the fight."
I mean, are they not even trying to hide what they are doing?
I suppose you could profit from betting on any Russian boxer but you would have to sign away your soul.
I think the assumption of Labour being hammered is on the basis they do even worse than polling currently suggests on the idea they are still being overstated. Now, frankly I do not know how Labour can be so high when they are tearing themselves to bits, but then I didn't know how the Tories were maintaining their position while tearing themselves to pieces pre-Brexit. I would not be surprised if Labour under Corbyn would be hammered, but it is not as certain as it seems like it should be.
That UKIP figure must be irritating to some on here too, given that they have been saying the party is in collapse.
I think the next leader will be other than Mr Smith. Having been rather ambushed by TSE and friends on Burgon (99/1) though I'd not care to choose. (I think Burgon is basically impossible, but I thought that about Corbyn too)
FWIW, without a split, I can't see it plummeting. But events, etc etc
And these polls aren't directly reflective of the marginals.
Labour are going to be slaughtered.
We really need to get away from this mindset that just because a law might be used in an oppressive way (true of any law in the wrong hands) that means that we mustn't have any law at all or, if we do, must not use it because someone rightly convicted under it might be thought of by some people as a "martyr". It's the same mentality which leads people to say that the Prevent programme is bad because it risks alienating Muslims when that criticism is generally leveled by people who don't want any action at all taken to prevent radicalization. All too easy to use reductio ad absurdum arguments to freeze ourselves into doing nothing. (We saw the same thing on here last night over not wanting to take action to protect Muslim girls subject to abuse despite the fact that there are specific laws designed to do just that, which some on here seemed not to want to use because that would involve us changing "attitudes", as if there isn't plenty of that going on with laws relating to homosexuality and racism etc.)
Our judicial system and juries are perfectly capable of working out when the authorities overreach themselves (see Ponting) and perfectly capable of ensuring that a Home Secretary does not proscribe the WI or the RHS or that if she tries to she is stopped.
I tend to agree that Blair had a terrible tendency to inflict authoritarian measures on all of us rather than to focus on those who were the greatest risk. But the answer to that is to focus our efforts on the greatest risk not to do nothing. What this case shows us is that patient relentless forensic old-fashioned detective work can be effective. The more we can criminalise and lock up those who are implicated in the radicalization of others, the harder we make it for this to happen; the higher the price those who do it pay; and the greater the chance we have of beating those who would do us harm.
UKIP remaining in the low teens is also a complete mystery to me. Job done I would have thought and their voters would be drifting off to their natural homes. Apparently not.
Maybe the polls are genuinely complete nonsense, which would be a bit of a bugger for this site.
Play nicely and I may check in later to make sure you are all behaving yourselves!
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/labour-leadership-poll-majority-of-public-think-own-smith-would-be-better-leader-and-pm-than-jeremy-a3321461.html
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/aug/16/jeremy-corbyn-floor-three-hour-train-journey-london-newcastle
Clinton 43% Trump 37% Johnson 11% Stein 4%
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/poll-clinton-maintains-big-lead-voters-doubt-trump-s-temperament-n631351
Clinton 51% Trump 43%
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/trump-unpopularity-fuels-wide-lead-for-clinton-in-new-virginia-poll/2016/08/15/ea0e1540-6307-11e6-be4e-23fc4d4d12b4_story.html
PPP Texas
Trump 50% Clinton 44%
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_TX_81616.pdf
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjJHnKw7YNA
Thank God I am safely confined down in Sussex.
EDIT 14.933!
The Lib Dem vote melted away after the coalition was formed but Labout voters are more loyal.
It doesn't really matter though anyway. Corbyn, if elected, will entirely fail in delivering his ideas - the status quo is simply too strong, and his ideas are far from developed. We had the worst of all worlds in my view when Brown was in power, and even his buffoonery didn't actually hurt us that much. There's a small degree to which Brexit made us more lunatic-vulnerable. Anyway overall I think Corbyn would just make the UK a small percentage worse than it would otherwise be. Heterosexual twice-married tall-people with four adopted children of eastern european background (to choose a random small category) who are on the council house waiting list in Islington may well benefit. Joe-normal won't.
15.9
Current standing 2nd with 17 gold, 17 silver, 9 bronze = 43