woman on the radio this morning spoke as though it was a foregone conclusion that the bill would be reduced. Not sure whether that was because other EU countries will put their bids in, reducing the amount due to Ireland, or because it just would be reduced.
If it is deemed by the appeal court as a sweetheart deal I can't see what reason there would be to reduce the amount due. Where's @MaxPB?
It's probably what @rcs1000 was getting at yesterday, Ireland may argue that it was a time limited special economic measure intended to boost growth the argument may be around what the time limit should be.
Then again, I don't see much scope for a reduction. Ireland and Apple have broken the rules over state aid on an industrial scale, it's time for this to end. As I said yesterday, I'm OK with them lowering their headline rate of corporation tax to 1%, if they can make the sums work and they don't get themselves kicked out of the EU then that's up to them. What I'm not in favour of is them flagrantly breaking single market rules and then complaining about it afterwards. If they don't like the rules then the answer is leaving the EU.
As an aside, I'd love to see the Apple/Android split among Remain/Leave. I think remain would skew highly towards Apple.
I think it would be Windows Phone and Blackberry users that would skew heavily towards Remain
Finding a sample of Windows Phone users large enough to poll might not be easy.
I believe there are a couple of hundred in Redmond, Washington. But away from there... I agree.
Emerson had Trump just 3% behind in Pennsylvania earlier this week
And A+ rated Monmouth +8 yesterday. The last 10 polls have Clinton ahead, most of which were +6 or above.
Emerson was the second most accurate primary pollster this year, well above Monmouth
The 538 ratings are the gold standard.
As you will be aware some of the POTUS primary performers in 08 and 12 were cr*p come the general election.
I am interested in the latest results and the 2016 election will not be the same as the 2012 election, some Romney voters will vote for Hillary, some non-voters for Trump, some Obama voters will not vote. Nate Silver's 538 is also no crystal ball, Silver got the 2014 mid-terms wrong, the 2015 UK general election wrong and EU ref wrong
538 also got 2010 wrong. However their track record in UK politics, abysmal as it may be, is rather moot compared to their gold standard track record in US Presidential Politics.
I am interested in the latest results and the 2016 election will not be the same as the 2012 election, some Romney voters will vote for Hillary, some non-voters for Trump, some Obama voters will not vote. Nate Silver's 538 is also no crystal ball, Silver got the 2014 mid-terms wrong, the 2015 UK general election wrong and EU ref wrong
Nate's POTUS record is outstanding .... much like my own ....
You seem to wish to find any succor for Trump. The fact is presently he is losing badly and then some. If that situation changes I will change my position and so will 538.
woman on the radio this morning spoke as though it was a foregone conclusion that the bill would be reduced. Not sure whether that was because other EU countries will put their bids in, reducing the amount due to Ireland, or because it just would be reduced.
If it is deemed by the appeal court as a sweetheart deal I can't see what reason there would be to reduce the amount due. Where's @MaxPB?
It's probably what @rcs1000 was getting at yesterday, Ireland may argue that it was a time limited special economic measure intended to boost growth the argument may be around what the time limit should be.
Then again, I don't see much scope for a reduction. Ireland and Apple have broken the rules over state aid on an industrial scale, it's time for this to end. As I said yesterday, I'm OK with them lowering their headline rate of corporation tax to 1%, if they can make the sums work and they don't get themselves kicked out of the EU then that's up to them. What I'm not in favour of is them flagrantly breaking single market rules and then complaining about it afterwards. If they don't like the rules then the answer is leaving the EU.
As an aside, I'd love to see the Apple/Android split among Remain/Leave. I think remain would skew highly towards Apple.
I think it would be Windows Phone and Blackberry users that would skew heavily towards Remain
Finding a sample of Windows Phone users large enough to poll might not be easy.
I believe there are a couple of hundred in Redmond, Washington. But away from there... I agree.
I thought one of the issues with WP was the lack of dog fooding. It's one of the reasons it feels like it isn't designed for ordinary people to use.
I don't think there's any doubt that the UK would qualify for equivalence instantly.
What political pressures there may be on either side however would be critical to it actually happening.
Yes, indeed. Plus it could be subject to political interference later. For example, would UK abolition of the brain-dead bonus cap be regarded as disqualifying us from equivalence?
It is of course a much bigger stick with which to threaten us. Previously we could argue the toss even if we didn't always win. With equivalence, it would seem to be pretty straightforward - either you follow or you're out. FTT anyone?
Equivalence isn't a blanket arrangement; it would be sector by sector. So, for instance, the UK could choose to arrange its insurance regulation to (effectively) guarantee equivalence by aligning it with Solvency II (this is pretty likely, tbh, because the vast majority of SII compliant firms by number are London Market/Lloyd's operations), but choose a different regulatory regime for banking, leaving it without equivalence for trading purposes. Given that the PRA & FCA currently gold plate most of the EU regs anyway (and the sheer amount of money spent on lobbying in these areas by industry), though, we'd start off with a pretty strong assumption of equivalence. Reading the article, I'm not sure the authors entirely get this.
If that is possible then it would be madness to back Hinckley Point, and I was in favour of it.
Do we think this is the nuclear equivalent of vaporware or is it seriously plausible?
It is definitely within the realms of reality. I did a fair bit of research a week or so ago on Moltex. The science is sound, but obviously they aren't releasing too many details about their reactor designs until they have built a proof of concept. £25 per kWh might be underestimating the final energy cost though, maybe by as much as 50%, still even at a higher level it's good value.
I disagree. The voting system precludes a positive split. It takes a hell of a lot to deselect an MP and changing the rules to make it easier is going to be very time-consuming. But if mass deselections do happen before the next general election, Corbyn will create the new official opposition. That may be the way forward.
I agree totally with you Southam. A split will NOT happen because of FPTP. The best thing that can happen to Labour assuming a Corbyn win, is an early election and an utter and total pasting from the Tories. If we lose heavily under Corbyn it may bring some members (and crucially the unions) to their senses.
I don't share your assumption of rational behaviour on the part of the post May 2015 members who currently see a Corbyn 2020 (or earlier) victory as nailed on. The far left will be casting around for scapegoats as it always does in the event of electoral failure and they will jump on that bandwagon. Momentum-backed candidates will be selected to replace those defeated in 2020, only to lose themselves in 2025.
Bear in mind too that a lot of those backing Smith now will give up and leave Labour rather than spend year after year pissing in the wind. I don't see any way back for Labour if Smith loses as heavily as this poll suggests. Only a narrow defeat offers the possibility that the situation could be overturned and a split avoided.
woman on the radio this morning spoke as though it was a foregone conclusion that the bill would be reduced. Not sure whether that was because other EU countries will put their bids in, reducing the amount due to Ireland, or because it just would be reduced.
If it is deemed by the appeal court as a sweetheart deal I can't see what reason there would be to reduce the amount due. Where's @MaxPB?
It's probably what @rcs1000 was getting at yesterday, Ireland may argue that it was a time limited special economic measure intended to boost growth the argument may be around what the time limit should be.
Then again, I don't see much scope for a reduction. Ireland and Apple have broken the rules over state aid on an industrial scale, it's time for this to end. As I said yesterday, I'm OK with them lowering their headline rate of corporation tax to 1%, if they can make the sums work and they don't get themselves kicked out of the EU then that's up to them. What I'm not in favour of is them flagrantly breaking single market rules and then complaining about it afterwards. If they don't like the rules then the answer is leaving the EU.
As an aside, I'd love to see the Apple/Android split among Remain/Leave. I think remain would skew highly towards Apple.
I think it would be Windows Phone and Blackberry users that would skew heavily towards Remain
Finding a sample of Windows Phone users large enough to poll might not be easy.
I believe there are a couple of hundred in Redmond, Washington. But away from there... I agree.
I thought one of the issues with WP was the lack of dog fooding. It's one of the reasons it feels like it isn't designed for ordinary people to use.
I have bought three Windows Phones over the last seven or eight years. I quite like the aesthetic. But, ultimately, it was worse than iOS, worse than Android, and worse than whatever the operating system was on the massively underrated Nokia N9.
I paid $220 (180 quid) for it on AliExpress including shipping and import duty, and it's awesome. I'm in Oz, and I bought a Lebara data sim at the airport for A$10, put it in the second SIM slot, and have blazing fast LTE data, my regular UK mobile number, and no data roaming fees. The device is incredibly well made, with awesome battery life and a very nice screen. I've moved from a $900 S7 Edge to a device a quarter of its price and am incredibly happy.
If that is possible then it would be madness to back Hinckley Point, and I was in favour of it.
Do we think this is the nuclear equivalent of vaporware or is it seriously plausible?
Most claims for 'new' nuclear power - whether fission, fusion or unobtainum - are based on hope and fiddlesticks. If they get the funding for a prototype, it doesn't match theory, and then the prototype doesn't scale well to production. Unforeseen safety issues arise, pushing up costs.
The hope for many claimants is they get such a large amount of experimental funding that they get so far down the rabbithole that it is hard for that funding to be cut off.
We see this with thorium - there are lots of claims for it, but massive issues and unknowns that are largely unacknowleged by the proponents.
Having said all that, it is definitely worth pursuing some avenues, though I doubt any of those should be fission based. Fission techs all rely on the steam cycle and the complexities, inefficiencies and safety issues that arise from that.
As I've wittered on about in the past, aneutronic fusion *should* be a gamechanger. Unfortunately it's incredibly difficult to do, and the above probably applies to it as well ...
If that is possible then it would be madness to back Hinckley Point, and I was in favour of it.
Do we think this is the nuclear equivalent of vaporware or is it seriously plausible?
Most claims for 'new' nuclear power - whether fission, fusion or unobtainum - are based on hope and fiddlesticks. If they get the funding for a prototype, it doesn't match theory, and then the prototype doesn't scale well to production. Unforeseen safety issues arise, pushing up costs.
The hope for many claimants is they get such a large amount of experimental funding that they get so far down the rabbithole that it is hard for that funding to be cut off.
We see this with thorium - there are lots of claims for it, but massive issues and unknowns that are largely unacknowleged by the proponents.
Having said all that, it is definitely worth pursuing some avenues, though I doubt any of those should be fission based. Fusion techs all rely on the steam cycle and the complexities, inefficiencies and safety issues that arise from that.
As I've wittered on about in the past, aneutronic fusion *should* be a gamechanger. Unfortunately it's incredibly difficult to do, and the above probably applies to it as well ...
I've often thought the cheapest nuclear power would be a bunch of wind turbines (say a few tens of thousand) in an isolated place. When we desparately need power, we'd detonate a small nuclear device which would generate quite a pressure differential, and therefore a lot of wind. With a small investment in nuclear weapons, we could effectively have on demand wind power. (And maybe we could add some solar cells to pick up on the photons too.)
I don't think there's any doubt that the UK would qualify for equivalence instantly.
What political pressures there may be on either side however would be critical to it actually happening.
Yes, indeed. Plus it could be subject to political interference later. For example, would UK abolition of the brain-dead bonus cap be regarded as disqualifying us from equivalence?
It is of course a much bigger stick with which to threaten us. Previously we could argue the toss even if we didn't always win. With equivalence, it would seem to be pretty straightforward - either you follow or you're out. FTT anyone?
Equivalence isn't a blanket arrangement; it would be sector by sector. So, for instance, the UK could choose to arrange its insurance regulation to (effectively) guarantee equivalence by aligning it with Solvency II (this is pretty likely, tbh, because the vast majority of SII compliant firms by number are London Market/Lloyd's operations), but choose a different regulatory regime for banking, leaving it without equivalence for trading purposes. Given that the PRA & FCA currently gold plate most of the EU regs anyway (and the sheer amount of money spent on lobbying in these areas by industry), though, we'd start off with a pretty strong assumption of equivalence. Reading the article, I'm not sure the authors entirely get this.
If that is possible then it would be madness to back Hinckley Point, and I was in favour of it.
Do we think this is the nuclear equivalent of vaporware or is it seriously plausible?
Most claims for 'new' nuclear power - whether fission, fusion or unobtainum - are based on hope and fiddlesticks. If they get the funding for a prototype, it doesn't match theory, and then the prototype doesn't scale well to production. Unforeseen safety issues arise, pushing up costs.
The hope for many claimants is they get such a large amount of experimental funding that they get so far down the rabbithole that it is hard for that funding to be cut off.
We see this with thorium - there are lots of claims for it, but massive issues and unknowns that are largely unacknowleged by the proponents.
Having said all that, it is definitely worth pursuing some avenues, though I doubt any of those should be fission based. Fission techs all rely on the steam cycle and the complexities, inefficiencies and safety issues that arise from that.
As I've wittered on about in the past, aneutronic fusion *should* be a gamechanger. Unfortunately it's incredibly difficult to do, and the above probably applies to it as well ...
Do some research on Moltex, they have a novel approach to the salt corrosion. It's something I think we should fund, I know you don't like picking winners, but this really does feel like a winner in a way that previous attempts haven't.
If that is possible then it would be madness to back Hinckley Point, and I was in favour of it.
Do we think this is the nuclear equivalent of vaporware or is it seriously plausible?
Most claims for 'new' nuclear power - whether fission, fusion or unobtainum - are based on hope and fiddlesticks. If they get the funding for a prototype, it doesn't match theory, and then the prototype doesn't scale well to production. Unforeseen safety issues arise, pushing up costs.
The hope for many claimants is they get such a large amount of experimental funding that they get so far down the rabbithole that it is hard for that funding to be cut off.
We see this with thorium - there are lots of claims for it, but massive issues and unknowns that are largely unacknowleged by the proponents.
Having said all that, it is definitely worth pursuing some avenues, though I doubt any of those should be fission based. Fusion techs all rely on the steam cycle and the complexities, inefficiencies and safety issues that arise from that.
As I've wittered on about in the past, aneutronic fusion *should* be a gamechanger. Unfortunately it's incredibly difficult to do, and the above probably applies to it as well ...
I've often thought the cheapest nuclear power would be a bunch of wind turbines (say a few tens of thousand) in an isolated place. When we desparately need power, we'd detonate a small nuclear device which would generate quite a pressure differential, and therefore a lot of wind. With a small investment in nuclear weapons, we could effectively have on demand wind power. (And maybe we could add some solar cells to pick up on the photons too.)
LOL.
Reminds me of the cheapest way to get heavy weights into space: Project Orion
If that is possible then it would be madness to back Hinckley Point, and I was in favour of it.
Do we think this is the nuclear equivalent of vaporware or is it seriously plausible?
Most claims for 'new' nuclear power - whether fission, fusion or unobtainum - are based on hope and fiddlesticks. If they get the funding for a prototype, it doesn't match theory, and then the prototype doesn't scale well to production. Unforeseen safety issues arise, pushing up costs.
The hope for many claimants is they get such a large amount of experimental funding that they get so far down the rabbithole that it is hard for that funding to be cut off.
We see this with thorium - there are lots of claims for it, but massive issues and unknowns that are largely unacknowleged by the proponents.
Having said all that, it is definitely worth pursuing some avenues, though I doubt any of those should be fission based. Fission techs all rely on the steam cycle and the complexities, inefficiencies and safety issues that arise from that.
As I've wittered on about in the past, aneutronic fusion *should* be a gamechanger. Unfortunately it's incredibly difficult to do, and the above probably applies to it as well ...
Do some research on Moltex, they have a novel approach to the salt corrosion. It's something I think we should fund, I know you don't like picking winners, but this really does feel like a winner in a way that previous attempts haven't.
I've read about it before, but may have approached it too sceptically. Any useful links?
I have bought three Windows Phones over the last seven or eight years. I quite like the aesthetic. But, ultimately, it was worse than iOS, worse than Android, and worse than whatever the operating system was on the massively underrated Nokia N9.
I paid $220 (180 quid) for it on AliExpress including shipping and import duty, and it's awesome. I'm in Oz, and I bought a Lebara data sim at the airport for A$10, put it in the second SIM slot, and have blazing fast LTE data, my regular UK mobile number, and no data roaming fees. The device is incredibly well made, with awesome battery life and a very nice screen. I've moved from a $900 S7 Edge to a device a quarter of its price and am incredibly happy.
A mate of mine just bought a Redmi Note with a 5000mAh battery and dual SIM for £120 from Ali Express. The amount of value in the smartphone market is unbelievable today.
If that is possible then it would be madness to back Hinckley Point, and I was in favour of it.
Do we think this is the nuclear equivalent of vaporware or is it seriously plausible?
Most claims for 'new' nuclear power - whether fission, fusion or unobtainum - are based on hope and fiddlesticks. If they get the funding for a prototype, it doesn't match theory, and then the prototype doesn't scale well to production. Unforeseen safety issues arise, pushing up costs.
The hope for many claimants is they get such a large amount of experimental funding that they get so far down the rabbithole that it is hard for that funding to be cut off.
We see this with thorium - there are lots of claims for it, but massive issues and unknowns that are largely unacknowleged by the proponents.
Having said all that, it is definitely worth pursuing some avenues, though I doubt any of those should be fission based. Fission techs all rely on the steam cycle and the complexities, inefficiencies and safety issues that arise from that.
As I've wittered on about in the past, aneutronic fusion *should* be a gamechanger. Unfortunately it's incredibly difficult to do, and the above probably applies to it as well ...
And when the scientist making the claim is a biochemist with apparently no experience in the industry...
I don't think there's any doubt that the UK would qualify for equivalence instantly.
What political pressures there may be on either side however would be critical to it actually happening.
Yes, indeed. Plus it could be subject to political interference later. For example, would UK abolition of the brain-dead bonus cap be regarded as disqualifying us from equivalence?
It is of course a much bigger stick with which to threaten us. Previously we could argue the toss even if we didn't always win. With equivalence, it would seem to be pretty straightforward - either you follow or you're out. FTT anyone?
Equivalence isn't a blanket arrangement; it would be sector by sector. So, for instance, the UK could choose to arrange its insurance regulation to (effectively) guarantee equivalence by aligning it with Solvency II (this is pretty likely, tbh, because the vast majority of SII compliant firms by number are London Market/Lloyd's operations), but choose a different regulatory regime for banking, leaving it without equivalence for trading purposes. Given that the PRA & FCA currently gold plate most of the EU regs anyway (and the sheer amount of money spent on lobbying in these areas by industry), though, we'd start off with a pretty strong assumption of equivalence. Reading the article, I'm not sure the authors entirely get this.
I agree as mentioned upthread.
The issue is what issues (FTT?) will we be told to like or lump.
Your point about us gold-plating regs and legislation is well made and is of course a central irony of our decision to leave, especially Financial Services-wise.
If that is possible then it would be madness to back Hinckley Point, and I was in favour of it.
Do we think this is the nuclear equivalent of vaporware or is it seriously plausible?
Most claims for 'new' nuclear power - whether fission, fusion or unobtainum - are based on hope and fiddlesticks. If they get the funding for a prototype, it doesn't match theory, and then the prototype doesn't scale well to production. Unforeseen safety issues arise, pushing up costs.
The hope for many claimants is they get such a large amount of experimental funding that they get so far down the rabbithole that it is hard for that funding to be cut off.
We see this with thorium - there are lots of claims for it, but massive issues and unknowns that are largely unacknowleged by the proponents.
Having said all that, it is definitely worth pursuing some avenues, though I doubt any of those should be fission based. Fission techs all rely on the steam cycle and the complexities, inefficiencies and safety issues that arise from that.
As I've wittered on about in the past, aneutronic fusion *should* be a gamechanger. Unfortunately it's incredibly difficult to do, and the above probably applies to it as well ...
From following the link I see it's a Molten salt reactor design. Also known as "What do we do with all this super hot radioactive Sodium that will catch fire in contact with damp air and explode in contact with water" Reactor Design.
If that is possible then it would be madness to back Hinckley Point, and I was in favour of it.
Do we think this is the nuclear equivalent of vaporware or is it seriously plausible?
Most claims for 'new' nuclear power - whether fission, fusion or unobtainum - are based on hope and fiddlesticks. If they get the funding for a prototype, it doesn't match theory, and then the prototype doesn't scale well to production. Unforeseen safety issues arise, pushing up costs.
The hope for many claimants is they get such a large amount of experimental funding that they get so far down the rabbithole that it is hard for that funding to be cut off.
We see this with thorium - there are lots of claims for it, but massive issues and unknowns that are largely unacknowleged by the proponents.
Having said all that, it is definitely worth pursuing some avenues, though I doubt any of those should be fission based. Fission techs all rely on the steam cycle and the complexities, inefficiencies and safety issues that arise from that.
As I've wittered on about in the past, aneutronic fusion *should* be a gamechanger. Unfortunately it's incredibly difficult to do, and the above probably applies to it as well ...
Do some research on Moltex, they have a novel approach to the salt corrosion. It's something I think we should fund, I know you don't like picking winners, but this really does feel like a winner in a way that previous attempts haven't.
I've read about it before, but may have approached it too sceptically. Any useful links?
Some, finding information isn't easy since Moltex are unwilling to give the game away to too early, but the original presentation is a good place to start, really though the concept is based on fuel rods and fast neutrons, it's almost like a fast breeder reactor in that sense which the Russians have shown works with the BN-600/800 that are now in operation. I'll download the presentation and a few other items I have and email them to you if you want.
If that is possible then it would be madness to back Hinckley Point, and I was in favour of it.
Do we think this is the nuclear equivalent of vaporware or is it seriously plausible?
Most claims for 'new' nuclear power - whether fission, fusion or unobtainum - are based on hope and fiddlesticks. If they get the funding for a prototype, it doesn't match theory, and then the prototype doesn't scale well to production. Unforeseen safety issues arise, pushing up costs.
The hope for many claimants is they get such a large amount of experimental funding that they get so far down the rabbithole that it is hard for that funding to be cut off.
We see this with thorium - there are lots of claims for it, but massive issues and unknowns that are largely unacknowleged by the proponents.
Having said all that, it is definitely worth pursuing some avenues, though I doubt any of those should be fission based. Fission techs all rely on the steam cycle and the complexities, inefficiencies and safety issues that arise from that.
As I've wittered on about in the past, aneutronic fusion *should* be a gamechanger. Unfortunately it's incredibly difficult to do, and the above probably applies to it as well ...
And when the scientist making the claim is a biochemist with apparently no experience in the industry...
This.
This belief in 'experts' is what the people are revolting against. The idea that somehow, just because you are some kind of 'nuclear physicist' that you have a better idea of how to build a nuclear power plant is ridiculous. This guy is a biochemist, and he's not weighed down by the shibboleths of old. We ignore him at our peril.
If that is possible then it would be madness to back Hinckley Point, and I was in favour of it.
Do we think this is the nuclear equivalent of vaporware or is it seriously plausible?
Most claims for 'new' nuclear power - whether fission, fusion or unobtainum - are based on hope and fiddlesticks. If they get the funding for a prototype, it doesn't match theory, and then the prototype doesn't scale well to production. Unforeseen safety issues arise, pushing up costs.
The hope for many claimants is they get such a large amount of experimental funding that they get so far down the rabbithole that it is hard for that funding to be cut off.
We see this with thorium - there are lots of claims for it, but massive issues and unknowns that are largely unacknowleged by the proponents.
Having said all that, it is definitely worth pursuing some avenues, though I doubt any of those should be fission based. Fission techs all rely on the steam cycle and the complexities, inefficiencies and safety issues that arise from that.
As I've wittered on about in the past, aneutronic fusion *should* be a gamechanger. Unfortunately it's incredibly difficult to do, and the above probably applies to it as well ...
From following the link I see it's a Molten salt reactor design. Also known as "What do we do with all this super hot radioactive Sodium that will catch fire in contact with damp air and explode in contact with water" Reactor Design.
Salt is not sodium. Sodium explodes in contact with water and is poisonous. Chlorine is very poisonous. Mix them together though and you shake it on yer chips!
If that is possible then it would be madness to back Hinckley Point, and I was in favour of it.
Do we think this is the nuclear equivalent of vaporware or is it seriously plausible?
Most claims for 'new' nuclear power - whether fission, fusion or unobtainum - are based on hope and fiddlesticks. If they get the funding for a prototype, it doesn't match theory, and then the prototype doesn't scale well to production. Unforeseen safety issues arise, pushing up costs.
The hope for many claimants is they get such a large amount of experimental funding that they get so far down the rabbithole that it is hard for that funding to be cut off.
We see this with thorium - there are lots of claims for it, but massive issues and unknowns that are largely unacknowleged by the proponents.
Having said all that, it is definitely worth pursuing some avenues, though I doubt any of those should be fission based. Fission techs all rely on the steam cycle and the complexities, inefficiencies and safety issues that arise from that.
As I've wittered on about in the past, aneutronic fusion *should* be a gamechanger. Unfortunately it's incredibly difficult to do, and the above probably applies to it as well ...
And when the scientist making the claim is a biochemist with apparently no experience in the industry...
I agree, but: the last thing sane and rational science needs is for people with no experience in an area to be barred from entry.
Occasionally the biggest inertia in STEM comes from 'experts' in an area disregarding new ideas just because they're new, come from outside their clique, and even challenge theit industrial interests.
One of my geology professors at uni was involved, in a small way, with the arguments over continental drift in the 1950s and 1960s. He was a geologist but not an expert in that area, and his 'evidence' that pointed towards continental drift was disregarded not on its own basis, but because he was junior and not an expert.
Wanting Single Market access is tantamount to ignoring the referendum result.
Hardly, just 26% of voters polled want no single market access at all, the referendum result was to leave the EU not to end all free trade with the EU and start a trade and tariff war
Emerson had Trump just 3% behind in Pennsylvania earlier this week
And A+ rated Monmouth +8 yesterday. The last 10 polls have Clinton ahead, most of which were +6 or above.
Emerson was the second most accurate primary pollster this year, well above Monmouth
The 538 ratings are the gold standard.
As you will be aware some of the POTUS primary performers in 08 and 12 were cr*p come the general election.
I am interested in the latest results and the 2016 election will not be the same as the 2012 election, some Romney voters will vote for Hillary, some non-voters for Trump, some Obama voters will not vote. Nate Silver's 538 is also no crystal ball, Silver got the 2014 mid-terms wrong, the 2015 UK general election wrong and EU ref wrong
538 also got 2010 wrong. However their track record in UK politics, abysmal as it may be, is rather moot compared to their gold standard track record in US Presidential Politics.
They are not completely gold standard even in the US, as you say they got 2010 and 2014 wrong
I am interested in the latest results and the 2016 election will not be the same as the 2012 election, some Romney voters will vote for Hillary, some non-voters for Trump, some Obama voters will not vote. Nate Silver's 538 is also no crystal ball, Silver got the 2014 mid-terms wrong, the 2015 UK general election wrong and EU ref wrong
Nate's POTUS record is outstanding .... much like my own ....
You seem to wish to find any succor for Trump. The fact is presently he is losing badly and then some. If that situation changes I will change my position and so will 538.
Hillary's poll rating has almost halved in the RCP poll average over the last month and as for Nate's POTUS record being outstanding, he dismissed the chances of Trump getting the GOP nomination for months
Wanting Single Market access is tantamount to ignoring the referendum result.
Does 'tantamount' mean 'not at all' since I don't recall that question being on the paper?
I'm loving this phoney war period. You have die hard remainers pushing explicit ignoring of the result on what is a legal but politically unviable basis, then you have various leave factions insisting that only their version respects the result, pretty shakily in some cases.
May won't want to push people too hard. Comments today about not being in the euvia the back door should encourage hard brexiteers, as they already know if they can pitch an idea as being in the eu by the back Door that gets a lot of support marshalled against it.
I am interested in the latest results and the 2016 election will not be the same as the 2012 election, some Romney voters will vote for Hillary, some non-voters for Trump, some Obama voters will not vote. Nate Silver's 538 is also no crystal ball, Silver got the 2014 mid-terms wrong, the 2015 UK general election wrong and EU ref wrong
Nate's POTUS record is outstanding .... much like my own ....
You seem to wish to find any succor for Trump. The fact is presently he is losing badly and then some. If that situation changes I will change my position and so will 538.
Hillary's poll rating has almost halved in the RCP poll average over the last month and as for Nate's POTUS record being outstanding, he dismissed the chances of Trump getting the GOP nomination for months
He said that at the beginning AGAINST the polls which showed Trump ahead. He thought the polls would tighten, and that Trump was just another Herman Cain. He has since admitted his mistake.
He expects the polls to tighten now, but if he is wrong like he was in the primaries, it would be a Clinton washout
Wanting Single Market access is tantamount to ignoring the referendum result.
Hardly, just 26% of voters polled want no single market access at all, the referendum result was to leave the EU not to end all free trade with the EU and start a trade and tariff war
If that is possible then it would be madness to back Hinckley Point, and I was in favour of it.
Do we think this is the nuclear equivalent of vaporware or is it seriously plausible?
Most claims for 'new' nuclear power - whether fission, fusion or unobtainum - are based on hope and fiddlesticks. If they get the funding for a prototype, it doesn't match theory, and then the prototype doesn't scale well to production. Unforeseen safety issues arise, pushing up costs.
The hope for many claimants is they get such a large amount of experimental funding that they get so far down the rabbithole that it is hard for that funding to be cut off.
We see this with thorium - there are lots of claims for it, but massive issues and unknowns that are largely unacknowleged by the proponents.
Having said all that, it is definitely worth pursuing some avenues, though I doubt any of those should be fission based. Fission techs all rely on the steam cycle and the complexities, inefficiencies and safety issues that arise from that.
As I've wittered on about in the past, aneutronic fusion *should* be a gamechanger. Unfortunately it's incredibly difficult to do, and the above probably applies to it as well ...
And when the scientist making the claim is a biochemist with apparently no experience in the industry...
This.
This belief in 'experts' is what the people are revolting against. The idea that somehow, just because you are some kind of 'nuclear physicist' that you have a better idea of how to build a nuclear power plant is ridiculous. This guy is a biochemist, and he's not weighed down by the shibboleths of old. We ignore him at our peril.
He's a renaissance man no doubt, not tied town with all this specialisation.
Before anyone points to economists and the European, economists don't know anything, that's well known. As yes minister also taught us of course.
Wanting Single Market access is tantamount to ignoring the referendum result.
Hardly, just 26% of voters polled want no single market access at all, the referendum result was to leave the EU not to end all free trade with the EU and start a trade and tariff war
And what, pray, does 'single market access' mean?
'Access' as we have now?
As Norway has?
As Turkey has?
As the US has ?
As Burkina Faso has?
As North Korea has?
It is a term devoid of meaning.
In which case saying it is tantamount to ignoring the result is as meaningless as sayings it's necessary.
If that is possible then it would be madness to back Hinckley Point, and I was in favour of it.
Do we think this is the nuclear equivalent of vaporware or is it seriously plausible?
Most claims for 'new' nuclear power - whether fission, fusion or unobtainum - are based on hope and fiddlesticks. If they get the funding for a prototype, it doesn't match theory, and then the prototype doesn't scale well to production. Unforeseen safety issues arise, pushing up costs.
The hope for many claimants is they get such a large amount of experimental funding that they get so far down the rabbithole that it is hard for that funding to be cut off.
We see this with thorium - there are lots of claims for it, but massive issues and unknowns that are largely unacknowleged by the proponents.
Having said all that, it is definitely worth pursuing some avenues, though I doubt any of those should be fission based. Fission techs all rely on the steam cycle and the complexities, inefficiencies and safety issues that arise from that.
As I've wittered on about in the past, aneutronic fusion *should* be a gamechanger. Unfortunately it's incredibly difficult to do, and the above probably applies to it as well ...
And when the scientist making the claim is a biochemist with apparently no experience in the industry...
This.
This belief in 'experts' is what the people are revolting against. The idea that somehow, just because you are some kind of 'nuclear physicist' that you have a better idea of how to build a nuclear power plant is ridiculous. This guy is a biochemist, and he's not weighed down by the shibboleths of old. We ignore him at our peril.
He's a renaissance man no doubt, not tied town with all this specialisation.
Before anyone points to economists and the European, economists don't know anything, that's well known.
I don't object to nuclear physicists pontificating on nuclear physics - what I do object to is people thinking that because they are good or famous (the two are not the same) in one area they can spouse arrant nonsense in another, or that because they are experts in Friedman Economics that their values are worth any weight in Keynesian economics. or, because they can predict the US presidential election accurately they can predict the UK election accurately.
I also object to 'experts' experting without declaring an interest.
I think you do a good job calculating the options, though in defence of the craven, as it were, I'd add the caveat to the none of the above option that if they want to help the party later they need to survive now, even if it means personal embarrassment in such a conversion. I don't think that makes logical sense in this context, but I can see many thinking it - because it recasts their plight as necessary to save the party long term.
TSE has a piece from me on this coming up later today.
I think you do a good job calculating the options, though in defence of the craven, as it were, I'd add the caveat to the none of the above option that if they want to help the party later they need to survive now, even if it means personal embarrassment in such a conversion. I don't think that makes logical sense in this context, but I can see many thinking it - because it recasts their plight as necessary to save the party long term.
TSE has a piece from me on this coming up later today.
Intriguing. It's worth noting Corbyn shows the value of sticking around even when the clique in charge are not to your liking. A chance will arise, their moment may come. You need yo be there to seize the opportunity.
Wanting Single Market access is tantamount to ignoring the referendum result.
Hardly, just 26% of voters polled want no single market access at all, the referendum result was to leave the EU not to end all free trade with the EU and start a trade and tariff war
And what, pray, does 'single market access' mean?
'Access' as we have now?
As Norway has?
As Turkey has?
As the US has ?
As Burkina Faso has?
As North Korea has?
It is a term devoid of meaning.
In which case saying it is tantamount to ignoring the result is as meaningless as sayings it's necessary.
Anyone using the term is either ignorant or being misleading, yes.
I think you do a good job calculating the options, though in defence of the craven, as it were, I'd add the caveat to the none of the above option that if they want to help the party later they need to survive now, even if it means personal embarrassment in such a conversion. I don't think that makes logical sense in this context, but I can see many thinking it - because it recasts their plight as necessary to save the party long term.
TSE has a piece from me on this coming up later today.
Intriguing. It's worth noting Corbyn shows the value of sticking around even when the clique in charge are not to your liking. A chance will arise, their moment may come. You need yo be there to seize the opportunity.
A chance will arise if your internal opponents haven't used their moments of strength against you
If a purge begins in earnest then hanging around for the pendulum to swing back towards prioritising electoral success won't be an option; not without voluntary reeducation anyway.
I think you do a good job calculating the options, though in defence of the craven, as it were, I'd add the caveat to the none of the above option that if they want to help the party later they need to survive now, even if it means personal embarrassment in such a conversion. I don't think that makes logical sense in this context, but I can see many thinking it - because it recasts their plight as necessary to save the party long term.
TSE has a piece from me on this coming up later today.
They will just go back to mostly keeping their heads down, bad-mouthing their leadership off the record to journalists, until next year when doubtless the whole sorry saga will kick off again.
For who, having watched the MPs these last months, thinks that any of them have any principles, strategy or competence?
By the way, am I right that if Leadsome had fought on, we would still be waiting for a PM? Doesn't bear thinking about.
Has Baxter been updated with the 2015 results yet? Last time I looked, it was still running off 2010, so if you entered the actual results from last time, Labour made about 30 gains.
I think you do a good job calculating the options, though in defence of the craven, as it were, I'd add the caveat to the none of the above option that if they want to help the party later they need to survive now, even if it means personal embarrassment in such a conversion. I don't think that makes logical sense in this context, but I can see many thinking it - because it recasts their plight as necessary to save the party long term.
TSE has a piece from me on this coming up later today.
If that is possible then it would be madness to back Hinckley Point, and I was in favour of it.
Do we think this is the nuclear equivalent of vaporware or is it seriously plausible?
Most claims for 'new' nuclear power - whether fission, fusion or unobtainum - are based on hope and fiddlesticks. If they get the funding for a prototype, it doesn't match theory, and then the prototype doesn't scale well to production. Unforeseen safety issues arise, pushing up costs.
The hope for many claimants is they get such a large amount of experimental funding that they get so far down the rabbithole that it is hard for that funding to be cut off.
We see this with thorium - there are lots of claims for it, but massive issues and unknowns that are largely unacknowleged by the proponents.
Having said all that, it is definitely worth pursuing some avenues, though I doubt any of those should be fission based. Fission techs all rely on the steam cycle and the complexities, inefficiencies and safety issues that arise from that.
As I've wittered on about in the past, aneutronic fusion *should* be a gamechanger. Unfortunately it's incredibly difficult to do, and the above probably applies to it as well ...
And when the scientist making the claim is a biochemist with apparently no experience in the industry...
But the majority of any major steps forward in most fields come from someone outside of the mainstream in the field.
Life is extraordinarily energy efficient. The fact that the guy is a biochemist means he has knowledge of chemistry and energy at a molecular level. I would imagine both those areas of knowledge are of potential use in nuclear energy.
That is no guarantee that they guy and his science are for real. But the fact that he is a biochemist dabbling in nuclear physics is no reason to sneer.
Allowing for the superior Tory ground game and them outperforming UNS at GE 2015 we'd be looking at a 100 seat plus majority
That cannot be relied upon though - new Labour MPs elected in 2015 will have first time incumbency. Also Tories do not always outperform in marginals - eg 1992 - 1997 - 2001.
I think you do a good job calculating the options, though in defence of the craven, as it were, I'd add the caveat to the none of the above option that if they want to help the party later they need to survive now, even if it means personal embarrassment in such a conversion. I don't think that makes logical sense in this context, but I can see many thinking it - because it recasts their plight as necessary to save the party long term.
TSE has a piece from me on this coming up later today.
Intriguing. It's worth noting Corbyn shows the value of sticking around even when the clique in charge are not to your liking. A chance will arise, their moment may come. You need yo be there to seize the opportunity.
A chance will arise if your internal opponents haven't used their moments of strength against you
If a purge begins in earnest then hanging around for the pendulum to swing back towards prioritising electoral success won't be an option; not without voluntary reeducation anyway.
A chance may arise it is perhaps better to say. However, surely the hard left faced pressure after the dire times of the 80s and could be counted on one hand in terms of true believers. They stuck around though and then when the time was right they've flourished, as I have no doubt most Lab MPs are still going to vote with Corbyn on most issues no matter what happens. A purge won't get everyone, they never do, so it would just make it a longer road back.
It's one reason though I think Corbyn and co would not need to launch immediate and wholesale changes. Do it in a slow creep, bit by bit, increasing the influence of the Left, and the reluctance to take the step of total rebellion and defection means each time a lot will continue to think they can keep fighting for next time, it's too soon now, Corbyn looks magnanimous by welcoming those who opposed him, and before you know it Corbyn and successor have made any hope of recovery by the other lot impossible. A sudden move which leaves some with nothing to lose on the other hand...
Allowing for the superior Tory ground game and them outperforming UNS at GE 2015 we'd be looking at a 100 seat plus majority
That cannot be relied upon though - new Labour MPs elected in 2015 will have first time incumbency. Also Tories do not always outperform in marginals - eg 1992 - 1997 - 2001.
What Labour should be worrying about is not whether they are going to lose in 2020 but whether they are at risk of losing so badly that 2025 is also beyond their grasp.
Allowing for the superior Tory ground game and them outperforming UNS at GE 2015 we'd be looking at a 100 seat plus majority
That cannot be relied upon though - new Labour MPs elected in 2015 will have first time incumbency. Also Tories do not always outperform in marginals - eg 1992 - 1997 - 2001.
What Labour should be worrying about is not whether they are going to lose in 2020 but whether they are at risk of losing so badly that 2025 is also beyond their grasp.
But they'll vote for Corbyn anyway.
He's not the messiah, he's a very naughty boy voting losing machine.
Allowing for the superior Tory ground game and them outperforming UNS at GE 2015 we'd be looking at a 100 seat plus majority
That cannot be relied upon though - new Labour MPs elected in 2015 will have first time incumbency. Also Tories do not always outperform in marginals - eg 1992 - 1997 - 2001.
I think you're misunderestimating just how badly Corbyn will go down in the marginals.
I'd also point out the Tories will have a lot of first time incumbents in 2020 as well.
Allowing for the superior Tory ground game and them outperforming UNS at GE 2015 we'd be looking at a 100 seat plus majority
That cannot be relied upon though - new Labour MPs elected in 2015 will have first time incumbency. Also Tories do not always outperform in marginals - eg 1992 - 1997 - 2001.
Definitely better to rely on the short straws of tiny subsamples and parish council elections...
I think you do a good job calculating the options, though in defence of the craven, as it were, I'd add the caveat to the none of the above option that if they want to help the party later they need to survive now, even if it means personal embarrassment in such a conversion. I don't think that makes logical sense in this context, but I can see many thinking it - because it recasts their plight as necessary to save the party long term.
TSE has a piece from me on this coming up later today.
By the way, am I right that if Leadsome had fought on, we would still be waiting for a PM? Doesn't bear thinking about.
You are right.
For both the tories and labour, having 8+ weeks of a leadership contest is stupid. They both need a way to cut it down to a few weeks max.
Wanting Single Market access is tantamount to ignoring the referendum result.
Hardly, just 26% of voters polled want no single market access at all, the referendum result was to leave the EU not to end all free trade with the EU and start a trade and tariff war
And what, pray, does 'single market access' mean?
'Access' as we have now?
As Norway has?
As Turkey has?
As the US has ?
As Burkina Faso has?
As North Korea has?
It is a term devoid of meaning.
We will not get Norway access, if hard BREXIT fanatics get their way we may not get Swiss or even Canada access. If we withdraw from the single market completely the EU will impose tariffs on our services and goods and there will be no financial services passport and we will respond with tariffs on German cars and French wine i.e. could well be a full-scale trade war
''How can the Labour party of today be on 27%? That's beyond loopy. ''
Its the number of people who identify with the labour party of the past, surely. Trad labour voters. How many would stay at home if Corbyn is leader in 2020? 15% of the 27%? More?
I disagree. The voting system precludes a positive split. It takes a hell of a lot to deselect an MP and changing the rules to make it easier is going to be very time-consuming. But if mass deselections do happen before the next general election, Corbyn will create the new official opposition. That may be the way forward.
I agree totally with you Southam. A split will NOT happen because of FPTP. The best thing that can happen to Labour assuming a Corbyn win, is an early election and an utter and total pasting from the Tories. If we lose heavily under Corbyn it may bring some members (and crucially the unions) to their senses.
The fact that Labour is still relying on the Unions is perhaps indicative. What does it want to be? A members party, a rag bag coalition or what? Say what you want about Corbyn but he does represent something. What does the rest of Labour represent now? EUphilia? Social democracy? The radical centre? Metropolitan liberalism?
If that is possible then it would be madness to back Hinckley Point, and I was in favour of it.
Do we think this is the nuclear equivalent of vaporware or is it seriously plausible?
Most claims for 'new' nuclear power - whether fission, fusion or unobtainum - are based on hope and fiddlesticks. If they get the funding for a prototype, it doesn't match theory, and then the prototype doesn't scale well to production. Unforeseen safety issues arise, pushing up costs.
The hope for many claimants is they get such a large amount of experimental funding that they get so far down the rabbithole that it is hard for that funding to be cut off.
We see this with thorium - there are lots of claims for it, but massive issues and unknowns that are largely unacknowleged by the proponents.
Having said all that, it is definitely worth pursuing some avenues, though I doubt any of those should be fission based. Fission techs all rely on the steam cycle and the complexities, inefficiencies and safety issues that arise from that.
As I've wittered on about in the past, aneutronic fusion *should* be a gamechanger. Unfortunately it's incredibly difficult to do, and the above probably applies to it as well ...
And when the scientist making the claim is a biochemist with apparently no experience in the industry...
This.
This belief in 'experts' is what the people are revolting against. The idea that somehow, just because you are some kind of 'nuclear physicist' that you have a better idea of how to build a nuclear power plant is ridiculous. This guy is a biochemist, and he's not weighed down by the shibboleths of old. We ignore him at our peril.
100% agree. The whole field I know best, synthetic biology, was invented by engineers and IT folk, not biologists. Now every molecular or systems biologist or genetic engineer is a synthetic biologist.
I am interested in the latest results and the 2016 election will not be the same as the 2012 election, some Romney voters will vote for Hillary, some non-voters for Trump, some Obama voters will not vote. Nate Silver's 538 is also no crystal ball, Silver got the 2014 mid-terms wrong, the 2015 UK general election wrong and EU ref wrong
Nate's POTUS record is outstanding .... much like my own ....
You seem to wish to find any succor for Trump. The fact is presently he is losing badly and then some. If that situation changes I will change my position and so will 538.
Hillary's poll rating has almost halved in the RCP poll average over the last month and as for Nate's POTUS record being outstanding, he dismissed the chances of Trump getting the GOP nomination for months
He said that at the beginning AGAINST the polls which showed Trump ahead. He thought the polls would tighten, and that Trump was just another Herman Cain. He has since admitted his mistake.
He expects the polls to tighten now, but if he is wrong like he was in the primaries, it would be a Clinton washout
Wrong conclusion as he bet against the high turnout of Trump supporters
Wanting Single Market access is tantamount to ignoring the referendum result.
Does 'tantamount' mean 'not at all' since I don't recall that question being on the paper?
I'm loving this phoney war period. You have die hard remainers pushing explicit ignoring of the result on what is a legal but politically unviable basis, then you have various leave factions insisting that only their version respects the result, pretty shakily in some cases.
May won't want to push people too hard. Comments today about not being in the euvia the back door should encourage hard brexiteers, as they already know if they can pitch an idea as being in the eu by the back Door that gets a lot of support marshalled against it.
The most hardcore Leavers would see keeping the Channel Tunnel open as being in the EU by the back door
On topic, there often seems to be a cycle where parties lose an election, elect somebody who appeals to the base, gradually grow their membership back, then eventually get sick of losing and pick somebody the voters will vote for. I think a lot of the "pendulum" effect in politics is actually this: The opposition need to get slapped around a bit before they'll agree to compromise with the voters.
What's unfortunate for Labour is that they had a run at getting an electably-positioned (but sadly uncharismatic) person elected first, and only then decided to give up and concentrate on entertaining themselves in a gentleman's manner. If they'd picked Corbyn back in 2010 the members would already be halfway through the process of learning the difference between what they want and what the voters want, and they'd have a reasonable shot for 2025.
I suppose there's a case for a breakaway party if you can't wait until 2030, but it's not obvious how a breakaway party would work under FPTP. They really need to get the Tories to split as well to make it work, but that doesn't look like it's on the cards despite the various strains of working out how and when to brexit.
If that is possible then it would be madness to back Hinckley Point, and I was in favour of it.
Do we think this is the nuclear equivalent of vaporware or is it seriously plausible?
Most claims for 'new' nuclear power - whether fission, fusion or unobtainum - are based on hope and fiddlesticks. If they get the funding for a prototype, it doesn't match theory, and then the prototype doesn't scale well to production. Unforeseen safety issues arise, pushing up costs.
The hope for many claimants is they get such a large amount of experimental funding that they get so far down the rabbithole that it is hard for that funding to be cut off.
We see this with thorium - there are lots of claims for it, but massive issues and unknowns that are largely unacknowleged by the proponents.
Having said all that, it is definitely worth pursuing some avenues, though I doubt any of those should be fission based. Fission techs all rely on the steam cycle and the complexities, inefficiencies and safety issues that arise from that.
As I've wittered on about in the past, aneutronic fusion *should* be a gamechanger. Unfortunately it's incredibly difficult to do, and the above probably applies to it as well ...
And when the scientist making the claim is a biochemist with apparently no experience in the industry...
This.
This belief in 'experts' is what the people are revolting against. The idea that somehow, just because you are some kind of 'nuclear physicist' that you have a better idea of how to build a nuclear power plant is ridiculous. This guy is a biochemist, and he's not weighed down by the shibboleths of old. We ignore him at our peril.
Isn't that covered in the article by the statement that its based on work done at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory and then abandoned due to its lack of use there..
Personally for £30m it seems rather too cheap and the bit I can't work out is why go to the government when you could easily get that sum from a US fund....
''How can the Labour party of today be on 27%? That's beyond loopy. ''
Its the number of people who identify with the labour party of the past, surely. Trad labour voters. How many would stay at home if Corbyn is leader in 2020? 15% of the 27%? More?
I suspect this is exactly right. In a GE campaign and when JC gets exposed in all his glory, in front of a brutally hostile media, that 27% will represent a share to dream of. If you thought Ed Miliband had it tough in 2015 the Jezza demolition show of 2020 will be a barnstormer.
I am interested in the latest results and the 2016 election will not be the same as the 2012 election, some Romney voters will vote for Hillary, some non-voters for Trump, some Obama voters will not vote. Nate Silver's 538 is also no crystal ball, Silver got the 2014 mid-terms wrong, the 2015 UK general election wrong and EU ref wrong
Nate's POTUS record is outstanding .... much like my own ....
You seem to wish to find any succor for Trump. The fact is presently he is losing badly and then some. If that situation changes I will change my position and so will 538.
Hillary's poll rating has almost halved in the RCP poll average over the last month and as for Nate's POTUS record being outstanding, he dismissed the chances of Trump getting the GOP nomination for months
He said that at the beginning AGAINST the polls which showed Trump ahead. He thought the polls would tighten, and that Trump was just another Herman Cain. He has since admitted his mistake.
He expects the polls to tighten now, but if he is wrong like he was in the primaries, it would be a Clinton washout
Wrong conclusion as he bet against the high turnout of Trump supporters
I thought Nate's mea culpa was that he allowed political analysis to enter into his thinking, rather than relying solely on the polls. But relying solely on the polls his how he got EURef so wrong.
Frankly, I don't think he has an infallible model yet. He is more right than most other political predictors most of the time because he is better at statistics than they are and the polls are reasonably good most of the time. When the polls are wrong, Nate performs at least as badly if not worse than the political pundits.
So if you suspect that it is not politics as normal and that the polls may have difficulty reading the political tectonics, treat Nate's predictions with a large grain of salt.
If that is possible then it would be madness to back Hinckley Point, and I was in favour of it.
Do we think this is the nuclear equivalent of vaporware or is it seriously plausible?
Most claims for 'new' nuclear power - whether fission, fusion or unobtainum - are based on hope and fiddlesticks. If they get the funding for a prototype, it doesn't match theory, and then the prototype doesn't scale well to production. Unforeseen safety issues arise, pushing up costs.
The hope for many claimants is they get such a large amount of experimental funding that they get so far down the rabbithole that it is hard for that funding to be cut off.
We see this with thorium - there are lots of claims for it, but massive issues and unknowns that are largely unacknowleged by the proponents.
Having said all that, it is definitely worth pursuing some avenues, though I doubt any of those should be fission based. Fission techs all rely on the steam cycle and the complexities, inefficiencies and safety issues that arise from that.
As I've wittered on about in the past, aneutronic fusion *should* be a gamechanger. Unfortunately it's incredibly difficult to do, and the above probably applies to it as well ...
And when the scientist making the claim is a biochemist with apparently no experience in the industry...
But the majority of any major steps forward in most fields come from someone outside of the mainstream in the field.
''How can the Labour party of today be on 27%? That's beyond loopy. ''
Its the number of people who identify with the labour party of the past, surely. Trad labour voters. How many would stay at home if Corbyn is leader in 2020? 15% of the 27%? More?
I suspect this is exactly right. In a GE campaign and when JC gets exposed in all his glory, in front of a brutally hostile media, that 27% will represent a share to dream of. If you thought Ed Miliband had it tough in 2015 the Jezza demolition show of 2020 will be a barnstormer.
No need or the daily mail to stretch the truth with tall tales of his dad views....they probably have a filing cabinet stacked full of stories \ previous quotes \ friends.
If that is possible then it would be madness to back Hinckley Point, and I was in favour of it.
Do we think this is the nuclear equivalent of vaporware or is it seriously plausible?
Most claims for 'new' nuclear power - whether fission, fusion or unobtainum - are based on hope and fiddlesticks. If they get the funding for a prototype, it doesn't match theory, and then the prototype doesn't scale well to production. Unforeseen safety issues arise, pushing up costs.
The hope for many claimants is they get such a large amount of experimental funding that they get so far down the rabbithole that it is hard for that funding to be cut off.
We see this with thorium - there are lots of claims for it, but massive issues and unknowns that are largely unacknowleged by the proponents.
Having said all that, it is definitely worth pursuing some avenues, though I doubt any of those should be fission based. Fission techs all rely on the steam cycle and the complexities, inefficiencies and safety issues that arise from that.
As I've wittered on about in the past, aneutronic fusion *should* be a gamechanger. Unfortunately it's incredibly difficult to do, and the above probably applies to it as well ...
And when the scientist making the claim is a biochemist with apparently no experience in the industry...
This.
This belief in 'experts' is what the people are revolting against. The idea that somehow, just because you are some kind of 'nuclear physicist' that you have a better idea of how to build a nuclear power plant is ridiculous. This guy is a biochemist, and he's not weighed down by the shibboleths of old. We ignore him at our peril.
Isn't that covered in the article by the statement that its based on work done at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory and then abandoned due to its lack of use there..
Personally for £30m it seems rather too cheap and the bit I can't work out is why go to the government when you could easily get that sum from a US fund....
Nuclear investment hasn't worked out well in the past for funds. Most are pretty wary of scientists asking for a blank cheque.
I am interested in the latest results and the 2016 election will not be the same as the 2012 election, some Romney voters will vote for Hillary, some non-voters for Trump, some Obama voters will not vote. Nate Silver's 538 is also no crystal ball, Silver got the 2014 mid-terms wrong, the 2015 UK general election wrong and EU ref wrong
Nate's POTUS record is outstanding .... much like my own ....
You seem to wish to find any succor for Trump. The fact is presently he is losing badly and then some. If that situation changes I will change my position and so will 538.
Hillary's poll rating has almost halved in the RCP poll average over the last month and as for Nate's POTUS record being outstanding, he dismissed the chances of Trump getting the GOP nomination for months
He said that at the beginning AGAINST the polls which showed Trump ahead. He thought the polls would tighten, and that Trump was just another Herman Cain. He has since admitted his mistake.
He expects the polls to tighten now, but if he is wrong like he was in the primaries, it would be a Clinton washout
Wrong conclusion as he bet against the high turnout of Trump supporters
I thought Nate's mea culpa was that he allowed political analysis to enter into his thinking, rather than relying solely on the polls. But relying solely on the polls his how he got EURef so wrong.
Frankly, I don't think he has an infallible model yet. He is more right than most other political predictors most of the time because he is better at statistics than they are and the polls are reasonably good most of the time. When the polls are wrong, Nate performs at least as badly if not worse than the political pundits.
So if you suspect that it is not politics as normal and that the polls may have difficulty reading the political tectonics, treat Nate's predictions with a large grain of salt.
By his own admission, he doesn't spend much time personally number crunching anymore & the big bucks for this company is sports related.
Wanting Single Market access is tantamount to ignoring the referendum result.
Hardly, just 26% of voters polled want no single market access at all, the referendum result was to leave the EU not to end all free trade with the EU and start a trade and tariff war
And what, pray, does 'single market access' mean?
'Access' as we have now?
As Norway has?
As Turkey has?
As the US has ?
As Burkina Faso has?
As North Korea has?
It is a term devoid of meaning.
We will not get Norway access, if hard BREXIT fanatics get their way we may not get Swiss or even Canada access. If we withdraw from the single market completely the EU will impose tariffs on our services and goods and there will be no financial services passport and we will respond with tariffs on German cars and French wine i.e. could well be a full-scale trade war
Ok so it's clear you are pretty muddled (to say the least) on this subject also, despite posting on it constantly. Please do some reading.
If that is possible then it would be madness to back Hinckley Point, and I was in favour of it.
Do we think this is the nuclear equivalent of vaporware or is it seriously plausible?
Most claims for 'new' nuclear power - whether fission, fusion or unobtainum - are based on hope and fiddlesticks. If they get the funding for a prototype, it doesn't match theory, and then the prototype doesn't scale well to production. Unforeseen safety issues arise, pushing up costs.
The hope for many claimants is they get such a large amount of experimental funding that they get so far down the rabbithole that it is hard for that funding to be cut off.
We see this with thorium - there are lots of claims for it, but massive issues and unknowns that are largely unacknowleged by the proponents.
Having said all that, it is definitely worth pursuing some avenues, though I doubt any of those should be fission based. Fission techs all rely on the steam cycle and the complexities, inefficiencies and safety issues that arise from that.
As I've wittered on about in the past, aneutronic fusion *should* be a gamechanger. Unfortunately it's incredibly difficult to do, and the above probably applies to it as well ...
And when the scientist making the claim is a biochemist with apparently no experience in the industry...
But the majority of any major steps forward in most fields come from someone outside of the mainstream in the field.
For example?
Richard Branson, a music industry person, shook up the airline industry. Elon Musk, the inventor of PayPal, is shaking up the satellite launch industry and electric car industry.
If that is possible then it would be madness to back Hinckley Point, and I was in favour of it.
Do we think this is the nuclear equivalent of vaporware or is it seriously plausible?
Most claims for 'new' nuclear power - whether fission, fusion or unobtainum - are based on hope and fiddlesticks. If they get the funding for a prototype, it doesn't match theory, and then the prototype doesn't scale well to production. Unforeseen safety issues arise, pushing up costs.
The hope for many claimants is they get such a large amount of experimental funding that they get so far down the rabbithole that it is hard for that funding to be cut off.
We see this with thorium - there are lots of claims for it, but massive issues and unknowns that are largely unacknowleged by the proponents.
Having said all that, it is definitely worth pursuing some avenues, though I doubt any of those should be fission based. Fission techs all rely on the steam cycle and the complexities, inefficiencies and safety issues that arise from that.
As I've wittered on about in the past, aneutronic fusion *should* be a gamechanger. Unfortunately it's incredibly difficult to do, and the above probably applies to it as well ...
And when the scientist making the claim is a biochemist with apparently no experience in the industry...
But the majority of any major steps forward in most fields come from someone outside of the mainstream in the field.
For example?
Richard Branson, a music industry person, shook up the airline industry. Elon Musk, the inventor of PayPal, is shaking up the satellite launch industry and electric car industry.
He didn't invent paypal, he was behind x.com that merged with PayPal.
Comments
You seem to wish to find any succor for Trump. The fact is presently he is losing badly and then some. If that situation changes I will change my position and so will 538.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/live-polls-and-online-polls-tell-different-stories-about-the-election/
Bear in mind too that a lot of those backing Smith now will give up and leave Labour rather than spend year after year pissing in the wind. I don't see any way back for Labour if Smith loses as heavily as this poll suggests. Only a narrow defeat offers the possibility that the situation could be overturned and a split avoided.
This sort of thing has to be the way ahead for the City. Potentially vast market.
My current phone is this: http://www.gsmarena.com/xiaomi_mi_max-review-1448.php
I paid $220 (180 quid) for it on AliExpress including shipping and import duty, and it's awesome. I'm in Oz, and I bought a Lebara data sim at the airport for A$10, put it in the second SIM slot, and have blazing fast LTE data, my regular UK mobile number, and no data roaming fees. The device is incredibly well made, with awesome battery life and a very nice screen. I've moved from a $900 S7 Edge to a device a quarter of its price and am incredibly happy.
The hope for many claimants is they get such a large amount of experimental funding that they get so far down the rabbithole that it is hard for that funding to be cut off.
We see this with thorium - there are lots of claims for it, but massive issues and unknowns that are largely unacknowleged by the proponents.
Having said all that, it is definitely worth pursuing some avenues, though I doubt any of those should be fission based. Fission techs all rely on the steam cycle and the complexities, inefficiencies and safety issues that arise from that.
As I've wittered on about in the past, aneutronic fusion *should* be a gamechanger. Unfortunately it's incredibly difficult to do, and the above probably applies to it as well ...
Reminds me of the cheapest way to get heavy weights into space: Project Orion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion)
Just drop a small nuclear weapon out the back, let it explode and push up on a massive pusher plate. Rinse and repeat.
Oh, and with shock absorbers between the plate and the main ship.
The issue is what issues (FTT?) will we be told to like or lump.
Your point about us gold-plating regs and legislation is well made and is of course a central irony of our decision to leave, especially Financial Services-wise.
The Moggster on WatO!!
Don't Panic!!
Wanting Single Market access is tantamount to ignoring the referendum result.
This belief in 'experts' is what the people are revolting against. The idea that somehow, just because you are some kind of 'nuclear physicist' that you have a better idea of how to build a nuclear power plant is ridiculous. This guy is a biochemist, and he's not weighed down by the shibboleths of old. We ignore him at our peril.
Occasionally the biggest inertia in STEM comes from 'experts' in an area disregarding new ideas just because they're new, come from outside their clique, and even challenge theit industrial interests.
One of my geology professors at uni was involved, in a small way, with the arguments over continental drift in the 1950s and 1960s. He was a geologist but not an expert in that area, and his 'evidence' that pointed towards continental drift was disregarded not on its own basis, but because he was junior and not an expert.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_drift#Rejection_of_Wegener.27s_theory.2C_1910s.E2.80.931950s
Then again, the vast majority of ideas from outside an area of expertise are rubbish. Including mine.
https://www.jrf.org.uk/brexit-vote-explained-poverty-low-skills-and-lack-opportunities
Conservatives - 41% (-2)
Labour - 27% (nc)
UKIP - 13% (nc)
LD - 9% (+1%)
Greens - 4% (nc)
Changes since general election:
Con +3%
Lab -5%
UKIP nc
LD +1%
Greens nc
I'm loving this phoney war period. You have die hard remainers pushing explicit ignoring of the result on what is a legal but politically unviable basis, then you have various leave factions insisting that only their version respects the result, pretty shakily in some cases.
May won't want to push people too hard. Comments today about not being in the euvia the back door should encourage hard brexiteers, as they already know if they can pitch an idea as being in the eu by the back Door that gets a lot of support marshalled against it.
He expects the polls to tighten now, but if he is wrong like he was in the primaries, it would be a Clinton washout
'Access' as we have now?
As Norway has?
As Turkey has?
As the US has ?
As Burkina Faso has?
As North Korea has?
It is a term devoid of meaning.
Before anyone points to economists and the European, economists don't know anything, that's well known. As yes minister also taught us of course.
Con 367
Lab 195
LD 9
UKIP 1
Greens 1
SNP 55
http://www.moltexenergy.com/files/cms/3_Energy Economist single article.pdf
It looks potentially a good design.
I'll set up my model for the popular vote (Electoral college is trickier to model) in the POTUS elections at some point.
I also object to 'experts' experting without declaring an interest.
If a purge begins in earnest then hanging around for the pendulum to swing back towards prioritising electoral success won't be an option; not without voluntary reeducation anyway.
Allowing for the superior Tory ground game and them outperforming UNS at GE 2015 we'd be looking at a 100 seat plus majority
For who, having watched the MPs these last months, thinks that any of them have any principles, strategy or competence?
By the way, am I right that if Leadsome had fought on, we would still be waiting for a PM? Doesn't bear thinking about.
Life is extraordinarily energy efficient. The fact that the guy is a biochemist means he has knowledge of chemistry and energy at a molecular level. I would imagine both those areas of knowledge are of potential use in nuclear energy.
That is no guarantee that they guy and his science are for real. But the fact that he is a biochemist dabbling in nuclear physics is no reason to sneer.
I am sure justin124 will tell us it not that bad for labour.
It's one reason though I think Corbyn and co would not need to launch immediate and wholesale changes. Do it in a slow creep, bit by bit, increasing the influence of the Left, and the reluctance to take the step of total rebellion and defection means each time a lot will continue to think they can keep fighting for next time, it's too soon now, Corbyn looks magnanimous by welcoming those who opposed him, and before you know it Corbyn and successor have made any hope of recovery by the other lot impossible. A sudden move which leaves some with nothing to lose on the other hand...
But they'll vote for Corbyn anyway.
very naughty boyvoting losing machine.I'd also point out the Tories will have a lot of first time incumbents in 2020 as well.
For both the tories and labour, having 8+ weeks of a leadership contest is stupid. They both need a way to cut it down to a few weeks max.
http://www.langerresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/1144-59ClintonTrumpFavorability.pdf
Have there ever been two candidates least liked by anyone (rhetorical question)?
Its the number of people who identify with the labour party of the past, surely. Trad labour voters. How many would stay at home if Corbyn is leader in 2020? 15% of the 27%? More?
What's unfortunate for Labour is that they had a run at getting an electably-positioned (but sadly uncharismatic) person elected first, and only then decided to give up and concentrate on entertaining themselves in a gentleman's manner. If they'd picked Corbyn back in 2010 the members would already be halfway through the process of learning the difference between what they want and what the voters want, and they'd have a reasonable shot for 2025.
I suppose there's a case for a breakaway party if you can't wait until 2030, but it's not obvious how a breakaway party would work under FPTP. They really need to get the Tories to split as well to make it work, but that doesn't look like it's on the cards despite the various strains of working out how and when to brexit.
Personally for £30m it seems rather too cheap and the bit I can't work out is why go to the government when you could easily get that sum from a US fund....
Frankly, I don't think he has an infallible model yet. He is more right than most other political predictors most of the time because he is better at statistics than they are and the polls are reasonably good most of the time. When the polls are wrong, Nate performs at least as badly if not worse than the political pundits.
So if you suspect that it is not politics as normal and that the polls may have difficulty reading the political tectonics, treat Nate's predictions with a large grain of salt.
As much as Jezz himself, its his fellow travellers. And his supporters. Imagine them in campaigning in your constituency. Talk about voter repellent.
Elon Musk, the inventor of PayPal, is shaking up the satellite launch industry and electric car industry.
Hopefully the strong data here will get the BoE to reverse the rate cut.