Blame the Chartists. It was they who campaigned for one man one vote, and they got it, ultimately. Constituency boundaries have been based upon registered voters since 1885.
Indded. Chartists! Bloody closet Tories. More seriously, the law of unintended consequences.
On Libya, some of us did anticipate exactly what's happened, and deplored Labour's support for the intervention with no clear Government/Allied plan for what would happen next. It was a contributory reason for Corbyn's success that many of us felt that the former leadership had simply shrugged off Iraq and was continuing with interventionism as normal.
It was particularly bad since we'd previously wooed Gaddafi and persuaded him to give up WMD that he really did have - the message that if you're a wicked dictator but decide to play nice with the West we'll knife you anyway when we get the chance was wrong at multiple levels.
Whereas a message that if you're a deplorable dictator and you play nice with the West massacring your own people isn't wrong on multiple levels?
I'd have more respect for the Left if they had consistent ethics and principles. The bit that truly seems 'deplorable' to them here is the idea of Western military intervention itself. That goes for it anywhere, anytime, because it's a bit imperialist - doncha know - and whenever we want to do it, we must be wrong, and our protagonists right.
BeBraveComrades Number of people working in the NHS June 2010 1,596,000 June 2016 1,619,000
#SaveOurNHS from Tory cuts
1.4% increase in staff to cover an 18% increase in throughput
No wonder Tory cuts have ruined NHS Performance and Finances
#SaveOurNHS from Tory cuts
I would be sceptical of all of those figures, for example the privatised outsourced staff would not count as NHS even when they are doing the same job as previously.
It is the trend in reduction in health spending as a percentage of GDP that worries me, against a background of an ageing population. It is projected to be at 6.6% by 2021.
BeBraveComrades Number of people working in the NHS June 2010 1,596,000 June 2016 1,619,000
#SaveOurNHS from Tory cuts
1.4% increase in staff to cover an 18% increase in throughput
No wonder Tory cuts have ruined NHS Performance and Finances
#SaveOurNHS from Tory cuts
"Cuts" is inaccurate -
#SaveOurNHS from insufficient Tory increases to deal with an expanding and aging population
Would be a far more accurate slogan.
Mind you I'd have liked to have seen some
'#SaveOurNHS from Brown's piss poor PFI deals' back when Labour were in power too.
We could up the funding of the NHS from c.9% of GDP to c.15% of GDP and it still wouldn't end the debate, in my view.
At the end of the day, the amount we choose to spend on Health is a choice.
I don't think 15% is neccesary, I think the NHS should get at least 10% maybe though...
Anyway it wouldn't satisfy everyone, but it might satisfy me and I feel I'm a very fair judge of these things. I am in favour of Hunt's reforms but also believe we should up NHS spending
Whereas a message that if you're a deplorable dictator and you play nice with the West massacring your own people isn't wrong on multiple levels?
I'd have more respect for the Left if they had consistent ethics and principles. The bit that truly seems 'deplorable' to them here is the idea of Western military intervention itself. That goes for it anywhere, anytime, because it's a bit imperialist - doncha know - and whenever we want to do it, we must be wrong, and our protagonists right.
No - I voted for Sierra Leone (and think it was right), Kosovo (probably), Afghanistan (dubious) and Iraq (worked out badly). But I think we need to learn the lessons of experience ather than just intervene anywhere we like and hope for the best. That's not even a particularly left-wing theme though it's worked out that way in Britain - in the US it's a classical Republican theme (and we're fortunate that Roosevelt ignored it). Basiclaly we should just intervene only if we're really confident hat there is a long-term plan that will have positive effects making it worthwhile. We won't always be right, but that should be the statting point.
On Libya, intervening to stop the potential massacre of a city is one thing, going on to assist in the overthrow of the Government is something else - exactly the point made by the Select Committee.
Take North Korea - clearly a thotoughly evil Government led by corrupt people of debatable sanity. Do we protect South Korea and make it clear that an attack on the South will lead to a massive response that would bring down the Northern government? Yes, in my opinion. Do we refuse to do deals that de-escalate their nuclear programme because we think they're nasty? Surely not. The same applies to Iran.
I heard a story that some in government thought that the private power generators had an obligation to generate enough electricity to meet our needs, and it cam as a shock (no pun intended) when they discovered that this isn't the case.
The result is that EDF et al can just name whatever silly Strike Price they want, knowing that the government has little option but to agree, as they plead with the generators to build more capacity.
The Oxburgh report points at a public sector approach to clean fossil generation. Let's see if the government can shed its ideological baggage and do the right thing to keep the lights on and cut CO2 emissions.
Blair will go down in history for Iraq (which, for the Left, was his greatest crime) but for the Right a lot of the insidious effects of his policies go all the way back to 1997: his asymmetric devolution settlement, the 1998 Human Rights Act, the
How dated the "progressive" outlook of Tony Blair now seems.
Not really. Much of it has become the new unremarkeable normal, such as gay equality.
May was in the cabinet for 6 years in a central role as Home Sec over most of these policies, and before that party Chair.
Either she bought into the Cameron modernising agenda, or she is the most shamelessly hypocritical careerist politician in recent history. My money is on the latter.
OTOH, Blair wanted the UK to adopt the Euro and to be at the heart of the EU, and we know how that has turned out. He brought in the HRA, but no government would now dream of implementing the ruling in Hirst v UK. Scarcely anyone shares his enthusiasm for mass migration, and who remembers Cool Britannia? Perhaps his biggest legacy is that centre right parties are now backed by over half the population.
Those Centre-right parties are very different to the centre-right of previous generations. Even UKIP now agree on gay marriage, and May is wanting to have quotas for poorer children to have preferential access to her new schools.
Social attitudes to homosexuality and the disabled have become more tolerant. I'd say that's for the better. There's been some welcome progress on attitudes towards women in the workforce too. And greater flexibility from employers generally.
On the other hand, I think free speech, and individual privacy, have gone backwards, there has been very little progress on social mobility, and policies of mass migration, an open ended approach to Rights and a dismissive attitude to English nationhood has been a mistake.
I'd also say that some social attitudes - such as those towards marriage - have enjoyed something of a renaissance since the late 90s (when it was starting to look to some on the Left a bit passé) so the direction has not been all one way.
Mr. Matt, the seeming ban on coal- and gas-fired power stations is daft. As stopgap measures whilst geothermal etc is developed, keeping the lights on is the priority. The carbon tax/carbon credit scheme [the name slips my mind] is doing nothing but damaging our energy-generating capacity.
Coal-fired power stations are environmentally destructive and need to be closed down as rapidly as possible, especially since carbon-capture technology seems to be something of a non-starter. Gas-fired power stations are much less environmentally damaging and will be required for a long time yet in order to supplement and back up renewable generation. I've no informed opinion on Hinkley C specifically, but nuclear generation will surely be needed for at least the medium term.
BeBraveComrades Number of people working in the NHS June 2010 1,596,000 June 2016 1,619,000
#SaveOurNHS from Tory cuts
1.4% increase in staff to cover an 18% increase in throughput
No wonder Tory cuts have ruined NHS Performance and Finances
#SaveOurNHS from Tory cuts
"Cuts" is inaccurate -
#SaveOurNHS from insufficient Tory increases to deal with an expanding and aging population
Would be a far more accurate slogan.
Mind you I'd have liked to have seen some
'#SaveOurNHS from Brown's piss poor PFI deals' back when Labour were in power too.
We could up the funding of the NHS from c.9% of GDP to c.15% of GDP and it still wouldn't end the debate, in my view.
At the end of the day, the amount we choose to spend on Health is a choice.
I don't think 15% is neccesary, I think the NHS should get at least 10% maybe though...
Anyway it wouldn't satisfy everyone, but it might satisfy me and I feel I'm a very fair judge of these things. I am in favour of Hunt's reforms but also believe we should up NHS spending
Hunts reforms spread 5 days money and staff over 7 days and by definition make the service worse on 5 days out of 7.
There is not a penny extra going in to 7 day services. £40bn of savings are being sought to maintain current services, without any new requirements.
Rationing and mass closure of hospitals is a certainty under Hunts plan.
It is rather difficult to argue against constituencies being roughly equal in size. The number of registered voters is always changing and, at some point in time, a snapshot has to be taken and that number used. this has always been the case. Get over it.
It is possible to argue against individual constituencies, with representation according to the national share of the vote. good luck in trying to convince the voters to chose that method.
Just read about Hinkley. What a waste. My view of Mrs. May is turning more and more negative as the days roll on.
FPT ECHR/HRA
we have committed not to leave the ECHR; if we are going to rewrite the HRA it would be curious if we didn't incorporate the ECHR into it or why not just leave?
Unless we leave out certain ECHR provisions in the new BoR and then wait for a ECtHR judgement which we subsequently ignore.
That's a) complicated and b) not the gold-plating UK I know and love.
The European Convention on Human Rights exists solely to protect individuals from unwarranted intrusions by the state. The European Court of Human Rights only makes judgments against public bodies who, they estimate, have initiated such intrusion or have allowed it to happen.
What was changed by the Human Rights Act and is therefore objectionable to some people was:
a) Judges can overturn laws and regulations issued by Parliament and therefore overrule the supremacy of Parliament that is a cornerstone of the British constitution; and b) they do so by referencing the legal authority of a foreign institution.
Most advanced countries have constitutions that take supremacy over national laws, the application of which is judged in court, not parliament, to avoid conflicts of interest. Although the argument has to be made, I assume it would be acceptable to most.
The foreign authority is a big philosophical issue. If the Bill of Rights accommodates (a) it will also remove the philosophical objection to (b) without making any practical difference at all.
Mr. Enjineeya, I agree on nuclear in general, but it's the particular deal at Hinckley which seems so dubious.
Mr. Royale, the police wondering whether officers should be allowed to wear burkhas is indicative of some bigwigs in the country being off their bloody rockers.
At the last (abortive) boundary review, the quota for the 600 constituencies was 80,473. In this one, it's 78,507. That's a 2.4% fall over five year period over which the adult population of the UK has risen by about 4%. This farce of a boundary review is only equalising the size of parliamentary constituencies after a concerted effort to use individual electoral registration to nudge people off the electoral register to the advantage of the Conservatives.
It's a bit cruel to the US to accuse the UK government of gerrymandering though. At least the US manage to use their official population estimates as the basis for determining the boundaries of congressional constituencies.
May is wanting to have quotas for poorer children to have preferential access to her new schools.
Doffs cap and is grateful
FFS
I'm not sure I see the problem with that.
The old idea of the grammar system was that any child reaching the test 'threshold' (something like the top 20% of students) would be entitled to a place. In most areas of the country other than Kent, there are nowhere near enough places to meet this (and almost certainly won't be even if the May policy goes through).
What usually happens in reality is that those achieving the top scores get in, but apart from a few exceptional individuals, the scores of those achieving places and for quite a large number of those just missing out are very tightly bunched - which magnifies the benefit of coaching for that incremental mark which makes the difference.
Given a scarcity of places, it seems entirely fair to allocate a percentage quota for socially disadvantaged children who would otherwise gain a place.
It is rather difficult to argue against constituencies being roughly equal in size.
It is rather difficult to argue that the new constituencies are in fact equal in size when they are not based upon the numbers of adults living within them.
Blair will go down in history for Iraq (which, for the Left, was his greatest crime) but for the Right a lot of the insidious effects of his policies go all the way back to 1997: his asymmetric devolution settlement, the 1998 Human Rights Act, the
How dated the "progressive" outlook of Tony Blair now seems.
Not really. Much of it has become the new unremarkeable normal, such as gay equality.
May was in the cabinet for 6 years in a central role as Home Sec over most of these policies, and before that party Chair.
Either she bought into the Cameron modernising agenda, or she is the most shamelessly hypocritical careerist politician in recent history. My money is on the latter.
OTOH, Blair wanted the UK to adopt the Euro and to be at the heart of the EU, and we know how that has turned out. He brought in the HRA, but no government would now dream of implementing the ruling in Hirst v UK. Scarcely anyone shares his enthusiasm for mass migration, and who remembers Cool Britannia? Perhaps his biggest legacy is that centre right parties are now backed by over half the population.
Those Centre-right parties are very different to the centre-right of previous generations. Even UKIP now agree on gay marriage, and May is wanting to have quotas for poorer children to have preferential access to her new schools.
Social attitudes to homosexuality and the disabled have become more tolerant. I'd say that's for the better. There's been some welcome progress on attitudes towards women in the workforce too. And greater flexibility from employers generally.
On the other hand, I think free speech, and individual privacy, have gone backwards, there has been very little progress on social mobility, and policies of mass migration, an open ended approach to Rights and a dismissive attitude to English nationhood has been a mistake.
I'd also say that some social attitudes - such as those towards marriage - have enjoyed something of a renaissance since the late 90s (when it was starting to look to some on the Left a bit passé) so the direction has not been all one way.
I think there is definitely something to your last paragraph and it is also why it was the right that introduced equal (Gay) Marriage. For the left the notion of marriage was so passé that if you introduced "civil partnerships" then that was the end of the story since does marriage even matter?
For the rest of us, yes marriage does matter. I'll never forget my wedding day. So if we are to have equal rights then that must include marriage and not just relegate it to a civil partnership.
Mr. Matt, the seeming ban on coal- and gas-fired power stations is daft. As stopgap measures whilst geothermal etc is developed, keeping the lights on is the priority. The carbon tax/carbon credit scheme [the name slips my mind] is doing nothing but damaging our energy-generating capacity.
Coal-fired power stations are environmentally destructive and need to be closed down as rapidly as possible, especially since carbon-capture technology seems to be something of a non-starter. Gas-fired power stations are much less environmentally damaging and will be required for a long time yet in order to supplement and back up renewable generation. I've no informed opinion on Hinkley C specifically, but nuclear generation will surely be needed for at least the medium term.
The Oxburgh report shows that fossil with carbon capture offers a lower cost solution that nuclear. To me, the real choice is between renewables plus storage on the one hand and fossil plus carbon capture on the other to provide the bulk of our power in the medium to long term.
It is rather difficult to argue against constituencies being roughly equal in size.
It is rather difficult to argue that the new constituencies are in fact equal in size when they are not based upon the numbers of adults living within them.
Constituencies have always been based upon the numbers on the electoral register and there is no national register of non-voters that could be used in its place so that argument is pure bovine manure.
Which 2015 register of non-voters exists in your fictional worldview that should be used instead?
Point of order (1). At the time the legislation was passed, there was no indication that the Government would panic and try and get voters to register for the Brexit referendum.
Point of order (2). No one needed to be lost - making sure you were on is easy and you do get reminders to register.
Point of order (3). A substantial number of those on the lists had no corporate existence in reality.
Point of order (4). OGH is not noted for being heavily pro-Tory. (Which is fair enough - it's his site, but a regular declaration of interest would help)
BeBraveComrades Number of people working in the NHS June 2010 1,596,000 June 2016 1,619,000
#SaveOurNHS from Tory cuts
1.4% increase in staff to cover an 18% increase in throughput
No wonder Tory cuts have ruined NHS Performance and Finances
#SaveOurNHS from Tory cuts
"Cuts" is inaccurate -
#SaveOurNHS from insufficient Tory increases to deal with an expanding and aging population
Would be a far more accurate slogan.
Mind you I'd have liked to have seen some
'#SaveOurNHS from Brown's piss poor PFI deals' back when Labour were in power too.
We could up the funding of the NHS from c.9% of GDP to c.15% of GDP and it still wouldn't end the debate, in my view.
At the end of the day, the amount we choose to spend on Health is a choice.
I don't think 15% is neccesary, I think the NHS should get at least 10% maybe though...
Anyway it wouldn't satisfy everyone, but it might satisfy me and I feel I'm a very fair judge of these things. I am in favour of Hunt's reforms but also believe we should up NHS spending
Hunts reforms spread 5 days money and staff over 7 days and by definition make the service worse on 5 days out of 7.
There is not a penny extra going in to 7 day services. £40bn of savings are being sought to maintain current services, without any new requirements.
Rationing and mass closure of hospitals is a certainty under Hunts plan.
I think mass downgrading of hospitals is likely.
In the East Midlands 24 hour emergency stroke services are only viable in Leicester and Nottingham, the rest should not be treating them.
Of course it also means that these hospitals will need to expand, but both are overspent and cutting services.
This farce of a boundary review is only equalising the size of parliamentary constituencies after a concerted effort to use individual electoral registration to nudge people off the electoral register to the advantage of the Conservatives.
How is it a nudge? Local authorities put a lot of effort into voter registration and to keep the records up to date. Only last week I had to log on to their system and confirm that the details are still correct. I think it threatens you with a fine if you don't reply.
Unless there are households that receive no correspondence I don't see how people could be oblivious to the matter, and there's plenty of advertising about the issue as well.
What should be done differently that would be fairer?
Mr. Matt, the seeming ban on coal- and gas-fired power stations is daft. As stopgap measures whilst geothermal etc is developed, keeping the lights on is the priority. The carbon tax/carbon credit scheme [the name slips my mind] is doing nothing but damaging our energy-generating capacity.
Coal-fired power stations are environmentally destructive and need to be closed down as rapidly as possible, especially since carbon-capture technology seems to be something of a non-starter. Gas-fired power stations are much less environmentally damaging and will be required for a long time yet in order to supplement and back up renewable generation. I've no informed opinion on Hinkley C specifically, but nuclear generation will surely be needed for at least the medium term.
The Oxburgh report shows that fossil with carbon capture offers a lower cost solution that nuclear. To me, the real choice is between renewables plus storage on the one hand and fossil plus carbon capture on the other to provide the bulk of our power in the medium to long term.
That's assuming carbon capture can be made to work, so far that hasn't proved to be the case.
Mr. Matt, the seeming ban on coal- and gas-fired power stations is daft. As stopgap measures whilst geothermal etc is developed, keeping the lights on is the priority. The carbon tax/carbon credit scheme [the name slips my mind] is doing nothing but damaging our energy-generating capacity.
Coal-fired power stations are environmentally destructive and need to be closed down as rapidly as possible, especially since carbon-capture technology seems to be something of a non-starter. Gas-fired power stations are much less environmentally damaging and will be required for a long time yet in order to supplement and back up renewable generation. I've no informed opinion on Hinkley C specifically, but nuclear generation will surely be needed for at least the medium term.
The Oxburgh report shows that fossil with carbon capture offers a lower cost solution that nuclear. To me, the real choice is between renewables plus storage on the one hand and fossil plus carbon capture on the other to provide the bulk of our power in the medium to long term.
I'm not at all convinced that carbon capture is either cost-effective or reliable given that the technology is completely unproven. Also, fossil fuel use cannot, by definition, be a long-term solution to our energy needs.
Mr. Matt, the seeming ban on coal- and gas-fired power stations is daft. As stopgap measures whilst geothermal etc is developed, keeping the lights on is the priority. The carbon tax/carbon credit scheme [the name slips my mind] is doing nothing but damaging our energy-generating capacity.
Coal-fired power stations are environmentally destructive and need to be closed down as rapidly as possible, especially since carbon-capture technology seems to be something of a non-starter. Gas-fired power stations are much less environmentally damaging and will be required for a long time yet in order to supplement and back up renewable generation. I've no informed opinion on Hinkley C specifically, but nuclear generation will surely be needed for at least the medium term.
The Oxburgh report shows that fossil with carbon capture offers a lower cost solution that nuclear. To me, the real choice is between renewables plus storage on the one hand and fossil plus carbon capture on the other to provide the bulk of our power in the medium to long term.
That's assuming carbon capture can be made to work, so far that hasn't proved to be the case.
See Boundary Dam in Canada for post combustion capture. Pre-combustion capture is a natural part of existing processes for making hydrogen, ammonia, Fischer-Tropsch fuels, etc; it is just that in most plants once the CO2 is captured it is then released back to the atmosphere.
CO2 storage has been operating successfully offshore Norway and (in the form of Enhanced Oil Recovery) in the US and Canada.
There isn't a lack of technology, there is a lack of political desire and commercial mechanisms to get the technology implemented.
Mr. Matt, the seeming ban on coal- and gas-fired power stations is daft. As stopgap measures whilst geothermal etc is developed, keeping the lights on is the priority. The carbon tax/carbon credit scheme [the name slips my mind] is doing nothing but damaging our energy-generating capacity.
Coal-fired power stations are environmentally destructive and need to be closed down as rapidly as possible, especially since carbon-capture technology seems to be something of a non-starter. Gas-fired power stations are much less environmentally damaging and will be required for a long time yet in order to supplement and back up renewable generation. I've no informed opinion on Hinkley C specifically, but nuclear generation will surely be needed for at least the medium term.
The Oxburgh report shows that fossil with carbon capture offers a lower cost solution that nuclear. To me, the real choice is between renewables plus storage on the one hand and fossil plus carbon capture on the other to provide the bulk of our power in the medium to long term.
I'm not at all convinced that carbon capture is either cost-effective or reliable given that the technology is completely unproven. Also, fossil fuel use cannot, by definition, be a long-term solution to our energy needs.
See my 10:36 comment on proven-ness. Regarding long term, I was thinking the 40-50 year life of a coal fired power plant, if we build them in the 2020s. By 2100, we might finally have commercial fusion reactors to give us electricity so cheaply that there is no point metering it.
Mr. Matt, the seeming ban on coal- and gas-fired power stations is daft. As stopgap measures whilst geothermal etc is developed, keeping the lights on is the priority. The carbon tax/carbon credit scheme [the name slips my mind] is doing nothing but damaging our energy-generating capacity.
Coal-fired power stations are environmentally destructive and need to be closed down as rapidly as possible, especially since carbon-capture technology seems to be something of a non-starter. Gas-fired power stations are much less environmentally damaging and will be required for a long time yet in order to supplement and back up renewable generation. I've no informed opinion on Hinkley C specifically, but nuclear generation will surely be needed for at least the medium term.
You pay for two things: a) the energy you consume and b) availability of energy when you need it. The energy market is complicated but roughly speaking (b), peak power, will be supplied by gas. Gas plants are cheap to build and can easily be switched on and off. And because this is intermittent supply greenhouse emissions are minimised as a contribution to the whole.
For baseload you want lots of capacity at a low cost. This was the promise of nuclear but Hinkley is far too expensive. A cheaper option is more wind, imported solar, international interconnectors and in the medium term a bigger proportion of gas, although that comes with emissions.
'Alex Ogden jailed for attack and anti-Scottish abuse
.. "They heard someone shouting at them. Something about immigrants and "**** off home, **** off back to Scotland." She said Ogden, who had also been drinking, punched Mr Stupart in the face and then took off his belt and "used it as a weapon", hitting the off duty officer.'
Anthony Wells has crunched the numbers re the "missing 2m" and says:
"For the record, if the review was based on the electorate in June 2016 rather than the electorate in December 2015 the effect would be one less seat in Northern Ireland, the West Midlands and the North West, one extra seat in the South East and two extra seats in London."
So that's a variation of 6 seats vs 600, pre any changes post the consultation process, in other words, the 2015 number is 99% accurate vs. the 2016 number.
Given the size of constituencies is+/- 5% vs. the average, that's as accurate as you can get statistically.
When it comes to the actual elections, anyone who registers can vote. The 2m number is being used especially by Labour as a method of attacking the indefensible current system
Mr. Matt, the seeming ban on coal- and gas-fired power stations is daft. As stopgap measures whilst geothermal etc is developed, keeping the lights on is the priority. The carbon tax/carbon credit scheme [the name slips my mind] is doing nothing but damaging our energy-generating capacity.
Coal-fired power stations are environmentally destructive and need to be closed down as rapidly as possible, especially since carbon-capture technology seems to be something of a non-starter. Gas-fired power stations are much less environmentally damaging and will be required for a long time yet in order to supplement and back up renewable generation. I've no informed opinion on Hinkley C specifically, but nuclear generation will surely be needed for at least the medium term.
You pay for two things: a) the energy you consume and b) availability of energy when you need it. The energy market is complicated but roughly speaking (b), peak power, will be supplied by gas. Gas plants are cheap to build and can easily be switched on and off. And because this is intermittent supply greenhouse emissions are minimised as a contribution to the whole.
For baseload you want lots of capacity at a low cost. This was the promise of nuclear but Hinkley is far too expensive. A cheaper option is more wind, imported solar, international interconnectors and in the medium term a bigger proportion of gas, although that comes with emissions.
I expect that demand management will play a much greater role in the future. We'll get used to having variably priced electricity and adjusting our energy consumption habits accordingly. Electric cars will have a big role to play here - they could be charged when electricity is cheaper and, if not needed, the electricity could be sold back to the grid when demand is high.
At the last (abortive) boundary review, the quota for the 600 constituencies was 80,473. In this one, it's 78,507. That's a 2.4% fall over five year period over which the adult population of the UK has risen by about 4%. This farce of a boundary review is only equalising the size of parliamentary constituencies after a concerted effort to use individual electoral registration to nudge people off the electoral register to the advantage of the Conservatives.
It's a bit cruel to the US to accuse the UK government of gerrymandering though. At least the US manage to use their official population estimates as the basis for determining the boundaries of congressional constituencies.
By the time of an election, anyone who wants to vote can be registered. Only if Labour voters cannot be bothered to register is there any advantage for the Tories.
Mr. Matt, the seeming ban on coal- and gas-fired power stations is daft. As stopgap measures whilst geothermal etc is developed, keeping the lights on is the priority. The carbon tax/carbon credit scheme [the name slips my mind] is doing nothing but damaging our energy-generating capacity.
Coal-fired power stations are environmentally destructive and need to be closed down as rapidly as possible, especially since carbon-capture technology seems to be something of a non-starter. Gas-fired power stations are much less environmentally damaging and will be required for a long time yet in order to supplement and back up renewable generation. I've no informed opinion on Hinkley C specifically, but nuclear generation will surely be needed for at least the medium term.
You pay for two things: a) the energy you consume and b) availability of energy when you need it. The energy market is complicated but roughly speaking (b), peak power, will be supplied by gas. Gas plants are cheap to build and can easily be switched on and off. And because this is intermittent supply greenhouse emissions are minimised as a contribution to the whole.
For baseload you want lots of capacity at a low cost. This was the promise of nuclear but Hinkley is far too expensive. A cheaper option is more wind, imported solar, international interconnectors and in the medium term a bigger proportion of gas, although that comes with emissions.
I expect that demand management will play a much greater role in the future. We'll get used to having variably priced electricity and adjusting our energy consumption habits accordingly. Electric cars will have a big role to play here - they could be charged when electricity is cheaper and, if not needed, the electricity could be sold back to the grid when demand is high.
Here we agree. At the moment, we have smart meters being rolled out, but no incentive to load switch to off-peak times as all of the leccy costs the domestic consumer the same.
It's no wonder the two boys at the top are laughing.....what with the disaster of Brexit, the standing of the UK in world affairs at a low ebb, a triumvirate of delusional, psychopathic morons at the heart of the Government, the crisis in the health service, the looming split of the UK, a Brexit induced recession and a further spending squeeze....and they have jumped ship (or been pushed as per Osbo)
After today's Libyan report- Italy can personally send Cameron a huge thank you note for creating a failed state across the Med. 180,000 migrants crossing this year and counting. And how many have died? All down to our PM's misguided intervention. Well done comrade. Combine this with the nonsense that constitutes Brexit.....has any other British PM ever left office with such a tarnished reputation? Cameron makes Chamberlain a colossus in comparison and isn't even fit to lick the underside of Eden's feet. Add Major and Heath's names to the roll call of illustrious Tory PM's- but they can both be considered Barcelona to Cameron's Celtic.
"Mr Juncker also called for the formation of a common military force."
I tell you something Mr Morris darling...Junker's hard nosed European based pragmatism is at least grounded into some sort of realism as opposed to the delusional, populistic nonsense that lies at the heart of Brexit.
FPT, I think that the criticism of Cameron over Libya is unfair. When a homicidal dictator promises a massacre, I'm inclined to take him at his word.
Piffle. This had sod all to do with any imagined massacre, it was time to get rid of everyone's previous best friend Gadaffi, especially from Sarkozy's point of view.
Well that was a pointless waste of time by May. This is the sort of nonsense that got brown a reputation as a ditherer.
Now any problems with Hinkley will be Mays fault whereas previously she could just have blamed Osborne.
Beyond that, it's a pretty stupid decision. The best case scenario is that it will add about 10% to the price of electricity for the next thirty years. Worst case is that it won't ever work properly.
There are alternate technologies which probably have as good a chance of working, but which would produce cheaper power and represent smaller financial gambles.
There are always alternate techs that promise the world for large projects better to go with tried and tested especially when it's the nations energy you're messing around with.
Also Hinkley is expensive [[but it generates alot of jobs]] and keeps the UK in the nuclear R&d sector
Bracketed passage is surely the ultimate barrel scrape of all ridiculous white elephant projects.
It's no wonder the two boys at the top are laughing.....what with the disaster of Brexit, the standing of the UK in world affairs at a low ebb, a triumvirate of delusional, psychopathic morons at the heart of the Government, the crisis in the health service, the looming split of the UK, a Brexit induced recession and a further spending squeeze....and they have jumped ship (or been pushed as per Osbo)
After today's Libyan report- Italy can personally send Cameron a huge thank you note for creating a failed state across the Med. 180,000 migrants crossing this year and counting. And how many have died? All down to our PM's misguided intervention. Well done comrade. Combine this with the nonsense that constitutes Brexit.....has any other British PM ever left office with such a tarnished reputation? Cameron makes Chamberlain a colossus in comparison and isn't even fit to lick the underside of Eden's feet. Add Major and Heath's names to the roll call of illustrious Tory PM's- but they can both be considered Barcelona to Cameron's Celtic.
May is wanting to have quotas for poorer children to have preferential access to her new schools.
Doffs cap and is grateful
FFS --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- When is helping the less fortunate in society not helping the less fortunate in society?
When Tories are doing it.
*And another thing - learn to use the quote system.
Mr. Matt, the seeming ban on coal- and gas-fired power stations is daft. As stopgap measures whilst geothermal etc is developed, keeping the lights on is the priority. The carbon tax/carbon credit scheme [the name slips my mind] is doing nothing but damaging our energy-generating capacity.
Coal-fired power stations are environmentally destructive and need to be closed down as rapidly as possible, especially since carbon-capture technology seems to be something of a non-starter. Gas-fired power stations are much less environmentally damaging and will be required for a long time yet in order to supplement and back up renewable generation. I've no informed opinion on Hinkley C specifically, but nuclear generation will surely be needed for at least the medium term.
You pay for two things: a) the energy you consume and b) availability of energy when you need it. The energy market is complicated but roughly speaking (b), peak power, will be supplied by gas. Gas plants are cheap to build and can easily be switched on and off. And because this is intermittent supply greenhouse emissions are minimised as a contribution to the whole.
For baseload you want lots of capacity at a low cost. This was the promise of nuclear but Hinkley is far too expensive. A cheaper option is more wind, imported solar, international interconnectors and in the medium term a bigger proportion of gas, although that comes with emissions.
I expect that demand management will play a much greater role in the future. We'll get used to having variably priced electricity and adjusting our energy consumption habits accordingly. Electric cars will have a big role to play here - they could be charged when electricity is cheaper and, if not needed, the electricity could be sold back to the grid when demand is high.
Here we agree. At the moment, we have smart meters being rolled out, but no incentive to load switch to off-peak times as all of the leccy costs the domestic consumer the same.
Presumably the peak demand from domestic consumers is in the evenings. That is after all when most people are at home and it gets dark so they need the lights on. It is also when they watch the telly, play with their computers, cook meals etc.. So your idea is to charge people more for when they want to use electricity, need to use electricity and, in fact, the only time when they can use some appliances. I am not sure that will be a very successful policy.
Cheaper electricity is already available for the very quiet periods and has been for donkey's years (see Economy 7 etc).
Mr. Matt, the seeming ban on coal- and gas-fired power stations is daft. As stopgap measures whilst geothermal etc is developed, keeping the lights on is the priority. The carbon tax/carbon credit scheme [the name slips my mind] is doing nothing but damaging our energy-generating capacity.
Coal-fired power stations are environmentally destructive and need to be closed down as rapidly as possible, especially since carbon-capture technology seems to be something of a non-starter. Gas-fired power stations are much less environmentally damaging and will be required for a long time yet in order to supplement and back up renewable generation. I've no informed opinion on Hinkley C specifically, but nuclear generation will surely be needed for at least the medium term.
You pay for two things: a) the energy you consume and b) availability of energy when you need it. The energy market is complicated but roughly speaking (b), peak power, will be supplied by gas. Gas plants are cheap to build and can easily be switched on and off. And because this is intermittent supply greenhouse emissions are minimised as a contribution to the whole.
For baseload you want lots of capacity at a low cost. This was the promise of nuclear but Hinkley is far too expensive. A cheaper option is more wind, imported solar, international interconnectors and in the medium term a bigger proportion of gas, although that comes with emissions.
I expect that demand management will play a much greater role in the future. We'll get used to having variably priced electricity and adjusting our energy consumption habits accordingly. Electric cars will have a big role to play here - they could be charged when electricity is cheaper and, if not needed, the electricity could be sold back to the grid when demand is high.
Interesting idea. Energy suppliers get paid to switch off their supply when demand falls, so there is actually a negative energy price. Energy networks could PAY consumers to take their power to avoid having to pay disconnection fees to energy supplies
Mr. Matt, the seeming ban on coal- and gas-fired power stations is daft. As stopgap measures whilst geothermal etc is developed, keeping the lights on is the priority. The carbon tax/carbon credit scheme [the name slips my mind] is doing nothing but damaging our energy-generating capacity.
Coal-fired power stations are environmentally destructive and need to be closed down as rapidly as possible, especially since carbon-capture technology seems to be something of a non-starter. Gas-fired power stations are much less environmentally damaging and will be required for a long time yet in order to supplement and back up renewable generation. I've no informed opinion on Hinkley C specifically, but nuclear generation will surely be needed for at least the medium term.
You pay for two things: a) the energy you consume and b) availability of energy when you need it. The energy market is complicated but roughly speaking (b), peak power, will be supplied by gas. Gas plants are cheap to build and can easily be switched on and off. And because this is intermittent supply greenhouse emissions are minimised as a contribution to the whole.
For baseload you want lots of capacity at a low cost. This was the promise of nuclear but Hinkley is far too expensive. A cheaper option is more wind, imported solar, international interconnectors and in the medium term a bigger proportion of gas, although that comes with emissions.
electricity could be sold back to the grid when demand is high.
Here we agree. At the moment, we have smart meters being rolled out, but no incentive to load switch to off-peak times as all of the leccy costs the domestic consumer the same.
Presumably the peak demand from domestic consumers is in the evenings. That is after all when most people are at home and it gets dark so they need the lights on. It is also when they watch the telly, play with their computers, cook meals etc.. So your idea is to charge people more for when they want to use electricity, need to use electricity and, in fact, the only time when they can use some appliances. I am not sure that will be a very successful policy.
Cheaper electricity is already available for the very quiet periods and has been for donkey's years (see Economy 7 etc).
But they don't need to use their tumble dryers, and their fridges and freezers can turn off for 5 minutes during the ad beak in Corrie or the end of Eastenders when everyone turns their kettle on.
FPT, I think that the criticism of Cameron over Libya is unfair. When a homicidal dictator promises a massacre, I'm inclined to take him at his word.
Piffle. This had sod all to do with any imagined massacre, it was time to get rid of everyone's previous best friend Gadaffi, especially from Sarkozy's point of view.
Exactly. Assad's dad massacred 30,000 in 1982. Was there worldwide outrage? No I don't think so.
I'm late to the party, but has anyone got some links to detailed analysis of likely impact, constituency by constituency of boundary changes. Maybe not been done yet?
It's no wonder the two boys at the top are laughing.....what with the disaster of Brexit, the standing of the UK in world affairs at a low ebb, a triumvirate of delusional, psychopathic morons at the heart of the Government, the crisis in the health service, the looming split of the UK, a Brexit induced recession and a further spending squeeze....and they have jumped ship (or been pushed as per Osbo)
After today's Libyan report- Italy can personally send Cameron a huge thank you note for creating a failed state across the Med. 180,000 migrants crossing this year and counting. And how many have died? All down to our PM's misguided intervention. Well done comrade. Combine this with the nonsense that constitutes Brexit.....has any other British PM ever left office with such a tarnished reputation? Cameron makes Chamberlain a colossus in comparison and isn't even fit to lick the underside of Eden's feet. Add Major and Heath's names to the roll call of illustrious Tory PM's- but they can both be considered Barcelona to Cameron's Celtic.
I'm late to the party, but has anyone got some links to detailed analysis of likely impact, constituency by constituency of boundary changes. Maybe not been done yet?
Morning Rotten.
I've got my doubts this boundary stuff will ever happen... Turkeys voting for Christmas etc.
BRUSSELS chief Jean-Claude Juncker laid out plans to create a European army and claimed the EU was not in an existential crisis despite the Brexit vote. - In a speech this morning he said the bloc was not about to break up, but instead needed to grow closer after the UK’s historic vote to leave.
Welcome back. I assume you're not a fan of Cameron?
I'm afraid it's the usual affliction of politicians; they want to make a mark on the world. There ought to be a Catch 22 for PMs. If you want power, you should be banned from power.
Unfortunately, that might leave Jezza as the only man standing, safe as he is in his cocoon of lunacy.
Brexit is the beginning of a gradual break-up of the EU. Subsuming national identity in an amorphous mass needs very strong bonds originally. You may be enlightened, but as Browning said from Italy, you are a "melon-flower" doomed to bloom in the desert.
I expect that demand management will play a much greater role in the future. We'll get used to having variably priced electricity and adjusting our energy consumption habits accordingly. Electric cars will have a big role to play here - they could be charged when electricity is cheaper and, if not needed, the electricity could be sold back to the grid when demand is high.
Here we agree. At the moment, we have smart meters being rolled out, but no incentive to load switch to off-peak times as all of the leccy costs the domestic consumer the same.
Presumably the peak demand from domestic consumers is in the evenings. That is after all when most people are at home and it gets dark so they need the lights on. It is also when they watch the telly, play with their computers, cook meals etc.. So your idea is to charge people more for when they want to use electricity, need to use electricity and, in fact, the only time when they can use some appliances. I am not sure that will be a very successful policy.
Cheaper electricity is already available for the very quiet periods and has been for donkey's years (see Economy 7 etc).
It matters not a jot for the national grid whether demand is from corporate or consumer demand. The evenings may have more home lights switched on, but considerably less corporate lights switched on and so is off peak for the national grid (barring a few minutes for Corrie ads/Eastenders finishing which can be covered by gas). So consumers could and should be charged less by putting more emphasis on a peak/off-peak basis.
I'm late to the party, but has anyone got some links to detailed analysis of likely impact, constituency by constituency of boundary changes. Maybe not been done yet?
Morning Rotten.
I've got my doubts this boundary stuff will ever happen... Turkeys voting for Christmas etc.
Do we think any non-Tories are going to vote for this, or is the government's margin for error the same as its majority?
FPT, I think that the criticism of Cameron over Libya is unfair. When a homicidal dictator promises a massacre, I'm inclined to take him at his word.
Piffle. This had sod all to do with any imagined massacre, it was time to get rid of everyone's previous best friend Gadaffi, especially from Sarkozy's point of view.
Exactly. Assad's dad massacred 30,000 in 1982. Was there worldwide outrage? No I don't think so.
So what do you propose? Two wrongs make a right? Let anyone who wants to commit a massacre do so?
Blair will go down in history for Iraq (which, for the Left, was his greatest crime) but for the Right a lot of the insidious effects of his policies go all the way back to 1997: his asymmetric devolution settlement, the 1998 Human Rights Act, the changes in immigration law including scrapping primary purpose in 1998 (long predating the eastward expansion of the EU in 2004) the enthusiastic and unquestioning signatures to European treaty after treaty, promoting further integration, the vindictive approach to rural affairs, including the Hunting Act, failing to properly fund the armed forces, an increasing obsession with identity politics, including the Reglious Hatred and Equality Act, and the encouragement of chipping away at respect for British institutions - in pursuit of Cool Britannia - which the BBC very enthusiastically and quickly picked up on.
It is for this reason that so many people, particularly in England, were looking forward to the return of a Conservative Government and so disappointed when Modernisers seemed to pay them nothing more than lip service concluding, incorrectly, in my view, that Blair was on the right side of history and that ditching such pledges were necessary because they were an electoral millstone. In truth, they were objectionable only to a certain sort of middle/upper-middle class metropolitan voter but those were the sort dominating the modernisers social circles.
That's why Cameron ended up with the Heir to Blair moniker ringing true.
I would add Labour's slide into authoritarianism: ID cards, 42-day detention etc. But May is not a huge improvement on that, I'm afraid.
I'm late to the party, but has anyone got some links to detailed analysis of likely impact, constituency by constituency of boundary changes. Maybe not been done yet?
Morning Rotten.
I've got my doubts this boundary stuff will ever happen... Turkeys voting for Christmas etc.
I'm late to the party, but has anyone got some links to detailed analysis of likely impact, constituency by constituency of boundary changes. Maybe not been done yet?
Morning Rotten.
I've got my doubts this boundary stuff will ever happen... Turkeys voting for Christmas etc.
Do we think any non-Tories are going to vote for this, or is the government's margin for error the same as its majority?
Do the DUP lose out from the boundary reforms or is it Sinn Fein/SDLP who lose one?
I can't see the DUP wanting to give Corbyn a win and make a Labour victory at an election any more likely at the moment.
Blair will go down in history for Iraq (which, for the Left, was his greatest crime) but for the Right a lot of the insidious effects of his policies go all the way back to 1997: his asymmetric devolution settlement, the 1998 Human Rights Act, the changes in immigration law including scrapping primary purpose in 1998 (long predating the eastward expansion of the EU in 2004) the enthusiastic and unquestioning signatures to European treaty after treaty, promoting further integration, the vindictive approach to rural affairs, including the Hunting Act, failing to properly fund the armed forces, an increasing obsession with identity politics, including the Reglious Hatred and Equality Act, and the encouragement of chipping away at respect for British institutions - in pursuit of Cool Britannia - which the BBC very enthusiastically and quickly picked up on.
It is for this reason that so many people, particularly in England, were looking forward to the return of a Conservative Government and so disappointed when Modernisers seemed to pay them nothing more than lip service concluding, incorrectly, in my view, that Blair was on the right side of history and that ditching such pledges were necessary because they were an electoral millstone. In truth, they were objectionable only to a certain sort of middle/upper-middle class metropolitan voter but those were the sort dominating the modernisers social circles.
That's why Cameron ended up with the Heir to Blair moniker ringing true.
I would add Labour's slide into authoritarianism: ID cards, 42-day detention etc. But May is not a huge improvement on that, I'm afraid.
Massive improvement, either that or my ID card was lost in the post.
Some room for more improvement, but nowhere near as awful as Blair.
I said a few times that Clegg was a patriot, but his country was the EU. He's only confirming that now.
With the UK leaving the EU, he'd prefer the country into which he was born to split apart so a fragment of it can rejoin the country of his choice.
I think Clegg would still be arguing for the (UK) Union, he's just saying the argument would now be more difficult to make.
Whether you'd want someone beside you in the trenches saying that your opponents' case is compelling is another matter..
Considering Scotland trades something like three times more with the rest of the UK than the rest of the EU combined ... Brexit makes the argument for Scottish independence harder to make.
Scotland may have not wanted Brexit, but it also makes Sindy a lot harder to achieve.
I expect that demand management will play a much greater role in the future. We'll get used to having variably priced electricity and adjusting our energy consumption habits accordingly. Electric cars will have a big role to play here - they could be charged when electricity is cheaper and, if not needed, the electricity could be sold back to the grid when demand is high.
Here we agree. At the moment, we have smart meters being rolled out, but no incentive to load switch to off-peak times as all of the leccy costs the domestic consumer the same.
Presumably the peak demand from domestic consumers is in the evenings. That is after all when most people are at home and it gets dark so they need the lights on. It is also when they watch the telly, play with their computers, cook meals etc.. So your idea is to charge people more for when they want to use electricity, need to use electricity and, in fact, the only time when they can use some appliances. I am not sure that will be a very successful policy.
Cheaper electricity is already available for the very quiet periods and has been for donkey's years (see Economy 7 etc).
It matters not a jot for the national grid whether demand is from corporate or consumer demand. The evenings may have more home lights switched on, but considerably less corporate lights switched on and so is off peak for the national grid (barring a few minutes for Corrie ads/Eastenders finishing which can be covered by gas). So consumers could and should be charged less by putting more emphasis on a peak/off-peak basis.
FPT, I think that the criticism of Cameron over Libya is unfair. When a homicidal dictator promises a massacre, I'm inclined to take him at his word.
Piffle. This had sod all to do with any imagined massacre, it was time to get rid of everyone's previous best friend Gadaffi, especially from Sarkozy's point of view.
Exactly. Assad's dad massacred 30,000 in 1982. Was there worldwide outrage? No I don't think so.
So what do you propose? Two wrongs make a right? Let anyone who wants to commit a massacre do so?
No but there can sometimes seem to be an awful choice between multiple evils. How many people have died in Libya since 2011 and are continuing to die?
BRUSSELS chief Jean-Claude Juncker laid out plans to create a European army and claimed the EU was not in an existential crisis despite the Brexit vote. - In a speech this morning he said the bloc was not about to break up, but instead needed to grow closer after the UK’s historic vote to leave.
I'm late to the party, but has anyone got some links to detailed analysis of likely impact, constituency by constituency of boundary changes. Maybe not been done yet?
Morning Rotten.
I've got my doubts this boundary stuff will ever happen... Turkeys voting for Christmas etc.
Do we think any non-Tories are going to vote for this, or is the government's margin for error the same as its majority?
Do the DUP lose out from the boundary reforms or is it Sinn Fein/SDLP who lose one?
I can't see the DUP wanting to give Corbyn a win and make a Labour victory at an election any more likely at the moment.
It is rather difficult to argue against constituencies being roughly equal in size.
It is rather difficult to argue that the new constituencies are in fact equal in size when they are not based upon the numbers of adults living within them.
Constituencies have always been based upon the numbers on the electoral register and there is no national register of non-voters that could be used in its place so that argument is pure bovine manure.
Which 2015 register of non-voters exists in your fictional worldview that should be used instead?
An appropriate subset of the census-derived population estimates for 2015 supplied by the Office for National Statistics. Something that the minister is no doubt going to be asked to produce in the very near future for the newly proposed parliamentary constituencies. As opposed to maintaining a fictional pretence that the numbers on the electoral register come even close to representing the true figures.
Yes, I'm well aware that the numbers of registered voters have always been used. That was OK in the past - it patently isn't now that the registers are so obviously incomplete.
The only thing that is bovine is your squelching around in manure and pretending that you can't smell a thing.
It is rather difficult to argue against constituencies being roughly equal in size.
It is rather difficult to argue that the new constituencies are in fact equal in size when they are not based upon the numbers of adults living within them.
Constituencies have always been based upon the numbers on the electoral register and there is no national register of non-voters that could be used in its place so that argument is pure bovine manure.
Which 2015 register of non-voters exists in your fictional worldview that should be used instead?
An appropriate subset of the census-derived population estimates for 2015 supplied by the Office for National Statistics. Something that the minister is no doubt going to be asked to produce in the very near future for the newly proposed parliamentary constituencies. As opposed to maintaining a fictional pretence that the numbers on the electoral register come even close to representing the true figures.
Yes, I'm well aware that the numbers of registered voters have always been used. That was OK in the past - it patently isn't now that the registers are so obviously incomplete.
The only thing that is bovine is your squelching around in manure and pretending that you can't smell a thing.
Problem is that the Labour leadership sees the boundary review not as very bad news for Labour but as a great opportunity to purge unsupportive MPs. As a result, we can expect that opposition to the proposals will be less then forensic.
At the last (abortive) boundary review, the quota for the 600 constituencies was 80,473. In this one, it's 78,507. That's a 2.4% fall over five year period over which the adult population of the UK has risen by about 4%. This farce of a boundary review is only equalising the size of parliamentary constituencies after a concerted effort to use individual electoral registration to nudge people off the electoral register to the advantage of the Conservatives.
It's a bit cruel to the US to accuse the UK government of gerrymandering though. At least the US manage to use their official population estimates as the basis for determining the boundaries of congressional constituencies.
By the time of an election, anyone who wants to vote can be registered. Only if Labour voters cannot be bothered to register is there any advantage for the Tories.
Is there then going to be another boundary review after this one in time for the next election, based on non fictional population statistics?
But they don't need to use their tumble dryers, and their fridges and freezers can turn off for 5 minutes during the ad beak in Corrie or the end of Eastenders when everyone turns their kettle on.
I suspect that ideas like turning my fridge/freezer off at some random interval that may not suit what I want will result in a trivial saving much outweighed by the costs of administering the scheme.
Basically, what you and Mr. Enjineeya seem to want is rationing by price. That is going to hit the poorest most, the middle by not much and the wealthy not at all. Seems crackers to me.
Mr. CD13, o tempora, o mores, that Numa's name is not tingling on every tongue!
For those unaware, he was the second king of Rome, and selected not only without putting himself forward or being named as Romulus' heir, but utterly without his knowledge in the basis of his general excellence.
Mr. Matt, the seeming ban on coal- and gas-fired power stations is daft. As stopgap measures whilst geothermal etc is developed, keeping the lights on is the priority. The carbon tax/carbon credit scheme [the name slips my mind] is doing nothing but damaging our energy-generating capacity.
Coal-fired power stations are environmentally destructive and need to be closed down as rapidly as possible, especially since carbon-capture technology seems to be something of a non-starter. Gas-fired power stations are much less environmentally damaging and will be required for a long time yet in order to supplement and back up renewable generation. I've no informed opinion on Hinkley C specifically, but nuclear generation will surely be needed for at least the medium term.
The Oxburgh report shows that fossil with carbon capture offers a lower cost solution that nuclear. To me, the real choice is between renewables plus storage on the one hand and fossil plus carbon capture on the other to provide the bulk of our power in the medium to long term.
That's assuming carbon capture can be made to work, so far that hasn't proved to be the case.
See Boundary Dam in Canada for post combustion capture. Pre-combustion capture is a natural part of existing processes for making hydrogen, ammonia, Fischer-Tropsch fuels, etc; it is just that in most plants once the CO2 is captured it is then released back to the atmosphere.
CO2 storage has been operating successfully offshore Norway and (in the form of Enhanced Oil Recovery) in the US and Canada.
There isn't a lack of technology, there is a lack of political desire and commercial mechanisms to get the technology implemented.
What do we do with the CO2? Sell it to greenhouses for conversion back to O2? Genuine Question. Or just let it pile up? (An accidental release of CO2 on a mega industrial scale could be a humanitarian disaster.)
I'm late to the party, but has anyone got some links to detailed analysis of likely impact, constituency by constituency of boundary changes. Maybe not been done yet?
Morning Rotten.
I've got my doubts this boundary stuff will ever happen... Turkeys voting for Christmas etc.
Do we think any non-Tories are going to vote for this, or is the government's margin for error the same as its majority?
Caroline Lucas might vote against - as she loses her seat by looks of things.
I expect that demand management will play a much greater role in the future. We'll get used to having variably priced electricity and adjusting our energy consumption habits accordingly. Electric cars will have a big role to play here - they could be charged when electricity is cheaper and, if not needed, the electricity could be sold back to the grid when demand is high.
Here we agree. At the moment, we have smart meters being rolled out, but no incentive to load switch to off-peak times as all of the leccy costs the domestic consumer the same.
Presumably the peak demand from domestic consumers is in the evenings. That is after all when most people are at home and it gets dark so they need the lights on. It is also when they watch the telly, play with their computers, cook meals etc.. So your idea is to charge people more for when they want to use electricity, need to use electricity and, in fact, the only time when they can use some appliances. I am not sure that will be a very successful policy.
Cheaper electricity is already available for the very quiet periods and has been for donkey's years (see Economy 7 etc).
It matters not a jot for the national grid whether demand is from corporate or consumer demand. The evenings may have more home lights switched on, but considerably less corporate lights switched on and so is off peak for the national grid (barring a few minutes for Corrie ads/Eastenders finishing which can be covered by gas). So consumers could and should be charged less by putting more emphasis on a peak/off-peak basis.
Interesting site that graphs how supply matches demand. Nuclear power is very inflexible, which means that other energy sources have to be made more intermittent (ie switched off more often). There's a cost to doing so. In the case of wind, solar etc with no input fuel costs you might be better to give the energy away free instead.
But they don't need to use their tumble dryers, and their fridges and freezers can turn off for 5 minutes during the ad beak in Corrie or the end of Eastenders when everyone turns their kettle on.
I suspect that ideas like turning my fridge/freezer off at some random interval that may not suit what I want will result in a trivial saving much outweighed by the costs of administering the scheme.
Basically, what you and Mr. Enjineeya seem to want is rationing by price. That is going to hit the poorest most, the middle by not much and the wealthy not at all. Seems crackers to me.
If your freezer turns off for 5 minutes your food won't suddenly melt. Multiply that by 20 million freezers, and we can take the edge of the demand spikes.
Mr. Matt, the seeming ban on coal- and gas-fired power stations is daft. As stopgap measures whilst geothermal etc is developed, keeping the lights on is the priority. The carbon tax/carbon credit scheme [the name slips my mind] is doing nothing but damaging our energy-generating capacity.
You pay for two things: a) the energy you consume and b) availability of energy when you need it. The energy market is complicated but roughly speaking (b), peak power, will be supplied by gas. Gas plants are cheap to build and can easily be switched on and off. And because this is intermittent supply greenhouse emissions are minimised as a contribution to the whole.
For baseload you want lots of capacity at a low cost. This was the promise of nuclear but Hinkley is far too expensive. A cheaper option is more wind, imported solar, international interconnectors and in the medium term a bigger proportion of gas, although that comes with emissions.
electricity could be sold back to the grid when demand is high.
Here we agree. At the moment, we have smart meters being rolled out, but no incentive to load switch to off-peak times as all of the leccy costs the domestic consumer the same.
Presumably the peak demand from domestic consumers is in the evenings. That is after all when most people are at home and it gets dark so they need the lights on. It is also when they watch the telly, play with their computers, cook meals etc.. So your idea is to charge people more for when they want to use electricity, need to use electricity and, in fact, the only time when they can use some appliances. I am not sure that will be a very successful policy.
Cheaper electricity is already available for the very quiet periods and has been for donkey's years (see Economy 7 etc).
But they don't need to use their tumble dryers, and their fridges and freezers can turn off for 5 minutes during the ad beak in Corrie or the end of Eastenders when everyone turns their kettle on.
The demand curve is predictable, it would be straightforward to implement through smart meters and circuits in new properties.
On a micro level, designing a plug adaptor switch with kettle and fridge plugged in, that only allowed one device at a time to draw power, would be simple to engineer and probably exists already.
Mr. Matt, the seeming ban on coal- and gas-fired power stations is daft. As stopgap measures whilst geothermal etc is developed, keeping the lights on is the priority. The carbon tax/carbon credit scheme [the name slips my mind] is doing nothing but damaging our energy-generating capacity.
Coal-fired power stations are environmentally destructive and need to be closed down as rapidly as possible, especially since carbon-capture technology seems to be something of a non-starter. Gas-fired power stations are much less environmentally damaging and will be required for a long time yet in order to supplement and back up renewable generation. I've no informed opinion on Hinkley C specifically, but nuclear generation will surely be needed for at least the medium term.
The Oxburgh report shows that fossil with carbon capture offers a lower cost solution that nuclear. To me, the real choice is between renewables plus storage on the one hand and fossil plus carbon capture on the other to provide the bulk of our power in the medium to long term.
That's assuming carbon capture can be made to work, so far that hasn't proved to be the case.
See Boundary Dam in Canada for post combustion capture. Pre-combustion capture is a natural part of existing processes for making hydrogen, ammonia, Fischer-Tropsch fuels, etc; it is just that in most plants once the CO2 is captured it is then released back to the atmosphere.
CO2 storage has been operating successfully offshore Norway and (in the form of Enhanced Oil Recovery) in the US and Canada.
There isn't a lack of technology, there is a lack of political desire and commercial mechanisms to get the technology implemented.
What do we do with the CO2? Sell it to greenhouses for conversion back to O2? Genuine Question. Or just let it pile up? (An accidental release of CO2 on a mega industrial scale could be a humanitarian disaster.)
A DELIBERATE release of CO2 on a mega industrial scale is already heading towards a humanitarian disaster.
CO2 can be stored in the same type of geological formations that have securely held oil and gas deposits for millions of years.
Mr. Divvie, a rare and blessed moment of pro-union and pro-independence agreement
Nick Clegg = crap.
Mr. Thompson, quite.
Mr. Zims, Clegg will get by.
Edited extra bit: perhaps a shade unfair on Clegg. The Coalition was necessary for the country, and did take some guts.
That said, his conduct and views regarding the UK and EU indicate his heart belongs to the latter.
Understandable that Clegg sees the EU as his native country given his post grad education in the EU, his early years employment at the EU and his spanish wife. Not everyone speaks five EU languages.
Comments
I'd have more respect for the Left if they had consistent ethics and principles. The bit that truly seems 'deplorable' to them here is the idea of Western military intervention itself. That goes for it anywhere, anytime, because it's a bit imperialist - doncha know - and whenever we want to do it, we must be wrong, and our protagonists right.
#SaveOurNHS from insufficient Tory increases to deal with an expanding and aging population
Would be a far more accurate slogan.
Mind you I'd have liked to have seen some
'#SaveOurNHS from Brown's piss poor PFI deals' back when Labour were in power too.
It is the trend in reduction in health spending as a percentage of GDP that worries me, against a background of an ageing population. It is projected to be at 6.6% by 2021.
#endofanera
Since the number of Scottish oil jobs lost would be close on a UK equivalent of 1m job losses, it suggests the Scottish economy is pretty resilient.
At the end of the day, the amount we choose to spend on Health is a choice.
Doffs cap and is grateful
FFS
I don't agree with the policy on grammar schools, but it is a very different agenda to previous right wing governments.
2016 - 65,193,857
1.4% increase in staff
3.9% increase in Population
17.9% increase in NHS attendances
Anyway it wouldn't satisfy everyone, but it might satisfy me and I feel I'm a very fair judge of these things. I am in favour of Hunt's reforms but also believe we should up NHS spending
On Libya, intervening to stop the potential massacre of a city is one thing, going on to assist in the overthrow of the Government is something else - exactly the point made by the Select Committee.
Take North Korea - clearly a thotoughly evil Government led by corrupt people of debatable sanity. Do we protect South Korea and make it clear that an attack on the South will lead to a massive response that would bring down the Northern government? Yes, in my opinion. Do we refuse to do deals that de-escalate their nuclear programme because we think they're nasty? Surely not. The same applies to Iran.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-west-wales-34420631
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-35501144
On the other hand, I think free speech, and individual privacy, have gone backwards, there has been very little progress on social mobility, and policies of mass migration, an open ended approach to Rights and a dismissive attitude to English nationhood has been a mistake.
I'd also say that some social attitudes - such as those towards marriage - have enjoyed something of a renaissance since the late 90s (when it was starting to look to some on the Left a bit passé) so the direction has not been all one way.
There is not a penny extra going in to 7 day services. £40bn of savings are being sought to maintain current services, without any new requirements.
Rationing and mass closure of hospitals is a certainty under Hunts plan.
It is possible to argue against individual constituencies, with representation according to the national share of the vote. good luck in trying to convince the voters to chose that method.
What was changed by the Human Rights Act and is therefore objectionable to some people was:
a) Judges can overturn laws and regulations issued by Parliament and therefore overrule the supremacy of Parliament that is a cornerstone of the British constitution; and
b) they do so by referencing the legal authority of a foreign institution.
Most advanced countries have constitutions that take supremacy over national laws, the application of which is judged in court, not parliament, to avoid conflicts of interest. Although the argument has to be made, I assume it would be acceptable to most.
The foreign authority is a big philosophical issue. If the Bill of Rights accommodates (a) it will also remove the philosophical objection to (b) without making any practical difference at all.
Mr. Royale, the police wondering whether officers should be allowed to wear burkhas is indicative of some bigwigs in the country being off their bloody rockers.
At the last (abortive) boundary review, the quota for the 600 constituencies was 80,473. In this one, it's 78,507. That's a 2.4% fall over five year period over which the adult population of the UK has risen by about 4%. This farce of a boundary review is only equalising the size of parliamentary constituencies after a concerted effort to use individual electoral registration to nudge people off the electoral register to the advantage of the Conservatives.
It's a bit cruel to the US to accuse the UK government of gerrymandering though. At least the US manage to use their official population estimates as the basis for determining the boundaries of congressional constituencies.
Doffs cap and is grateful
FFS
I'm not sure I see the problem with that.
The old idea of the grammar system was that any child reaching the test 'threshold' (something like the top 20% of students) would be entitled to a place. In most areas of the country other than Kent, there are nowhere near enough places to meet this (and almost certainly won't be even if the May policy goes through).
What usually happens in reality is that those achieving the top scores get in, but apart from a few exceptional individuals, the scores of those achieving places and for quite a large number of those just missing out are very tightly bunched - which magnifies the benefit of coaching for that incremental mark which makes the difference.
Given a scarcity of places, it seems entirely fair to allocate a percentage quota for socially disadvantaged children who would otherwise gain a place.
For the rest of us, yes marriage does matter. I'll never forget my wedding day. So if we are to have equal rights then that must include marriage and not just relegate it to a civil partnership.
Which 2015 register of non-voters exists in your fictional worldview that should be used instead?
Point of order (2). No one needed to be lost - making sure you were on is easy and you do get reminders to register.
Point of order (3). A substantial number of those on the lists had no corporate existence in reality.
Point of order (4). OGH is not noted for being heavily pro-Tory. (Which is fair enough - it's his site, but a regular declaration of interest would help)
In the East Midlands 24 hour emergency stroke services are only viable in Leicester and Nottingham, the rest should not be treating them.
Of course it also means that these hospitals will need to expand, but both are overspent and cutting services.
Unless there are households that receive no correspondence I don't see how people could be oblivious to the matter, and there's plenty of advertising about the issue as well.
What should be done differently that would be fairer?
Thanks.
CO2 storage has been operating successfully offshore Norway and (in the form of Enhanced Oil Recovery) in the US and Canada.
There isn't a lack of technology, there is a lack of political desire and commercial mechanisms to get the technology implemented.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-37359196
"Mr Juncker also called for the formation of a common military force."
People too lazy or stupid to register should not be allowed to vote.
Let's go further and suggest that only those who pass the Eleven Plus exam should be allowed onto the electoral register.
For baseload you want lots of capacity at a low cost. This was the promise of nuclear but Hinkley is far too expensive. A cheaper option is more wind, imported solar, international interconnectors and in the medium term a bigger proportion of gas, although that comes with emissions.
'Alex Ogden jailed for attack and anti-Scottish abuse
.. "They heard someone shouting at them. Something about immigrants and "**** off home, **** off back to Scotland."
She said Ogden, who had also been drinking, punched Mr Stupart in the face and then took off his belt and "used it as a weapon", hitting the off duty officer.'
http://tinyurl.com/go9zcvt
"For the record, if the review was based on the electorate in June 2016 rather than the electorate in December 2015 the effect would be one less seat in Northern Ireland, the West Midlands and the North West, one extra seat in the South East and two extra seats in London."
So that's a variation of 6 seats vs 600, pre any changes post the consultation process, in other words, the 2015 number is 99% accurate vs. the 2016 number.
Given the size of constituencies is+/- 5% vs. the average, that's as accurate as you can get statistically.
When it comes to the actual elections, anyone who registers can vote. The 2m number is being used especially by Labour as a method of attacking the indefensible current system
Doffs cap and is grateful
FFS
Giving preferential access for the children of poorer people is NOT a meritocracy which is what May says she is seeking.
"Nick Clegg says case for Scottish independence ‘compelling’"
http://tinyurl.com/zbhurzz
After today's Libyan report- Italy can personally send Cameron a huge thank you note for creating a failed state across the Med. 180,000 migrants crossing this year and counting. And how many have died? All down to our PM's misguided intervention. Well done comrade.
Combine this with the nonsense that constitutes Brexit.....has any other British PM ever left office with such a tarnished reputation? Cameron makes Chamberlain a colossus in comparison and isn't even fit to lick the underside of Eden's feet. Add Major and Heath's names to the roll call of illustrious Tory PM's- but they can both be considered Barcelona to Cameron's Celtic.
I tell you something Mr Morris darling...Junker's hard nosed European based pragmatism is at least grounded into some sort of realism as opposed to the delusional, populistic nonsense that lies at the heart of Brexit.
Doffs cap and is grateful
FFS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When is helping the less fortunate in society not helping the less fortunate in society?
When Tories are doing it.
*And another thing - learn to use the quote system.
Cheaper electricity is already available for the very quiet periods and has been for donkey's years (see Economy 7 etc).
Presumably there is no technical barrier to this
I'm late to the party, but has anyone got some links to detailed analysis of likely impact, constituency by constituency of boundary changes. Maybe not been done yet?
I've got my doubts this boundary stuff will ever happen... Turkeys voting for Christmas etc.
With the UK leaving the EU, he'd prefer the country into which he was born to split apart so a fragment of it can rejoin the country of his choice.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1781071/plans-to-create-an-eu-army-unveiled-by-brussels-chief-jean-claude-juncker-who-says-brexit-has-not-plunged-the-trading-bloc-into-crisis/
Will there ever be an eventuality where the EU calls for less need to grow closer?
Welcome back. I assume you're not a fan of Cameron?
I'm afraid it's the usual affliction of politicians; they want to make a mark on the world. There ought to be a Catch 22 for PMs. If you want power, you should be banned from power.
Unfortunately, that might leave Jezza as the only man standing, safe as he is in his cocoon of lunacy.
Brexit is the beginning of a gradual break-up of the EU. Subsuming national identity in an amorphous mass needs very strong bonds originally. You may be enlightened, but as Browning said from Italy, you are a "melon-flower" doomed to bloom in the desert.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/the-long-read-corbyn-weathers-a-year-of-storms-to-remain-at-helm-of-sinking-ship-pjw86cw7t
My favourite anecdote is that Jezza calls in El Gato by whistling Tie a Yellow Ribbon Round an Old Oak Tree... I shake boxes of cat biscuits.
I can't see the DUP wanting to give Corbyn a win and make a Labour victory at an election any more likely at the moment.
Whether you'd want someone beside you in the trenches saying that your opponents' case is compelling is another matter..
Some room for more improvement, but nowhere near as awful as Blair.
Scotland may have not wanted Brexit, but it also makes Sindy a lot harder to achieve.
'I said a few times that Clegg was a patriot, but his country was the EU. He's only confirming that now.
With the UK leaving the EU, he'd prefer the country into which he was born to split apart so a fragment of it can rejoin the country of his choice.'
Problem is that nobody takes him seriously & he's pissed off because his EU retirement sinecure has gone.
He'll have to make do with being a back bench MP.
http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/
Nick Clegg = crap.
Mr. Thompson, quite.
Mr. Zims, Clegg will get by.
Edited extra bit: perhaps a shade unfair on Clegg. The Coalition was necessary for the country, and did take some guts.
That said, his conduct and views regarding the UK and EU indicate his heart belongs to the latter.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-politics-37280113
Apparently it's particularly good for Sinn Fein, but I don't suppose they'll show up just this once to vote with the government.
I had to google Numa.
He does sound a bit of a goody-goody. A sort of Jezza with brains, and all of the bad bits (nearly all of him) missing.
Yes, I'm well aware that the numbers of registered voters have always been used. That was OK in the past - it patently isn't now that the registers are so obviously incomplete.
The only thing that is bovine is your squelching around in manure and pretending that you can't smell a thing.
Basically, what you and Mr. Enjineeya seem to want is rationing by price. That is going to hit the poorest most, the middle by not much and the wealthy not at all. Seems crackers to me.
For those unaware, he was the second king of Rome, and selected not only without putting himself forward or being named as Romulus' heir, but utterly without his knowledge in the basis of his general excellence.
On a micro level, designing a plug adaptor switch with kettle and fridge plugged in, that only allowed one device at a time to draw power, would be simple to engineer and probably exists already.
CO2 can be stored in the same type of geological formations that have securely held oil and gas deposits for millions of years.