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.
Dinorwig takes the edge off demand spikes and doesn't require the replacement of 20+ million otherwise functioning freezers.
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.
Your fridge is going to be on the internet anyhow so you shouldn't need to do any extra work to desynchronize it with Coronation Street.
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.)
The plan is to store it in geological formations. The problem, as you point out, is that it is very difficult to demonstrate that the CO2 will stay where it is put for thousands of years. In some ways it's actually a trickier problem than the disposal of nuclear waste - at least radioactive materials decay in the end!
PB's capability to come up with outside of the box solutions is still very impressive, however, it makes no difference since the government are ploughing ahead with HPC and going with the outdated idea of baseload.
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.)
The plan is to store it in geological formations. The problem, as you point out, is that it is very difficult to demonstrate that the CO2 will stay where it is put for thousands of years. In some ways it's actually a trickier problem than the disposal of nuclear waste - at least radioactive materials decay in the end!
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.)
The plan is to store it in geological formations. The problem, as you point out, is that it is very difficult to demonstrate that the CO2 will stay where it is put for thousands of years. In some ways it's actually a trickier problem than the disposal of nuclear waste - at least radioactive materials decay in the end!
Some, like uranium take 'a while' though..
Plutonium waste is the worst I think. Highly radioactive and corrosive as well.
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?
It will be interesting to see what Plaid Cymru do.
A boundary review is coming for Wales, sometime, as the current discrepancy in seat sizes between Wales and England/Scotland/NI is unsustainable.
Given the inevitably of this, Plaid Cymru might well decide that the present review is as good as it gets.
The boundaries could easily have been drawn so that they lost 2 seats. Instead, they still hold 3 seats with the new boundaries, and the Ceredigion seat now includes North Pembrokeshire, which helps them rather than the LibDems. So, this seat is a better prospect for them on the new boundaries.
My reckoning is that Plaid Cymru could not have wished for a better review.
And the reduction in overall seats gives them the chance to argue that more powers should be devolved to the Assembly.
So, I think they could be bought off by the Tories.
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.
Dinorwig takes the edge off demand spikes and doesn't require the replacement of 20+ million otherwise functioning freezers.
Dinorwig's peak capacity is under 300Mw. Demand spikes are several gigawatts, hence the need for other peaker plants.
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.
I must have slept through the 2015 Census. When was that precisely?
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.
No - a suggestion to that effect by a new NEC member was squelched within an hour by Corbyn's office - "This is not our policy and we are not in favour of it." I'm being bombarded with emails from Labnour urging me to sign petitions, write to my MP etc. to oppose the review.
The EU (not Europe) is facing an existential crisis and the solution is more EU.
These idiot Eurocrats have learned precisely zero from Brexit. I wouldn't be surprised to see Poland and Hungary call time on their membership sooner rather than later.
WRT Northern Ireland boundaries, the proposal to reduce Belfast to three seats will almost certainly be shot down by opposition from vested interests. Four seats make sense, because Belfast's official city limits no longer bear any relation to the actual boundaries of the city. That will require consequential changes to the other constituency boundaries.
WRT the changes generally, I consider there is no case for switching from basing constituency sizes on number of voters to number of inhabitants. But, there is a legitimate argument that we should use the electorates as they are now, not as they were in December 2015.
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.
Your fridge is going to be on the internet anyhow so you shouldn't need to do any extra work to desynchronize it with Coronation Street.
Just to add to this, people have been freaking out about the Chinese having an ownership interest in a British nuclear power station, but once we have the Internet of Things any foreign power or teenage hacker will be able to bring down the British electricity grid by hacking Samsung's refrigerator firmware.
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.
Dinorwig takes the edge off demand spikes and doesn't require the replacement of 20+ million otherwise functioning freezers.
Dinorwig's peak capacity is under 300Mw. Demand spikes are several gigawatts, hence the need for other peaker plants.
Actually, Dinorwig has six 300 MW generators, giving a total output of almost 1800 MW. It can go from zero to full-load in about 16 seconds, making it ideal for covering short bursts of high demand. There are indeed other peaker plants, but Dinorwig is by far the largest.
The EU (not Europe) is facing an existential crisis and the solution is more EU.
These idiot Eurocrats have learned precisely zero from Brexit. I wouldn't be surprised to see Poland and Hungary call time on their membership sooner rather than later.
It would be financial suicide for Poland and Hungary to leave the EU while they are getting such major fiscal transfers from western Europe to them.
Of course they oppose the same things we did, but while we were funding transfers, they're receiving them. So they'll likely continue like we did for a while as unhappy members and later rather than sooner once they're no longer receiving fiscal transfers then membership will be questioned I suspect.
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.
No - a suggestion to that effect by a new NEC member was squelched within an hour by Corbyn's office - "This is not our policy and we are not in favour of it." I'm being bombarded with emails from Labnour urging me to sign petitions, write to my MP etc. to oppose the review.
But reselections are inevitable. It is just a question of how many Momentum organise for sitting MPs. 10%? 20%? 30%? 40%? 50%? 60%? 70%?
It's looking like a Trump landslide. Just like Scott Adams predicted.
This is an interesting poll because it's using the same panel that they poll over and over again, so it's comparing like with like from day to day and it's good at getting short-term trends very quickly. That said, don't pay too much attention to its actual numbers.
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.
No - a suggestion to that effect by a new NEC member was squelched within an hour by Corbyn's office - "This is not our policy and we are not in favour of it." I'm being bombarded with emails from Labnour urging me to sign petitions, write to my MP etc. to oppose the review.
Disagree - this looks like the EU referendum all over again. The party wanting one thing, the leadership less than on board.
I have to say that was probably Jezza's best question time. He did well by sticking to one topic and it was noticeable that May didn't answer any of the questions.
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.
Dinorwig takes the edge off demand spikes and doesn't require the replacement of 20+ million otherwise functioning freezers.
Dinorwig's peak capacity is under 300Mw. Demand spikes are several gigawatts, hence the need for other peaker plants.
Actually, Dinorwig has six 300 MW generators, giving a total output of almost 1800 MW. It can go from zero to full-load in about 16 seconds, making it ideal for covering short bursts of high demand. There are indeed other peaker plants, but Dinorwig is by far the largest.
The problem with pumped storage is that it's limited by geography. We need battery solutions which can be placed anywhere so we can decentralise the power grid. Big power stations that cover large areas of the nation with all the power loss involved seem like they belong in the past. Previously I was massively against renewable energy sources because the power couldn't be stored and it meant we did need baseload power, with advances in battery technology and generally in energy storage renewables have become viable in a way that they weren't before. We should be at the forefront of the revolution, not wasting £18bn for HPC, a reactor design that has yet to be proved as workable.
Plutonium waste is the worst I think. Highly radioactive and corrosive as well.
That's why we need to do more work on nuclear transmutation of waste via neutron accelerator (*). It won't get rid of all waste products, but it can reduce the really nasty elements such as plutonium to lesser ones, sometimes from half lives of tens of thousands of years to decades.
There are problems though: in particular, AIUI the waste elements need splitting into separate types before this can be done, which involves nasty refining of the type done for MOX fuels. You can's just get a lump of waste and bombard it.
(*) Basically bombard the waste product with a controlled stream of fast neutrons to 'split' it into other elements.
Oct 20: by elections for Labour MP Jo Cox in Batley & Spen and for David Cameron in Witney will be held on the same day
Are the Tories and LDs still going to stand aside in Batley & Spen?
It would be a nice gesture in recognition of Jo Cox’s death, although personally not in favour of such a move. B&S is a safe(ish) Labour seat with a 6,000 majority, Lib Dems don’t stand a chance but there is a slender one for the blues? – All rather sad and her contribution to politics should be recognised, but let’s not set these kinds of precedent, the voters should have their say.
Best Corbyn performance at PMQs for a long time (ever?) - May not responding to questions, but does have effective slogans in response......much as Cameron did......
I have to say that was probably Jezza's best question time. He did well by sticking to one topic and it was noticeable that May didn't answer any of the questions.
May needs to improve her delivery too. Though she dealt better with Angus Robertson.
I see the Boundary Dam CCS scheme was mentioned below. AIUI that's not going very smoothly at the moment (*), and its efficiency and economics is nowhere near what was planned.
Oct 20: by elections for Labour MP Jo Cox in Batley & Spen and for David Cameron in Witney will be held on the same day
Are the Tories and LDs still going to stand aside in Batley & Spen?
It would be a nice gesture in recognition of Jo Cox’s death, although personally not in favour of such a move. B&S is a safe(ish) Labour seat with a 6,000 majority, Lib Dems don’t stand a chance but there is a slender one for the blues? – All rather sad and her contribution to politics should be recognised, but let’s not set these kinds of precedent, the voters should have their say.
If the Conservatives were to game this, they'd hold the Witney by-election on the same date (as seems likely) and not stand in Batley.
As a Labour win in Batley and a Con win in Witney seem on the cards, they could say they won one battle and 'lost' one they did not stand in for good reason.
It's looking like a Trump landslide. Just like Scott Adams predicted.
This is an interesting poll because it's using the same panel that they poll over and over again, so it's comparing like with like from day to day and it's good at getting short-term trends very quickly. That said, don't pay too much attention to its actual numbers.
Interesting trend but from about 0% to 17% with black people? No.
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.
Will there ever be an eventuality where the EU calls for less need to grow closer?
I see Juncker has put free movement as a European value on par with anti-racism.
It's not a European value but it is an economic necessity. As I put it some while ago -
"FoM has allowed those Eurozone states with stagnating economies to export their young rather than than have them – unemployed, angry and potentially a destabilising force demanding change – at home.
It has allowed such states to export one potential political problem caused by the adoption of the euro. The UK has acted as a safety valve for Europe’s poorer economies."
It is the social and human consequences which the EU has ignored and it is this which has, to an extent the EU is simply refusing to accept, led to the Brexit vote.
You would have thought that losing such a large country would lead to some element of self-reflection, someone somewhere within the EU asking themselves whether the Brexit vote might possibly, just possibly, have had something to do with how the EU has itself behaved and evolved over the years. But apparently not.
Plutonium waste is the worst I think. Highly radioactive and corrosive as well.
That's why we need to do more work on nuclear transmutation of waste via neutron accelerator (*). It won't get rid of all waste products, but it can reduce the really nasty elements such as plutonium to lesser ones, sometimes from half lives of tens of thousands of years to decades.
There are problems though: in particular, AIUI the waste elements need splitting into separate types before this can be done, which involves nasty refining of the type done for MOX fuels. You can's just get a lump of waste and bombard it.
(*) Basically bombard the waste product with a controlled stream of fast neutrons to 'split' it into other elements.
Separation shouldn't be too difficult, but I think feeding the plutonium waste into an MSR deals with the waste better and makes a resource out of what it currently a huge drain on the national finances in terms of security and storage.
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.
No - a suggestion to that effect by a new NEC member was squelched within an hour by Corbyn's office - "This is not our policy and we are not in favour of it." I'm being bombarded with emails from Labnour urging me to sign petitions, write to my MP etc. to oppose the review.
But reselections are inevitable. It is just a question of how many Momentum organise for sitting MPs. 10%? 20%? 30%? 40%? 50%? 60%? 70%?
Not really. There are of course people who'd like to do it, but the hurdles to making it happen are considerable (see Luke Akehurst's review of the issue on Labour List) and without backing from the leadership it's hard to see it. I suspect there will be a handful of high-profile cases, particularly where MPs from different sides of the party have a claim on a marged seat, but in general, nah.
On Baltey and Spen - yes, the Conservatives, LibDems and Greens have all said they won't stand. UKIP have a candidate, and will presumably try to turn it into a referendum on immigration. The circumstances of the by-eleciton may make that hard for them, though.
The EU (not Europe) is facing an existential crisis and the solution is more EU.
These idiot Eurocrats have learned precisely zero from Brexit. I wouldn't be surprised to see Poland and Hungary call time on their membership sooner rather than later.
It would be financial suicide for Poland and Hungary to leave the EU while they are getting such major fiscal transfers from western Europe to them.
Of course they oppose the same things we did, but while we were funding transfers, they're receiving them. So they'll likely continue like we did for a while as unhappy members and later rather than sooner once they're no longer receiving fiscal transfers then membership will be questioned I suspect.
As we've just seen with Brexit, some things are more important than mere economic gain. National identity is probably one of them.
Patrick Wintour After a year Corbyn stops trying to reinvent PMQs. He was focussed, on right issue, stuck to theme, found relevant Cameron quote. Momentum.
We're having fun with the boundaries in NI. Off topic, I'm stunned to see May perform so poorly against Corbyn in PMQs. Though it is a subject that handed Corbyn the initiative as it's probably one of very few topics where he has more complete support from behind him than she does.
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.
I must have slept through the 2015 Census. When was that precisely?
You are trying to make a risible point that because we only have a census once every ten years all of the annual population statistics produced by the ONS in the interim are of little value, even though they are referenced back to the census and updated using the multitude of other statistics at the ONS's disposal, and that the use of similarly derived statistics to determine electoral boundaries in many other countries is non-contentious. And at the same time you're choosing to gloss over the evidence of manifest failings in the system of individual electoral registration, the electoral register being the only headcount in the country to have fallen over the past 5 years at a time when our adult population is rising rapidly.
The EU (not Europe) is facing an existential crisis and the solution is more EU.
These idiot Eurocrats have learned precisely zero from Brexit. I wouldn't be surprised to see Poland and Hungary call time on their membership sooner rather than later.
It would be financial suicide for Poland and Hungary to leave the EU while they are getting such major fiscal transfers from western Europe to them.
Of course they oppose the same things we did, but while we were funding transfers, they're receiving them. So they'll likely continue like we did for a while as unhappy members and later rather than sooner once they're no longer receiving fiscal transfers then membership will be questioned I suspect.
As we've just seen with Brexit, some things are more important than mere economic gain. National identity is probably one of them.
Did we see that with Brexit?
Both sides in the Brexit debate were able with varying degrees of justification to claim economic gain if their side won and in the end it was a very close result.
In Poland and Hungary only one side can claim economic gain and that is remaining. Imagine for a second if instead of "sending £350mn a week" (or whatever the real figure is) to the EU we were RECEIVING £350mn a week from the EU. The Brexit referendum would not have ended up in a Brexit vote.
Neutralising the economic issue was a necessary but not sufficient condition. Which is why it will be later not sooner than Eastern Europe contemplates leaving.
Re: boundaries. 650 into 600 doesn't go. So I doubt it will happen. Essentially you are asking several MPs to vote themselves out of a job. Not likely, I wouldn't have thought. Maybe I am over simplifying it, but if there is a meta-game, I can't see one.
The EU (not Europe) is facing an existential crisis and the solution is more EU.
These idiot Eurocrats have learned precisely zero from Brexit. I wouldn't be surprised to see Poland and Hungary call time on their membership sooner rather than later.
It would be financial suicide for Poland and Hungary to leave the EU while they are getting such major fiscal transfers from western Europe to them.
Of course they oppose the same things we did, but while we were funding transfers, they're receiving them. So they'll likely continue like we did for a while as unhappy members and later rather than sooner once they're no longer receiving fiscal transfers then membership will be questioned I suspect.
As we've just seen with Brexit, some things are more important than mere economic gain. National identity is probably one of them.
Neutralising the economic issue was a necessary but not sufficient condition. Which is why it will be later not sooner than Eastern Europe contemplates leaving.
But if we're gone then who is going to keep the gravy train running? Germany? I imagine our departure implies a sharp reduction in Polish receipts. And then the choice to leave becomes a bit easier.
Re: boundaries. 650 into 600 doesn't go. So I doubt it will happen. Essentially you are asking several MPs to vote themselves out of a job. Not likely, I wouldn't have thought. Maybe I am over simplifying it, but if there is a meta-game, I can't see one.
The Tories have 2 years to get their duck (houses) in order and make sure shuffling of the pack means few that want to carry on lose a seat. Under the current review they lose what 10~ish, you would have thought they could find ways to shuffle bums around and buy off a few to make that happen.
However, their are rumblings that some Tory MPs just think it is a silly idea in general, nothing to do with who wins or loses.
Re: boundaries. 650 into 600 doesn't go. So I doubt it will happen. Essentially you are asking several MPs to vote themselves out of a job. Not likely, I wouldn't have thought. Maybe I am over simplifying it, but if there is a meta-game, I can't see one.
I'd be shocked if it doesn't go through. It benefits the party with a current majority and enough Tory MPs will either stand down or volunteer to serve from the other house or accept another position or gong to ensure Tory MPs who want to remain can do so. I've had people here suggesting that it might not happen too. I'm telling them to assume it will.
Oct 20: by elections for Labour MP Jo Cox in Batley & Spen and for David Cameron in Witney will be held on the same day
Are the Tories and LDs still going to stand aside in Batley & Spen?
It would be a nice gesture in recognition of Jo Cox’s death, although personally not in favour of such a move. B&S is a safe(ish) Labour seat with a 6,000 majority, Lib Dems don’t stand a chance but there is a slender one for the blues? – All rather sad and her contribution to politics should be recognised, but let’s not set these kinds of precedent, the voters should have their say.
Nobody stood aside in Eastbourne after Ian Gow died, and his death was no less brutal than Jo Cox's. In fact the Lib Dems took the seat. I don't recall but I bet nobody stood aside in Anthony Berry's seat either.
I thought PMQs was supposed to be 30 minutes not 45.
I think it's great that they extended it to get through the list. As the Speaker pointed out, it was ridiculously slow early on. By 12:30 they were hardly down the list at all.
Juncker plans EU military headquarters No 'Brexit effect' in latest jobs data.
I think it is becoming clear where the porkies were being told during the referendum.
We haven't Brexited yet!
Indeed with full access to all of the benefits of the EU continuing and a devaluation as stimulus things are looking ok for the moment.
I never understood the objections to an EU army. We were never obliged to join and if other countries want to join forces, what is our beef? Particularly after Brexit.
Re: boundaries. 650 into 600 doesn't go. So I doubt it will happen. Essentially you are asking several MPs to vote themselves out of a job. Not likely, I wouldn't have thought. Maybe I am over simplifying it, but if there is a meta-game, I can't see one.
I must have slept through the 2015 Census. When was that precisely?
You are trying to make a risible point that because we only have a census once every ten years all of the annual population statistics produced by the ONS in the interim are of little value, even though they are referenced back to the census and updated using the multitude of other statistics at the ONS's disposal, and that the use of similarly derived statistics to determine electoral boundaries in many other countries is non-contentious. And at the same time you're choosing to gloss over the evidence of manifest failings in the system of individual electoral registration, the electoral register being the only headcount in the country to have fallen over the past 5 years at a time when our adult population is rising rapidly.
The electoral register has fallen precisely because it is more reliable not because it is less!
Previously under the old system a vast number of people were recorded on the electoral register two, three or more times. Especially students and people who move regularly. My wife was recorded multiple times because she had got married and changing her name ended up with her being registered by both her maiden name and her new name and unless you actively sought to get an old record removed then it remained for two years.
If instead of scrapping the boundary review before the last election for partisan reasons the 2011 census was used then your argument may have held water but you would prefer to use 2000 electoral register than the 2015 electoral register. There is no justification in that and your argument is a clear pretence for highly partisan reasons.
I thought PMQs was supposed to be 30 minutes not 45.
I think it's great that they extended it to get through the list. As the Speaker pointed out, it was ridiculously slow early on. By 12:30 they were hardly down the list at all.
They have a list? That's news to me. I thought the Speaker just called people who caught his eye.
It has allowed such states to export one potential political problem caused by the adoption of the euro.
They're not problems, they're people. They go where they can work and create wealth. This is a good thing.
And if you had read and understood my quote properly or even the full thread header (which is here BTW - http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2016/07/12/uniting-the-country/) you'd have understood that that's precisely my point: the human consequences are being ignored and the political problem is the problem caused by having unemployed young with little hope.
What makes sense for an individual does not necessarily make sense for a society. Mass migration causes problems (as well as benefits) for both the society receiving the migrants as for the state losing them, a point usually forgotten by those keen on immigration. Look at the depopulated parts of Southern Italy, for instance. To say that it is a good thing for such areas to lose their young, for families to be split up is pretty callous. Receiving remittances is a poor substitute for having your home community effectively die.
The EU (not Europe) is facing an existential crisis and the solution is more EU.
These idiot Eurocrats have learned precisely zero from Brexit. I wouldn't be surprised to see Poland and Hungary call time on their membership sooner rather than later.
It would be financial suicide for Poland and Hungary to leave the EU while they are getting such major fiscal transfers from western Europe to them.
Of course they oppose the same things we did, but while we were funding transfers, they're receiving them. So they'll likely continue like we did for a while as unhappy members and later rather than sooner once they're no longer receiving fiscal transfers then membership will be questioned I suspect.
As we've just seen with Brexit, some things are more important than mere economic gain. National identity is probably one of them.
Neutralising the economic issue was a necessary but not sufficient condition. Which is why it will be later not sooner than Eastern Europe contemplates leaving.
But if we're gone then who is going to keep the gravy train running? Germany? I imagine our departure implies a sharp reduction in Polish receipts. And then the choice to leave becomes a bit easier.
Yes Germany and the Netherlands and France and the rest of western Europe. It will imply some reduction in Polish receipts (and a commensurate increase in German payments too) but they will remain a recipient for some time to come.
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.
Will there ever be an eventuality where the EU calls for less need to grow closer?
I see Juncker has put free movement as a European value on par with anti-racism.
It's not a European value but it is an economic necessity. As I put it some while ago -
"FoM has allowed those Eurozone states with stagnating economies to export their young rather than than have them – unemployed, angry and potentially a destabilising force demanding change – at home.
It has allowed such states to export one potential political problem caused by the adoption of the euro. The UK has acted as a safety valve for Europe’s poorer economies."
It is the social and human consequences which the EU has ignored and it is this which has, to an extent the EU is simply refusing to accept, led to the Brexit vote.
You would have thought that losing such a large country would lead to some element of self-reflection, someone somewhere within the EU asking themselves whether the Brexit vote might possibly, just possibly, have had something to do with how the EU has itself behaved and evolved over the years. But apparently not.
It's interesting. Throughout history, you can see examples of ruling castes who realised that the polity they ruled was failing, and who pushed through radical reform (essentially, taking the view that if we want things to stay the same, there are going to have to be changes); but, you can also (and probably more frequently) see the reverse, people who could see nothing wrong (or refused to admit anything was wrong) until disaster overtook them.
Juncker plans EU military headquarters No 'Brexit effect' in latest jobs data.
I think it is becoming clear where the porkies were being told during the referendum.
We haven't Brexited yet!
Indeed with full access to all of the benefits of the EU continuing and a devaluation as stimulus things are looking ok for the moment.
I never understood the objections to an EU army. We were never obliged to join and if other countries want to join forces, what is our beef? Particularly after Brexit.
It would be a military structure controlled by Brussels. That alone is a very poor idea. If it was just national governments working together on a bilateral or multilateral basis it wouldn't be a problem, but this is unelected Eurocrats directing military forces. An absolutely horrible idea.
May is a turkey of the first order. The atmosphere of dither, micromanagement, malice and incompetence that characterised her whole home office time is now starting to permeate the government.
Juncker plans EU military headquarters No 'Brexit effect' in latest jobs data.
I think it is becoming clear where the porkies were being told during the referendum.
We haven't Brexited yet!
Indeed with full access to all of the benefits of the EU continuing and a devaluation as stimulus things are looking ok for the moment.
I never understood the objections to an EU army. We were never obliged to join and if other countries want to join forces, what is our beef? Particularly after Brexit.
It would be a military structure controlled by Brussels. That alone is a very poor idea. If it was just national governments working together on a bilateral or multilateral basis it wouldn't be a problem, but this is unelected Eurocrats directing military forces. An absolutely horrible idea.
None of our business anymore, they too can do as they please.
Rather like the atmosphere in a pub when an obnoxious loudmouth leaves, I think the EU will enjoy Brexit.
I thought PMQs was supposed to be 30 minutes not 45.
I think it's great that they extended it to get through the list. As the Speaker pointed out, it was ridiculously slow early on. By 12:30 they were hardly down the list at all.
They have a list? That's news to me. I thought the Speaker just called people who caught his eye.
There's alway a published list for PMQs - although IIRC the Speaker can also call on others.
I thought PMQs was supposed to be 30 minutes not 45.
I think it's great that they extended it to get through the list. As the Speaker pointed out, it was ridiculously slow early on. By 12:30 they were hardly down the list at all.
They have a list? That's news to me. I thought the Speaker just called people who caught his eye.
There's a list, some people are permanently on it (eg Leader of the Opposition six time, Leader of third party twice) while others names are I believe drawn in advance.
Guido normally posts the list on his site in advance though its been a long time since I checked his site so don't know if he still does that.
Oct 20: by elections for Labour MP Jo Cox in Batley & Spen and for David Cameron in Witney will be held on the same day
Are the Tories and LDs still going to stand aside in Batley & Spen?
It would be a nice gesture in recognition of Jo Cox’s death, although personally not in favour of such a move. B&S is a safe(ish) Labour seat with a 6,000 majority, Lib Dems don’t stand a chance but there is a slender one for the blues? – All rather sad and her contribution to politics should be recognised, but let’s not set these kinds of precedent, the voters should have their say.
Nobody stood aside in Eastbourne after Ian Gow died, and his death was no less brutal than Jo Cox's. In fact the Lib Dems took the seat. I don't recall but I bet nobody stood aside in Anthony Berry's seat either.
It's sentimental rubbish.
There was all this talk at the time about how it was an attack on democracy, about how keen she was on using her status as an MP to help people etc. Well, if we believe in democracy, the electorate in this constituency should have a choice of candidates to vote for.
Democracy should not be suspended at the behest of some nutter with a grievance.
Oct 20: by elections for Labour MP Jo Cox in Batley & Spen and for David Cameron in Witney will be held on the same day
Are the Tories and LDs still going to stand aside in Batley & Spen?
It would be a nice gesture in recognition of Jo Cox’s death, although personally not in favour of such a move. B&S is a safe(ish) Labour seat with a 6,000 majority, Lib Dems don’t stand a chance but there is a slender one for the blues? – All rather sad and her contribution to politics should be recognised, but let’s not set these kinds of precedent, the voters should have their say.
Nobody stood aside in Eastbourne after Ian Gow died, and his death was no less brutal than Jo Cox's. In fact the Lib Dems took the seat. I don't recall but I bet nobody stood aside in Anthony Berry's seat either.
Quite - Gow lived just up the road from me. Always thought his home called The Dog House was the most brilliant name.
Juncker plans EU military headquarters No 'Brexit effect' in latest jobs data.
I think it is becoming clear where the porkies were being told during the referendum.
We haven't Brexited yet!
Indeed with full access to all of the benefits of the EU continuing and a devaluation as stimulus things are looking ok for the moment.
I never understood the objections to an EU army. We were never obliged to join and if other countries want to join forces, what is our beef? Particularly after Brexit.
It would be a military structure controlled by Brussels. That alone is a very poor idea. If it was just national governments working together on a bilateral or multilateral basis it wouldn't be a problem, but this is unelected Eurocrats directing military forces. An absolutely horrible idea.
You're not going to like it when you hear about NATO.
Juncker plans EU military headquarters No 'Brexit effect' in latest jobs data.
I think it is becoming clear where the porkies were being told during the referendum.
We haven't Brexited yet!
Indeed with full access to all of the benefits of the EU continuing and a devaluation as stimulus things are looking ok for the moment.
I never understood the objections to an EU army. We were never obliged to join and if other countries want to join forces, what is our beef? Particularly after Brexit.
It would be a military structure controlled by Brussels. That alone is a very poor idea. If it was just national governments working together on a bilateral or multilateral basis it wouldn't be a problem, but this is unelected Eurocrats directing military forces. An absolutely horrible idea.
None of our business anymore, they too can do as they please.
Rather like the atmosphere in a pub when an obnoxious loudmouth leaves, I think the EU will enjoy Brexit.
More like we're the sensible one that has left the pub because the loudmouthes were pissing us off, now they're going to get even louder. Eastern Europe are not very impressed with being told what to do with military and immigration etc
How long now before the suggestion is raised that France gives its permanent UNSC seat to the EU? Once we Brexit it will be just taking away France's vote and not a suggestion of taking away two into one.
Juncker plans EU military headquarters No 'Brexit effect' in latest jobs data.
I think it is becoming clear where the porkies were being told during the referendum.
We haven't Brexited yet!
Indeed with full access to all of the benefits of the EU continuing and a devaluation as stimulus things are looking ok for the moment.
I never understood the objections to an EU army. We were never obliged to join and if other countries want to join forces, what is our beef? Particularly after Brexit.
What purpose would an EU army fulfill that is not being fulfilled by NATO?
That's the question which those proposing an EU army need to answer.
It's looking like a Trump landslide. Just like Scott Adams predicted.
This is an interesting poll because it's using the same panel that they poll over and over again, so it's comparing like with like from day to day and it's good at getting short-term trends very quickly. That said, don't pay too much attention to its actual numbers.
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.
Will there ever be an eventuality where the EU calls for less need to grow closer?
I see Juncker has put free movement as a European value on par with anti-racism.
It's not a European value but it is an economic necessity. As I put it some while ago -
"FoM has allowed those Eurozone states with stagnating economies to export their young rather than than have them – unemployed, angry and potentially a destabilising force demanding change – at home.
It has allowed such states to export one potential political problem caused by the adoption of the euro. The UK has acted as a safety valve for Europe’s poorer economies."
It is the social and human consequences which the EU has ignored and it is this which has, to an extent the EU is simply refusing to accept, led to the Brexit vote.
You would have thought that losing such a large country would lead to some element of self-reflection, someone somewhere within the EU asking themselves whether the Brexit vote might possibly, just possibly, have had something to do with how the EU has itself behaved and evolved over the years. But apparently not.
FoM has allowed the receiving state (eg: UK) to have an angry, threatened and potentially destabilising force demanding change.
Carl Bildt @carlbildt 5m5 minutes ago I think it will be noted that @JunckerEU in #SOTEU fails to say anything whatsoever on TTIP trans-Atlantic talks. Not a good sign.
Juncker plans EU military headquarters No 'Brexit effect' in latest jobs data.
I think it is becoming clear where the porkies were being told during the referendum.
We haven't Brexited yet!
Indeed with full access to all of the benefits of the EU continuing and a devaluation as stimulus things are looking ok for the moment.
I never understood the objections to an EU army. We were never obliged to join and if other countries want to join forces, what is our beef? Particularly after Brexit.
What purpose would an EU army fulfill that is not being fulfilled by NATO?
That's the question which those proposing an EU army need to answer.
It is possible that in less than two months America elects as President a man who pulls America out of NATO.
Comments
JeremyCorbyn4PM
Join us for #PMQs in ten minutes time. We'll be live tweeting today's proceedings!
A boundary review is coming for Wales, sometime, as the current discrepancy in seat sizes between Wales and England/Scotland/NI is unsustainable.
Given the inevitably of this, Plaid Cymru might well decide that the present review is as good as it gets.
The boundaries could easily have been drawn so that they lost 2 seats. Instead, they still hold 3 seats with the new boundaries, and the Ceredigion seat now includes North Pembrokeshire, which helps them rather than the LibDems. So, this seat is a better prospect for them on the new boundaries.
My reckoning is that Plaid Cymru could not have wished for a better review.
And the reduction in overall seats gives them the chance to argue that more powers should be devolved to the Assembly.
So, I think they could be bought off by the Tories.
Tory cheers for Jeremy Corbyn as he enters Commons for #PMQs as loud as they were for Theresa May
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-37359196
Oct 20: by elections for Labour MP Jo Cox in Batley & Spen and for David Cameron in Witney will be held on the same day
These idiot Eurocrats have learned precisely zero from Brexit. I wouldn't be surprised to see Poland and Hungary call time on their membership sooner rather than later.
The big movement in the LA Times tracking poll !!!
http://graphics.latimes.com/usc-presidential-poll-dashboard/
It's looking like a Trump landslide. Just like Scott Adams predicted.
WRT the changes generally, I consider there is no case for switching from basing constituency sizes on number of voters to number of inhabitants. But, there is a legitimate argument that we should use the electorates as they are now, not as they were in December 2015.
Shurely schome mishtake?
Of course they oppose the same things we did, but while we were funding transfers, they're receiving them. So they'll likely continue like we did for a while as unhappy members and later rather than sooner once they're no longer receiving fiscal transfers then membership will be questioned I suspect.
There are problems though: in particular, AIUI the waste elements need splitting into separate types before this can be done, which involves nasty refining of the type done for MOX fuels. You can's just get a lump of waste and bombard it.
(*) Basically bombard the waste product with a controlled stream of fast neutrons to 'split' it into other elements.
(*) Though it's still early days.
As a Labour win in Batley and a Con win in Witney seem on the cards, they could say they won one battle and 'lost' one they did not stand in for good reason.
"FoM has allowed those Eurozone states with stagnating economies to export their young rather than than have them – unemployed, angry and potentially a destabilising force demanding change – at home.
It has allowed such states to export one potential political problem caused by the adoption of the euro. The UK has acted as a safety valve for Europe’s poorer economies."
It is the social and human consequences which the EU has ignored and it is this which has, to an extent the EU is simply refusing to accept, led to the Brexit vote.
You would have thought that losing such a large country would lead to some element of self-reflection, someone somewhere within the EU asking themselves whether the Brexit vote might possibly, just possibly, have had something to do with how the EU has itself behaved and evolved over the years. But apparently not.
On Baltey and Spen - yes, the Conservatives, LibDems and Greens have all said they won't stand. UKIP have a candidate, and will presumably try to turn it into a referendum on immigration. The circumstances of the by-eleciton may make that hard for them, though.
After a year Corbyn stops trying to reinvent PMQs. He was focussed, on right issue, stuck to theme, found relevant Cameron quote. Momentum.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/13/paris-is-a-post-apocalyptic-hellhole-of-public-urination-and-lit/
What the political map of the UK looks like if boundary changes go through. (All estimates.) https://t.co/gbqQLc0THQ https://t.co/eNQSCvQTI6
Both sides in the Brexit debate were able with varying degrees of justification to claim economic gain if their side won and in the end it was a very close result.
In Poland and Hungary only one side can claim economic gain and that is remaining. Imagine for a second if instead of "sending £350mn a week" (or whatever the real figure is) to the EU we were RECEIVING £350mn a week from the EU. The Brexit referendum would not have ended up in a Brexit vote.
Neutralising the economic issue was a necessary but not sufficient condition. Which is why it will be later not sooner than Eastern Europe contemplates leaving.
Juncker plans EU military headquarters
No 'Brexit effect' in latest jobs data.
I think it is becoming clear where the porkies were being told during the referendum.
However, their are rumblings that some Tory MPs just think it is a silly idea in general, nothing to do with who wins or loses.
Indeed with full access to all of the benefits of the EU continuing and a devaluation as stimulus things are looking ok for the moment.
I never understood the objections to an EU army. We were never obliged to join and if other countries want to join forces, what is our beef? Particularly after Brexit.
It takes a special kind of incompetence to get Jezza onto the front foot.
Previously under the old system a vast number of people were recorded on the electoral register two, three or more times. Especially students and people who move regularly. My wife was recorded multiple times because she had got married and changing her name ended up with her being registered by both her maiden name and her new name and unless you actively sought to get an old record removed then it remained for two years.
If instead of scrapping the boundary review before the last election for partisan reasons the 2011 census was used then your argument may have held water but you would prefer to use 2000 electoral register than the 2015 electoral register. There is no justification in that and your argument is a clear pretence for highly partisan reasons.
What makes sense for an individual does not necessarily make sense for a society. Mass migration causes problems (as well as benefits) for both the society receiving the migrants as for the state losing them, a point usually forgotten by those keen on immigration. Look at the depopulated parts of Southern Italy, for instance. To say that it is a good thing for such areas to lose their young, for families to be split up is pretty callous. Receiving remittances is a poor substitute for having your home community effectively die.
To be outperformed by Corbyn is shameful.
Juncker is one of the latter.
May is a turkey of the first order. The atmosphere of dither, micromanagement, malice and incompetence that characterised her whole home office time is now starting to permeate the government.
Shouldn't she be concentrating on German citizens with an immigrant background first, don't they have a higher unemployment rate.
Rather like the atmosphere in a pub when an obnoxious loudmouth leaves, I think the EU will enjoy Brexit.
https://twitter.com/politicshome/status/776007960938029056/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc^tfw
Guido normally posts the list on his site in advance though its been a long time since I checked his site so don't know if he still does that.
There was all this talk at the time about how it was an attack on democracy, about how keen she was on using her status as an MP to help people etc. Well, if we believe in democracy, the electorate in this constituency should have a choice of candidates to vote for.
Democracy should not be suspended at the behest of some nutter with a grievance.
How many from Secondary Moderns?
If you dont think Corbyn won today you are wrong, even Tory supporting Neale and Kunsberg thought she was "on the ropes"
How long now before the suggestion is raised that France gives its permanent UNSC seat to the EU? Once we Brexit it will be just taking away France's vote and not a suggestion of taking away two into one.
That's the question which those proposing an EU army need to answer.
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/
Speaks volumes about your view of the ordinary Britons whose money paid for your training and salary.
I think it will be noted that @JunckerEU in #SOTEU fails to say anything whatsoever on TTIP trans-Atlantic talks. Not a good sign.
Seems like sensible planning by the EU.
If you can;t defend something that is your flagship policy, you really shouldn't be PM.