Eh that is not the Queensferry crossing, that is the rail bridge. Behind that is the old road bridge. And behind that and completely out of sight is the new Queensferry Crossing. What a stupid picture.
Oh, I don't know. The Forth Bridge is always worth looking at for design brilliance.
The name of the new bridge, Queensferry Crossing, was chosen by public competition. I was disappointed my favoured choice, the Third Forth Bridge, didn't make it to the shortlist.
If the PM opens it, it will be a truly May the Forth moment!
Hope our boffins are hard at work on that holographic communicator for May to deliver the invocation
And asking industry to cut power usage at certain times is a desperate measure and a sign of failure.
I disagree with this point. It surely makes economic sense to ask (and pay for) industry to cut its consumption on rare occasions rather than building power stations that will very rarely be used.
Stuff like glass furnaces you can't just turn on and off at will, you know.
No, but other industries can adjust power consumption. And it is also possible to forecast and plan in advance for times of peak consumption.
Really, which industries can cut power consumption? I would have thought that any industry will always minimise its costs and therefore will not be running using more electricity than it needs to. Reducing consumption therefore means shutting down productive work.
Any industry where energy is a large part of the input cost and you can feasibly switch off for an hour or so on occasion. In exchange for that commitment you would get a substantial discount on your tariff. Or offices or businesses that have a backup generator.
I know CERN, which has a very large energy requirement has a deal like that with the French power company.
CERN is a research site not a company with a production line, the idea that a company can just shut down for an "hour or so" from time to time without incurring costs is laughable. So that discount would have to be very large indeed. As for back up generators, I thought this was all about emissions, those generators run on diesel - hardly environmentally friendly.
Apart from that, why WOULD a factory or something producing value purposely stop doing that? Why would anyone trying to run an economy want them to? This is absurd stuff.
It's a cost benefit decision for both the power company and the consumer. The power company needs a very expensive level of redundancy if it is to meet the highest demand/supply peaks. It can offer large consumers a very attractive discount on their yearly tariff if they are willing to forgo a few hours of production a year. Maybe yes; maybe no.
"There are lots of questions surrounding a fire that gutted a home on Johnson Street in Plant City overnight.
Along with heavy damage, anti-Trump graffiti was sprayed on the house, inside and out. The family who lives there was spending the night with relatives, but Navy veteran Matthew Smith says his home was targeted because he is a Donald Trump supporter."
And asking industry to cut power usage at certain times is a desperate measure and a sign of failure.
I disagree with this point. It surely makes economic sense to ask (and pay for) industry to cut its consumption on rare occasions rather than building power stations that will very rarely be used.
Stuff like glass furnaces you can't just turn on and off at will, you know.
No, but other industries can adjust power consumption. And it is also possible to forecast and plan in advance for times of peak consumption.
Really, which industries can cut power consumption? I would have thought that any industry will always minimise its costs and therefore will not be running using more electricity than it needs to. Reducing consumption therefore means shutting down productive work.
Any industry where energy is a large part of the input cost and you can feasibly switch off for an hour or so on occasion. In exchange for that commitment you would get a substantial discount on your tariff. Or offices or businesses that have a backup generator.
I know CERN, which has a very large energy requirement has a deal like that with the French power company.
As for back up generators, I thought this was all about emissions, those generators run on diesel - hardly environmentally friendly.
Apart from that, why WOULD a factory or something producing value purposely stop doing that? Why would anyone trying to run an economy want them to? This is absurd stuff.
It's a cost benefit decision for both the power company and the consumer. The power company needs a very expensive level of redundancy if it is to meet the highest demand/supply peaks. It can offer large consumers a very attractive discount on their yearly tariff if they are willing to forgo a few hours of production a year. Maybe yes; maybe no.
The 'power company' i.e. private sector generator, has no responsibility to provide redundancy. All they have is a responsibility to maximise profits for its shareholders. This fact apparently came as a shock to some civil servants in the former DECC.
We now have a situation where renewable generators and new build nuclear are subsidised to generate, and fossil generators are subsidised not to generate - i.e. to be there just in case. The bill payer picks up the cost.
"There are lots of questions surrounding a fire that gutted a home on Johnson Street in Plant City overnight.
Along with heavy damage, anti-Trump graffiti was sprayed on the house, inside and out. The family who lives there was spending the night with relatives, but Navy veteran Matthew Smith says his home was targeted because he is a Donald Trump supporter."
This is an interesting article on the French Presidential election, also sceptical about Fillon's chances against Le Pen (as am I). She is in some ways well placed against Fillon, and because of their broad agreement on Islam, it will be difficult to attack her as being 'neo-fascist'. I actually think Islam will therefore end up playing a relatively minor role in the second round, and it will be much more dominated by economic issues and anti-globalisation. Here, Le Pen is more in tune with the average French voter than Fillon. Frexit is the wildcard here, i'm not sure just how ready France is to quit the EU (and before looking at polls, remember the UK polls pre-campaign!). Leaving the Eurozone but remaining in the EU may be a better option politically.
The dynamics will be totally different to 2002 and I think we can discount a rerun of that vote. Fillon is not a harmless chirac-like centrist, he is perceived as a thatcherite ideologue (yes, his economic views are not extreme from our perspective, but they are from a French one. This thatcherite label is not just popular in the British press, but in the French press too). Marine is not personally a 'beyond-the-pale-fascist', but a fairly mainstream politician (despite the recent furore over her Andrew Marr appearance, she is always on TV in France, much like Farage in the UK).
Likewise, I think too much stock is being put in previous FN results.
A) this will be very much Marine 2017, not FN 2017. She is far more popular than her party - look at the 18% she took in round 1 of 2012.
French voters in Calais etc are not stupid, they are well aware that the election next year is their Trump/Brexit moment. They will turn out in higher numbers than they have done so for any regional or parliamentary elections (accordingly, I predict the FN will do poorly at the 2017 legislative elections regardless).
Anyway, i'm not a betting man so DYOR and these are just my views on the election!
(To clarify, I think MLP is a very serious and charismatic politician, more so than Trump and Farage even, BUT I don't subscribe to her views on the EU, or on immigration and islam, so wouldn't vote for her)
** Diplomacy Post ** Mr. Pulpstar, if my failing memory serves, you are in Sheffield aren't you? Mr. Dancer is in Leeds, the good Doctor is in Leicester and I am in darkest Sussex. It is good to know these things because, whilst Diplomacy is a play by mail game, sometimes personal meetings are useful or necessary.
I have in my Diplomacy career conducted negotiations in numerous boozers, restaurants, the Palace of Westminster and a brothel in Macau, though that was not a PB game I hasten to add.
I wonder if we could persuade Mrs Cyclefree (lady of this parish) to join in. I reckon she would be a fearsome player.
What a nice idea. Alas, I am currently snowed under with work and am in Zurich next week so will not be able to devote the time needed.
This is a first round poll testing a number of scenarios depending on the result of the Socialist primary (scheduled for January) and on the numbers of centrist candidates (Macron alone, Macron +Bayrou, neither)
Scenario Montebourg Macron no Bayrou Fillon 31 Le Pen 24 Macron 17.5 Mélenchon 12.5 Montebourg 7 Dupont-Aignan 2.5 Jadot 2 Arthaud 1 Poutou 1 Pinel 0.5 Cheminade 0.5
Obviously they did no test scenarios of Valls or Montebourg benefiting from a Macron withdrawal that appears totally impossible. The scenario wher he ould so for Hollande is also extremely unlikely
The same poll gives Fillon 66 / Le Pen 34 for the second round.
Fillon has established a very good base and is clearly ahead of Le Pen for now. Those polls show that he would benefit marginally from killing off a Bayrou candidacy but that it is not particularly decisive. This is important as it gives Bayrou not much leverage in a negotiaton with Fillon (only the right can credibly offer to dedicate constituencies to Bayrou's party).
This poll also shows the trouble the socialist party is in. None of his three main candidates appear likely to reach even the thrid place, let alone the second round. Ideed the most likle at this stage is that the socialist candidate would start its campaign in fifth place in the polls. Montebourg and Hollande are actually closer to the sixth position.
This extremely poor support could be expected to grow after the primary if the debates and votes go well. However, Hollande is currently plotting to can the primary and ask the others to support him without a vote. This would be extremely controversial and would probably create yet another independent candidacy (probably Montebourg).
Macron and Mélenchon start the campaign with very decent bases. Macron would clearly benefit from Bayrou passing but apparently he would not get all of his support. He is still at least 7 points behind Le Pen for the second round.
Macron not running (very unlikely) would not save the socialists as they would remain in fourth place. The very low level of transfer between the two also show that (unlike the media) the voters do not see Macron as left-wing anymore.
The same poll gives Fillon 66 / Le Pen 34 for the second round.
Fillon has established a very good base and is clearly ahead of Le Pen for now. Those polls show that he would benefit marginally from killing off a Bayrou candidacy but that it is not particularly decisive. This is important as it gives Bayrou not much leverage in a negotiaton with Fillon (only the right can credibly offer to dedicate constituencies to Bayrou's party).
This poll also shows the trouble the socialist party is in. None of his three main candidates appear likely to reach even the thrid place, let alone the second round. Ideed the most likle at this stage is that the socialist candidate would start its campaign in fifth place in the polls. Montebourg and Hollande are actually closer to the sixth position.
This extremely poor support could be expected to grow after the primary if the debates and votes go well. However, Hollande is currently plotting to can the primary and ask the others to support him without a vote. This would be extremely controversial and would probably create yet another independent candidacy (probably Montebourg).
Macron and Mélenchon start the campaign with very decent bases. Macron would clearly benefit from Bayrou passing but apparently he would not get all of his support. He is still at least 7 points behind Le Pen for the second round.
Macron not running (very unlikely) would not save the socialists as they would remain in fourth place. The very low level of transfer between the two also show that (unlike the media) the voters do not see Macron as left-wing anymore.
Thanks for the updates and the commentary Chris.
Realistically, what level does Le Pen have to reach in the first round in order to have a chance in the second, in your opinion?
Comments
"There are lots of questions surrounding a fire that gutted a home on Johnson Street in Plant City overnight.
Along with heavy damage, anti-Trump graffiti was sprayed on the house, inside and out. The family who lives there was spending the night with relatives, but Navy veteran Matthew Smith says his home was targeted because he is a Donald Trump supporter."
http://www.fox13news.com/news/local-news/220373017-story
We now have a situation where renewable generators and new build nuclear are subsidised to generate, and fossil generators are subsidised not to generate - i.e. to be there just in case. The bill payer picks up the cost.
Night all...
https://twitter.com/WSJ/status/803733753231196161
Jeremy Hunt To Be Health Secretary On 1st January 2017? @ 1/6Cabinet SpecialOpen
Will Jeremy Hunt Remain Secretary of State for Health Until 2017?
Stake: £50.00
Is it looking like a winner yet
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UovcMQXxmoE
http://prospect.org/article/will-marine-le-pen-become-france’s-next-president
This is an interesting article on the French Presidential election, also sceptical about Fillon's chances against Le Pen (as am I). She is in some ways well placed against Fillon, and because of their broad agreement on Islam, it will be difficult to attack her as being 'neo-fascist'. I actually think Islam will therefore end up playing a relatively minor role in the second round, and it will be much more dominated by economic issues and anti-globalisation. Here, Le Pen is more in tune with the average French voter than Fillon. Frexit is the wildcard here, i'm not sure just how ready France is to quit the EU (and before looking at polls, remember the UK polls pre-campaign!). Leaving the Eurozone but remaining in the EU may be a better option politically.
The dynamics will be totally different to 2002 and I think we can discount a rerun of that vote. Fillon is not a harmless chirac-like centrist, he is perceived as a thatcherite ideologue (yes, his economic views are not extreme from our perspective, but they are from a French one. This thatcherite label is not just popular in the British press, but in the French press too). Marine is not personally a 'beyond-the-pale-fascist', but a fairly mainstream politician (despite the recent furore over her Andrew Marr appearance, she is always on TV in France, much like Farage in the UK).
Likewise, I think too much stock is being put in previous FN results.
A) this will be very much Marine 2017, not FN 2017. She is far more popular than her party - look at the 18% she took in round 1 of 2012.
Anyway, i'm not a betting man so DYOR and these are just my views on the election!
(To clarify, I think MLP is a very serious and charismatic politician, more so than Trump and Farage even, BUT I don't subscribe to her views on the EU, or on immigration and islam, so wouldn't vote for her)
Another time perhaps.
Sofres for LCI/RTL/ Le Figaro
http://www.lefigaro.fr/elections/presidentielles/2016/11/29/35003-20161129ARTFIG00275-presidentielle-2017-fillon-distance-le-fn-hollande-hors-course-selon-notre-sondage.php
This is a first round poll testing a number of scenarios depending on the result of the Socialist primary (scheduled for January) and on the numbers of centrist candidates (Macron alone, Macron +Bayrou, neither)
Scenario Hollande Macron Bayrou:
Fillon 29 Le Pen 23 Macron 15 Mélenchon 12 Hollande 7.5 (!!)
Bayrou 6 Dupont-Aignan 2.5 Jadot 2 Pinel 1 Poutou 1 Arthaud 0.5 Cheminade 0.5
Scenario Hollande Macron, no Bayrou
Fillon 30 Le Pen 24 Macron 17 Mélenchon 13 Hollande 8.5 (!!)
Dupont-Aignan 2.5 Jadot 2 Pinel 1 Poutou 1 Arthaud 0.5 Cheminade 0.5
Scenario Hollande no Bayrou no Macron
Fillon 34 Le Pen 26 Mélenchon 15 Hollande 14 (still fourth)
Dupont-Aignan 3 Jadot 3 Pinel 1 Poutou 1.5 Arthaud 2 Cheminade 0.5
Scenario Valls Macron Bayrou:
Fillon 28 Le Pen 24 Macron 13 Mélenchon 12 Valls 9.5
Bayrou 6 Dupont-Aignan 2 Jadot 2 Arthaud 1.5 Poutou 1 Pinel 0.5 Cheminade 0.5
Scenario Valls Macron not Bayrou
Fillon 29 Le Pen 25 Macron 15 Mélenchon 11.5 Valls 11
Dupont-Aignan 2.5 Jadot 2.5 Arthaud 1.5 Poutou 1 Pinel 0.5 Cheminade 0.5
Scenario Montebourg Macron Bayrou
Fillon 29 Le Pen 24 Macron 16 Mélenchon 12 Montebourg 6 (!!!)
Bayrou 6 Dupont-Aignan 2 Jadot 1.5 Arthaud 1 Poutou 1 Pinel 1 Cheminade 0.5
Scenario Montebourg Macron no Bayrou
Fillon 31 Le Pen 24 Macron 17.5 Mélenchon 12.5 Montebourg 7
Dupont-Aignan 2.5 Jadot 2 Arthaud 1 Poutou 1 Pinel 0.5 Cheminade 0.5
Obviously they did no test scenarios of Valls or Montebourg benefiting from a Macron withdrawal that appears totally impossible. The scenario wher he ould so for Hollande is also extremely unlikely
Fillon has established a very good base and is clearly ahead of Le Pen for now. Those polls show that he would benefit marginally from killing off a Bayrou candidacy but that it is not particularly decisive. This is important as it gives Bayrou not much leverage in a negotiaton with Fillon (only the right can credibly offer to dedicate constituencies to Bayrou's party).
This poll also shows the trouble the socialist party is in. None of his three main candidates appear likely to reach even the thrid place, let alone the second round. Ideed the most likle at this stage is that the socialist candidate would start its campaign in fifth place in the polls. Montebourg and Hollande are actually closer to the sixth position.
This extremely poor support could be expected to grow after the primary if the debates and votes go well. However, Hollande is currently plotting to can the primary and ask the others to support him without a vote. This would be extremely controversial and would probably create yet another independent candidacy (probably Montebourg).
Macron and Mélenchon start the campaign with very decent bases. Macron would clearly benefit from Bayrou passing but apparently he would not get all of his support. He is still at least 7 points behind Le Pen for the second round.
Macron not running (very unlikely) would not save the socialists as they would remain in fourth place. The very low level of transfer between the two also show that (unlike the media) the voters do not see Macron as left-wing anymore.
Realistically, what level does Le Pen have to reach in the first round in order to have a chance in the second, in your opinion?