Very clever speech by TMay. Impressively nerveless, articulate, nuanced, lucid. Rousing in places. With a few duff lines. Managed to flatter America while subtly differing with Trump.
She's getting better. She could be good. If she delivers a nice Brexit, she will go down as great.
Probably the most important speech of her life to date, so one imagines that it was fine tuned and endlessly rehearsed.
Very clever speech by TMay. Impressively nerveless, articulate, nuanced, lucid. Rousing in places. With a few duff lines. Managed to flatter America while subtly differing with Trump.
She's getting better. She could be good. If she delivers a nice Brexit, she will go down as great.
Probably the most important speech of her life to date, so one imagines that it was fine tuned and endlessly rehearsed.
Either by good luck or superb judgment May's met senior GOP leaders (who've also explicitly come out against torture "it's illegal") before she meets Trump - so no doubt picked up a few hints.
Subsequent foreign heads of government might not be so lucky.....or indeed be in a position to meet the GOP as 'fellow Conservatives'.....
Where are all the posters mewling about May 'sucking up to Trump' today?
Just watched May's speech - as others have observed very well done - and also jolly clever - for example combining remarks on the security of Israel with the Baltic states probably got more applause than the Baltic states would have on their own - but will not have gone un-noticed in Tallinn, Riga or Vilnius...or the Kremlin.....
Meanwhile - I hope no one starts googling Teresa May:
i did. she looks a bit top-heavy
Probably more Trump's kind of gal than the PM....oh well, day 1 of the trip has gone down well - lets see what day 2 brings - a 40 minute press conference should be entertaining!
Meanwhile - I hope no one starts googling Teresa May:
i did. she looks a bit top-heavy
Probably more Trump's kind of gal than the PM....oh well, day 1 of the trip has gone down well - lets see what day 2 brings - a 40 minute press conference should be entertaining!
a joint press conference? holy shit. If she can come through that unscathed it will be impressive (depending on whether the goons are policing attendance and busing in travelling supporters for whooping)
Meanwhile - I hope no one starts googling Teresa May:
i did. she looks a bit top-heavy
Probably more Trump's kind of gal than the PM....oh well, day 1 of the trip has gone down well - lets see what day 2 brings - a 40 minute press conference should be entertaining!
a joint press conference? holy shit. If she can come through that unscathed it will be impressive (depending on whether the goons are policing attendance and busing in travelling supporters for whooping)
As we saw with Marr May is adroit at not answering the question and sticking to her script - Trump on the other hand.....
Intrigued to see how Conservative free traders react to the (hopefully not) forthcoming trade war. My sense is a decent number of them will forgive a republican president who beat HRC almost anything.
I can see we've had a comradely debate about food standards while I've been lollygagging.
Further to the posts on the wheezing national grid, I can inform the panel that the demand has eased, but inexplicably, the Frogs are stealing our electricity. Don't anyone tell the Express.
I was bemused by that. I thought the connector only worked one way with us importing nuclear generated electricity from France. It is interesting if it now works in both directions.
The French have been having problems with their nukes recently and have had to take a bunch offline. They're struggling a bit a the moment.
When the original connector was installed it was thought that there would be bi-directional flows because the time difference meant that the peak demand in the two countries would differ. However the French went nuclear in a big way and that meant they 'always' had a surplus of cheap electricity to sell into our market so ithe flow is usually into the UK unless, as the previous poster says, their nukes are offline. (The original French interconnector was at Dungeness, the latest one is near Folkestone and also designed for bi-directional flows).
And half the intervnnector's down as a ship dragged its anchor through four of the cables whilst trying to avoid sinking before Christmas.
The interconnector was unlucky; the ship, and its crew, very lucky.
Washington Governor Jay Inslee says if President Trump's border wall is anything like his inauguration crowd assessment... it'll be 8 inches high:
I've got to hand it to Trump, he knows how to manipulate his opponents.
Criticism of the wall *for not being high enough* fits his agenda nicely.
Exactly like LEAVE and £350 million for the NHS - your opponents keep it in the news for you....
'Exactly like' ? You announce that you're building an expensive and useless artefact while simultaneously turning your friendly neighbour into an enemy. A policy so ridiculous the rest of the world has been talking about it incessantly. And you political opponents taking the piss is keeping it in the news ?
Do you know what happened the last time the world lurched into protectionism? I ask because that was a hell of a lot worse than the current situation: you know the situation where a record proportion of the population is employed.
I would also point out that those developed countries with the fewest trade barriers (like Switzerland, which has a FTA with China) are the ones with the lowest levels of unemployment.
These are genuine questions - I've read opinions for and against such a radical approach, and am undecided. For example, I appreciate that manufacturers might find themselves competing with both cheap foreign imports and asymmetric barriers to exporting, but on the other hand they would have access to tariff-free supplies of all materials - and consumers would surely benefit from tariff-free imports, especially of food, from the rest of the world outside of the EU customs union?
Tariffs are paid for by the country placing them: they are a tax and are paid for by the consumers and producer of that country. Their appeal is emotional rather than economic. For example, Trump's 20% tariff would be paid for by the American consumer buying the good, not the Mexican producer making it. But the American consumer hears "20% tariff against Mexico!" and feels warm and fuzzy...at least until they see the prices.
Even if country x places tariffs against you, it is still to your advantage to not reciprocate. But because of the emotional appeal to the electorate this is politically difficult. It requires a strong leadership with economic good sense, which is pretty rare. Singapore pulled it off. and (if memory serves) has a tariff-free environment. Hopefully the UK will do likewise, but given Hannan's recent characterisation of tariffs as income (Jesus wept), it may not.
So yes, I would advocate that the UK saves itself the bother of having to negotiate free trade agreements by simply declaring a policy of unilateral free trade with the entire globe.
But if we do that then other countries can put tariffs against us and kill our exporting industries. And no amount of arguing 'honestly we are all better off' is going to make a redundant car worker feel any better.
Patrick Minford who is a strong proponent of that approach made the case that it would raise UK welfare by 4% but that it would eliminate the UKs manufacturing industry. Even if he's right (and there are good reasons to think he isn't) that doesn't sound like a good trade-off!
It's a bit easier for Singapore where they can just execute people... and don't have to worry about elections...
Talking of Japan, watched Hacksaw Ridge tonight, very impressive, definitely deserves the plaudits.
It helps explain why invading Honshu would have cost so many lives, and why dropping the atomic weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki probably saved more lives than they killed.
I need to see that film.
When the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs come up in conversation (which they do occasionally), I mention one fact: during the war, the US made 500,000 purple heart medals to be given to people they expected to be injured on the invasion of Japan.
They have used those medals in all their wars since: Korea, Vietnam, the Gulf I and II, Afghanistan and all the other minor ones. In all those conflicts, they haven't used up all those medals made for the invasion.
In other words, the Americans expected to have more people killed and injured in that invasion than have occurred in every war since.
Not only is this far fewer than the number killed in the nuclear bombings, it's only one side: the Japanese army and civilians would have suffered massive numbers of dead and wounded.
I can see we've had a comradely debate about food standards while I've been lollygagging.
Further to the posts on the wheezing national grid, I can inform the panel that the demand has eased, but inexplicably, the Frogs are stealing our electricity. Don't anyone tell the Express.
I was bemused by that. I thought the connector only worked one way with us importing nuclear generated electricity from France. It is interesting if it now works in both directions.
The French have been having problems with their nukes recently and have had to take a bunch offline. They're struggling a bit a the moment.
When the original connector was installed it was thought that there would be bi-directional flows because the time difference meant that the peak demand in the two countries would differ. However the French went nuclear in a big way and that meant they 'always' had a surplus of cheap electricity to sell into our market so ithe flow is usually into the UK unless, as the previous poster says, their nukes are offline. (The original French interconnector was at Dungeness, the latest one is near Folkestone and also designed for bi-directional flows).
And half the intervnnector's down as a ship dragged its anchor through four of the cables whilst trying to avoid sinking before Christmas.
The interconnector was unlucky; the ship, and its crew, very lucky.
It's not that unusual for the interconnector to send electricity from the UK to France. Because we have lots of CCGTs in the UK (and a reasonable number of OCGTs too), we can respond very quickly to changes in supply and demand. So if a nuclear power plant needs to be taken off-line for unscheduled mainteance at exactly the same moment there's a spike in demand, the UK steps up. We have lots of expensive - but flexible - peaking capacity. They have lots of inexpensive - but inflexible - baseload capacity.
Talking of Japan, watched Hacksaw Ridge tonight, very impressive, definitely deserves the plaudits.
It helps explain why invading Honshu would have cost so many lives, and why dropping the atomic weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki probably saved more lives than they killed.
I need to see that film.
When the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs come up in conversation (which they do occasionally), I mention one fact: during the war, the US made 500,000 purple heart medals to be given to people they expected to be injured on the invasion of Japan.
They have used those medals in all their wars since: Korea, Vietnam, the Gulf I and II, Afghanistan and all the other minor ones. In all those conflicts, they haven't used up all those medals made for the invasion.
In other words, the Americans expected to have more people killed and injured in that invasion than have occurred in every war since.
Not only is this far fewer than the number killed in the nuclear bombings, it's only one side: the Japanese army and civilians would have suffered massive numbers of dead and wounded.
the use of incendiary bombs on other japanese cities was arguably equally destructive?
Talking of Japan, watched Hacksaw Ridge tonight, very impressive, definitely deserves the plaudits.
It helps explain why invading Honshu would have cost so many lives, and why dropping the atomic weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki probably saved more lives than they killed.
I need to see that film.
When the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs come up in conversation (which they do occasionally), I mention one fact: during the war, the US made 500,000 purple heart medals to be given to people they expected to be injured on the invasion of Japan.
They have used those medals in all their wars since: Korea, Vietnam, the Gulf I and II, Afghanistan and all the other minor ones. In all those conflicts, they haven't used up all those medals made for the invasion.
In other words, the Americans expected to have more people killed and injured in that invasion than have occurred in every war since.
Not only is this far fewer than the number killed in the nuclear bombings, it's only one side: the Japanese army and civilians would have suffered massive numbers of dead and wounded.
the use of incendiary bombs on other japanese cities was arguably equally destructive?
Yep, that's another argument *for* the bombings. Survivor testimonies from the Tokyo firebombing are horrendous, and arguably as bad as either Hiroshima or Nagasaki.
I have slight sympathy with the argument that the second - Nagasaki - should not have been dropped, but I don't agree with it.
Let's hope we never, ever, get the world into that sort of state agaihn.
Ooops, just realised "Not only is this far fewer" in my last paragraph should have been "Not only is this far more/i>". Sorry.
Talking of Japan, watched Hacksaw Ridge tonight, very impressive, definitely deserves the plaudits.
It helps explain why invading Honshu would have cost so many lives, and why dropping the atomic weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki probably saved more lives than they killed.
I need to see that film.
When the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs come up in conversation (which they do occasionally), I mention one fact: during the war, the US made 500,000 purple heart medals to be given to people they expected to be injured on the invasion of Japan.
They have used those medals in all their wars since: Korea, Vietnam, the Gulf I and II, Afghanistan and all the other minor ones. In all those conflicts, they haven't used up all those medals made for the invasion.
In other words, the Americans expected to have more people killed and injured in that invasion than have occurred in every war since.
Not only is this far fewer than the number killed in the nuclear bombings, it's only one side: the Japanese army and civilians would have suffered massive numbers of dead and wounded.
the use of incendiary bombs on other japanese cities was arguably equally destructive?
The Tokyo raid (Operation Meetinghouse) was the most destructive bombing raid. Estimates vary from 84k to 125k people killed. Perhaps more died over the years from post-blast effects at the A-Bomb sites, but those estimates vary widely too.
It's very old but Toland's 'Rising Sun' is an excellent one volume history of the Pacific War from the Japanese perspective. If you ever wanted to use the phrase "Lions led by donkeys" it's far more usefully applied to the Japanese war effort than WW1 Britain.
I can see we've had a comradely debate about food standards while I've been lollygagging.
Further to the posts on the wheezing national grid, I can inform the panel that the demand has eased, but inexplicably, the Frogs are stealing our electricity. Don't anyone tell the Express.
I was bemused by that. I thought the connector only worked one way with us importing nuclear generated electricity from France. It is interesting if it now works in both directions.
The French have been having problems with their nukes recently and have had to take a bunch offline. They're struggling a bit a the moment.
When the original connector was installed it was thought that there would be bi-directional flows because the time difference meant that the peak demand in the two countries would differ. However the French went nuclear in a big way and that meant they 'always' had a surplus of cheap electricity to sell into our market so ithe flow is usually into the UK unless, as the previous poster says, their nukes are offline. (The original French interconnector was at Dungeness, the latest one is near Folkestone and also designed for bi-directional flows).
And half the intervnnector's down as a ship dragged its anchor through four of the cables whilst trying to avoid sinking before Christmas.
The interconnector was unlucky; the ship, and its crew, very lucky.
It's not that unusual for the interconnector to send electricity from the UK to France. Because we have lots of CCGTs in the UK (and a reasonable number of OCGTs too), we can respond very quickly to changes in supply and demand. So if a nuclear power plant needs to be taken off-line for unscheduled mainteance at exactly the same moment there's a spike in demand, the UK steps up. We have lots of expensive - but flexible - peaking capacity. They have lots of inexpensive - but inflexible - baseload capacity.
Yep.
Are you still confident we won't be seeing any blackouts? IMV we're running mightily close.
I can see we've had a comradely debate about food standards while I've been lollygagging.
Further to the posts on the wheezing national grid, I can inform the panel that the demand has eased, but inexplicably, the Frogs are stealing our electricity. Don't anyone tell the Express.
I was bemused by that. I thought the connector only worked one way with us importing nuclear generated electricity from France. It is interesting if it now works in both directions.
The French have been having problems with their nukes recently and have had to take a bunch offline. They're struggling a bit a the moment.
When the original connector was installed it was thought that there would be bi-directional flows because the time difference meant that the peak demand in the two countries would differ. However the French went nuclear in a big way and that meant they 'always' had a surplus of cheap electricity to sell into our market so ithe flow is usually into the UK unless, as the previous poster says, their nukes are offline. (The original French interconnector was at Dungeness, the latest one is near Folkestone and also designed for bi-directional flows).
And half the intervnnector's down as a ship dragged its anchor through four of the cables whilst trying to avoid sinking before Christmas.
The interconnector was unlucky; the ship, and its crew, very lucky.
It's not that unusual for the interconnector to send electricity from the UK to France. Because we have lots of CCGTs in the UK (and a reasonable number of OCGTs too), we can respond very quickly to changes in supply and demand. So if a nuclear power plant needs to be taken off-line for unscheduled mainteance at exactly the same moment there's a spike in demand, the UK steps up. We have lots of expensive - but flexible - peaking capacity. They have lots of inexpensive - but inflexible - baseload capacity.
Yep.
Are you still confident we won't be seeing any blackouts? IMV we're running mightily close.
I can see we've had a comradely debate about food standards while I've been lollygagging.
Further to the posts on the wheezing national grid, I can inform the panel that the demand has eased, but inexplicably, the Frogs are stealing our electricity. Don't anyone tell the Express.
I was bemused by that. I thought the connector only worked one way with us importing nuclear generated electricity from France. It is interesting if it now works in both directions.
The French have been having problems with their nukes recently and have had to take a bunch offline. They're struggling a bit a the moment.
When the original connector was installed it was thought that there would be bi-directional flows because the time difference meant that the peak demand in the two countries would differ. However the French went nuclear in a big way and that meant they 'always' had a surplus of cheap electricity to sell into our market so ithe flow is usually into the UK unless, as the previous poster says, their nukes are offline. (The original French interconnector was at Dungeness, the latest one is near Folkestone and also designed for bi-directional flows).
And half the intervnnector's down as a ship dragged its anchor through four of the cables whilst trying to avoid sinking before Christmas.
The interconnector was unlucky; the ship, and its crew, very lucky.
It's not that unusual for the interconnector to send electricity from the UK to France. Because we have lots of CCGTs in the UK (and a reasonable number of OCGTs too), we can respond very quickly to changes in supply and demand. So if a nuclear power plant needs to be taken off-line for unscheduled mainteance at exactly the same moment there's a spike in demand, the UK steps up. We have lots of expensive - but flexible - peaking capacity. They have lots of inexpensive - but inflexible - baseload capacity.
Yep.
Are you still confident we won't be seeing any blackouts? IMV we're running mightily close.
Brownouts, strictly speaking.
I blame that solar. It has been contributing nothing all night!
Just watched May's speech - as others have observed very well done - and also jolly clever - for example combining remarks on the security of Israel with the Baltic states probably got more applause than the Baltic states would have on their own - but will not have gone un-noticed in Tallinn, Riga or Vilnius...or the Kremlin.....
It was a well crafted speech, as was her recent Brexit effort but she is a very dull speaker. No humour, no changes of tone or pace, no vivid imagery, just a dreary monotone with a feint smile. I do get the impression now that she has a clear idea of what she wants to say and there is an almost Angela bluntness in the way she says it. Maybe it will grow on me.
Brownouts are more likely, but blackouts are still possible. The grid is a miraculous, if rather sensitive, thing.
As it happens, I'll be interested to see what happens if there is a brownout. Electricity is supposed to be supplied in a range of about 220 to 250 Volts, and all Consumer Electronic devices are supposed to handle this range. But experience shows that this is one of the first things that cheap electronics forego, partly because vendors rare check for undervoltage protection.
TLDR; there might be lots of blown electronics after a severe brownout. Or not.
Brownouts are more likely, but blackouts are still possible. The grid is a miraculous, if rather sensitive, thing.
As it happens, I'll be interested to see what happens if there is a brownout. Electricity is supposed to be supplied in a range of about 220 to 250 Volts, and all Consumer Electronic devices are supposed to handle this range. But experience shows that this is one of the first things that cheap electronics forego, partly because vendors rare check for undervoltage protection.
TLDR; there might be lots of blown electronics after a severe brownout. Or not.
I have to say that the GB National Grid status is a fascinating site. UK demand is already in the amber and will not peak for some hours yet. Perhaps our economy is really moving after all.
Just watched May's speech - as others have observed very well done - and also jolly clever - for example combining remarks on the security of Israel with the Baltic states probably got more applause than the Baltic states would have on their own - but will not have gone un-noticed in Tallinn, Riga or Vilnius...or the Kremlin.....
Brownouts are more likely, but blackouts are still possible. The grid is a miraculous, if rather sensitive, thing.
As it happens, I'll be interested to see what happens if there is a brownout. Electricity is supposed to be supplied in a range of about 220 to 250 Volts, and all Consumer Electronic devices are supposed to handle this range. But experience shows that this is one of the first things that cheap electronics forego, partly because vendors rare check for undervoltage protection.
TLDR; there might be lots of blown electronics after a severe brownout. Or not.
I have to say that the GB National Grid status is a fascinating site. UK demand is already in the amber and will not peak for some hours yet. Perhaps our economy is really moving after all.
Or maybe the UK is a cold and dark place in winter? I recall that the annual peak demand used to occur around the second week in January at 1800hrs (assuming it was a cold and windy evening).
Talking of Japan, watched Hacksaw Ridge tonight, very impressive, definitely deserves the plaudits.
It helps explain why invading Honshu would have cost so many lives, and why dropping the atomic weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki probably saved more lives than they killed.
I need to see that film.
When the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs come up in conversation (which they do occasionally), I mention one fact: during the war, the US made 500,000 purple heart medals to be given to people they expected to be injured on the invasion of Japan.
They have used those medals in all their wars since: Korea, Vietnam, the Gulf I and II, Afghanistan and all the other minor ones. In all those conflicts, they haven't used up all those medals made for the invasion.
In other words, the Americans expected to have more people killed and injured in that invasion than have occurred in every war since.
Not only is this far fewer than the number killed in the nuclear bombings, it's only one side: the Japanese army and civilians would have suffered massive numbers of dead and wounded.
There are other facts. I’m with Eisenhower and Szilard (and even the sociopathic Curtis Lemay agreed) that the Hiroshima bomb was probably unnecessary; the destruction of Nagasaki was purely gratuitous.
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_weber.html Henry H. ("Hap") Arnold, commanding General of the Army air forces, declared in his 1949 memoirs: "It always appeared to us, atomic bomb or no atomic bomb, the Japanese were already on the verge of collapse." This was confirmed by former Japanese prime minister Fumimaro Konoye, who said: "Fundamentally, the thing that brought about the determination to make peace was the prolonged bombing by the B-29s.”…
…In an article that finally appeared August 19, 1945, on the front pages of the Chicago Tribune and the Washington Times-Herald, Trohan revealed that on January 20, 1945, two days prior to his departure for the Yalta meeting with Stalin and Churchill, President Roosevelt received a 40-page memorandum from General Douglas MacArthur outlining five separate surrender overtures from high-level Japanese officials. (The complete text of Trohan's article is in the Winter 1985-86 Journal, pp. 508-512.)
This memo showed that the Japanese were offering surrender terms virtually identical to the ones ultimately accepted by the Americans at the formal surrender ceremony on September 2 -- that is, complete surrender of everything but the person of the Emperor...
Talking of Japan, watched Hacksaw Ridge tonight, very impressive, definitely deserves the plaudits.
It helps explain why invading Honshu would have cost so many lives, and why dropping the atomic weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki probably saved more lives than they killed.
I need to see that film.
When the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs
Not only is this far fewer than the number killed in the nuclear bombings, it's only one side: the Japanese army and civilians would have suffered massive numbers of dead and wounded.
There are other facts. I’m with Eisenhower and Szilard (and even the sociopathic Curtis Lemay agreed) that the Hiroshima bomb was probably unnecessary; the destruction of Nagasaki was purely gratuitous.
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_weber.html Henry H. ("Hap") Arnold, commanding General of the Army air forces, declared in his 1949 memoirs: "It always appeared to us, atomic bomb or no atomic bomb, the Japanese were already on the verge of collapse." This was confirmed by former Japanese prime minister Fumimaro Konoye, who said: "Fundamentally, the thing that brought about the determination to make peace was the prolonged bombing by the B-29s.”…
…In an article that finally appeared August 19, 1945, on the front pages of the Chicago Tribune and the Washington Times-Herald, Trohan revealed that on January 20, 1945, two days prior to his departure for the Yalta meeting with Stalin and Churchill, President Roosevelt received a 40-page memorandum from General Douglas MacArthur outlining five separate surrender overtures from high-level Japanese officials. (The complete text of Trohan's article is in the Winter 1985-86 Journal, pp. 508-512.)
This memo showed that the Japanese were offering surrender terms virtually identical to the ones ultimately accepted by the Americans at the formal surrender ceremony on September 2 -- that is, complete surrender of everything but the person of the Emperor...
The Battles of Okinawa and Iwo Jima were still to come at that point, so hardly ready to roll over. The submarine war and B29 raids were destroying Japan, and I personally find that Atom bombs are no more or less brutal than starvation and firebombing. The highest casualty rate of any of the bombing raids was the firebombing of Tokyo, which killed as many as both atom bombs together, just by conventional incendiaries.
War is brutal, the distinction between soldier and civilian is arbitrary, there can be no holds barred in total war.
Brownouts are more likely, but blackouts are still possible. The grid is a miraculous, if rather sensitive, thing.
As it happens, I'll be interested to see what happens if there is a brownout. Electricity is supposed to be supplied in a range of about 220 to 250 Volts, and all Consumer Electronic devices are supposed to handle this range. But experience shows that this is one of the first things that cheap electronics forego, partly because vendors rare check for undervoltage protection.
TLDR; there might be lots of blown electronics after a severe brownout. Or not.
I have to say that the GB National Grid status is a fascinating site. UK demand is already in the amber and will not peak for some hours yet. Perhaps our economy is really moving after all.
And/or we've reduced our baseload generation capacity too much.
Lots of the CCGT capacity is on standby, and is very costly when it is used (as the costs of running the plant have to be regained over the short periods it is in use). This adds to consumers' bills.
It does seem odd that Ms Harman didn't report this earlier
By the late 90s, he was a powerless retired academic and she was at the heart of power as Minister for Women in the New Labour Govt.
By her silence, she is guilty of allowing the (alleged) abuse of power by Prof Sathyamurthy at Univ of York to continue.
But, now she has a book to sell ....
I’m always surprised ..... why, there’s an obvious reason ...... that Labour politicians, when they write their memoirs give a long interview to the Heil.
If Hiroshima hadn't happened isn't it more likely that the Cold War would have culminated in nuclear Armageddon? Whether it was a factor in using it or not, the actual demonstration of the destructive power of the weapon made it's future use less likely.
There are other facts. I’m with Eisenhower and Szilard (and even the sociopathic Curtis Lemay agreed) that the Hiroshima bomb was probably unnecessary; the destruction of Nagasaki was purely gratuitous.
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_weber.html Henry H. ("Hap") Arnold, commanding General of the Army air forces, declared in his 1949 memoirs: "It always appeared to us, atomic bomb or no atomic bomb, the Japanese were already on the verge of collapse." This was confirmed by former Japanese prime minister Fumimaro Konoye, who said: "Fundamentally, the thing that brought about the determination to make peace was the prolonged bombing by the B-29s.”…
…In an article that finally appeared August 19, 1945, on the front pages of the Chicago Tribune and the Washington Times-Herald, Trohan revealed that on January 20, 1945, two days prior to his departure for the Yalta meeting with Stalin and Churchill, President Roosevelt received a 40-page memorandum from General Douglas MacArthur outlining five separate surrender overtures from high-level Japanese officials. (The complete text of Trohan's article is in the Winter 1985-86 Journal, pp. 508-512.)
This memo showed that the Japanese were offering surrender terms virtually identical to the ones ultimately accepted by the Americans at the formal surrender ceremony on September 2 -- that is, complete surrender of everything but the person of the Emperor...
See Dr Sox's response. Also note that after the surrender, the Americans were surprised to see how much material the Japanese had stored ready to protect the home islands. The Yanks thought they'd worn the Japanese down; in reality they'd kept back much more material than expected; in part because of logistics problems in getting it to the Pacific islands.
We cannot know how serious such overtures were. But the experience of the battles before and after shows that surrender was not in the minds of the majority of the senior officers.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were tragedies. But so were Tokyo, Nagoya, Osaka, etc, etc.
Talking of Japan, watched Hacksaw Ridge tonight, very impressive, definitely deserves the plaudits.
It helps explain why invading Honshu would have cost so many lives, and why dropping the atomic weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki probably saved more lives than they killed.
I need to see that film.
When the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs come up in conversation (which they do occasionally), I mention one fact: during the war, the US made 500,000 purple heart medals to be given to people they expected to be injured on the invasion of Japan.
They have used those medals in all their wars since: Korea, Vietnam, the Gulf I and II, Afghanistan and all the other minor ones. In all those conflicts, they haven't used up all those medals made for the invasion.
In other words, the Americans expected to have more people killed and injured in that invasion than have occurred in every war since.
Not only is this far fewer than the number killed in the nuclear bombings, it's only one side: the Japanese army and civilians would have suffered massive numbers of dead and wounded.
Hacksaw Ridge is as visceral as the opening of Saving Private Ryan.
And through it, one extraordinary man really did the most remarkable thing. Unarmed.
If Hiroshima hadn't happened isn't it more likely that the Cold War would have culminated in nuclear Armageddon? Whether it was a factor in using it or not, the actual demonstration of the destructive power of the weapon made it's future use less likely.
A question is how it would have altered the balance between Russia and America. Russia was going to fight Japan from the north (and in fact started before the surrender); the US from the south. How might an extra year or two of war changed the mutual distrust and dislike between the Soviets and the west?
Do you know what happened the last time the world lurched into protectionism? I ask because that was a hell of a lot worse than the current situation: you know the situation where a record proportion of the population is employed.
I would also point out that those developed countries with the fewest trade barriers (like Switzerland, which has a FTA with China) are the ones with the lowest levels of unemployment.
These are genuine questions - I've read opinions for and against such a radical approach, and am undecided. For example, I appreciate that manufacturers might find themselves competing with both cheap foreign imports and asymmetric barriers to exporting, but on the other hand they would have access to tariff-free supplies of all materials - and consumers would surely benefit from tariff-free imports, especially of food, from the rest of the world outside of the EU customs union?
Tariffs are paid for by the country placing them: they are a tax and are paid for by the consumers and producer of that country. Their appeal is emotional rather than economic. For example, Trump's 20% tariff would be paid for by the American consumer buying the good, not the Mexican producer making it. But the American consumer hears "20% tariff against Mexico!" and feels warm free trade with the entire globe.
But if we do that then other countries can put tariffs against us and kill our exporting industries. And no amount of arguing 'honestly we are all better off' is going to make a redundant car worker feel any better.
Patrick Minford who is a strong proponent of that approach made the case that it would raise UK welfare by 4% but that it would eliminate the UKs manufacturing industry. Even if he's right (and there are good reasons to think he isn't) that doesn't sound like a good trade-off!
It's a bit easier for Singapore where they can just execute people... and don't have to worry about elections...
May is no libertarian and certainly not Minford, she will aim for global free trade but if tariffs are imposed on UK goods May will respond with tariffs in kind. Singapore does have elections just generally dominated by one party and it also has no car industry to concern itself with
There are other facts. I’m with Eisenhower and Szilard (and even the sociopathic Curtis Lemay agreed) that the Hiroshima bomb was probably unnecessary; the destruction of Nagasaki was purely gratuitous.
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_weber.html Henry H. ("Hap") Arnold, commanding General of the Army air forces, declared in his 1949 memoirs: "It always appeared to us, atomic bomb or no atomic bomb, the Japanese were already on the verge of collapse." This was confirmed by former Japanese prime minister Fumimaro Konoye, who said: "Fundamentally, the thing that brought about the determination to make peace was the prolonged bombing by the B-29s.”…
…In an article that finally appeared August 19, 1945, on the front pages of the Chicago Tribune and the Washington Times-Herald, Trohan revealed that on January 20, 1945, two days prior to his departure for the Yalta meeting with Stalin and Churchill, President Roosevelt received a 40-page memorandum from General Douglas MacArthur outlining five separate surrender overtures from high-level Japanese officials. (The complete text of Trohan's article is in the Winter 1985-86 Journal, pp. 508-512.)
This memo showed that the Japanese were offering surrender terms virtually identical to the ones ultimately accepted by the Americans at the formal surrender ceremony on September 2 -- that is, complete surrender of everything but the person of the Emperor...
See Dr Sox's response. Also note that after the surrender, the Americans were surprised to see how much material the Japanese had stored ready to protect the home islands. The Yanks thought they'd worn the Japanese down; in reality they'd kept back much more material than expected; in part because of logistics problems in getting it to the Pacific islands.
We cannot know how serious such overtures were. But the experience of the battles before and after shows that surrender was not in the minds of the majority of the senior officers.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were tragedies. But so were Tokyo, Nagoya, Osaka, etc, etc.
Indeed. And the Japanese had tokko - land-based suicide tactics mirroring those already being used in the air. Assessments are that taking Japan conventionally would have incurred heavy casualties on both sides quite possibly exceeding the toll from the nuclear attack.
Fillon says he'll pull out if he's placed under investigation over payments to his wife, which presumably means he's very confident he's safe.
..... or that he realises he's a gonner!
I doubt it given it would require a re run centre right primary and Macron has also now been hit by a scandal about using government funds for exorbitantly expensive dinners and the two of them are the only thing between Le Pen and the Elysee
Is it wise of the Tories to refer to the Republican Party as 'our sister party'? It's a thought that hadn't occurred to me and I wouldn't imagine it's a linkage that would be univerally popular
Is it wise of the Tories to refer to the Republican Party as 'our sister party'? It's a thought that hadn't occurred to me and I wouldn't imagine it's a linkage that would be univerally popular
I think that's your inner ad man. It's a simple rhetorical flourish. People come away from speeches (or presentations for that matter) with a vague overall impression of the speech maker. I'm a politics nerd, and without looking back over the speech I can only remember a few key points even now.
In practical terms, I'd have been happy to vote Republican under Reagan, or even Bush snr. This latest crop? No.
So why is the growth rate 2.0? Now that I have bet money on it with Robert this is particularly perplexing.
It's compound interest so the sum is 100*1.003*1.006*1.006*1.006. However, the error in summing them is small and typically underestimates.
Should that not push up the 2.1% fractionally rather than reduce it? I can see why that might get us to 2.2% on the quarterly basis but I can't see why the "official" number is 2.0.
Is it wise of the Tories to refer to the Republican Party as 'our sister party'? It's a thought that hadn't occurred to me and I wouldn't imagine it's a linkage that would be univerally popular
I think that's your inner ad man. It's a simple rhetorical flourish. People come away from speeches (or presentations for that matter) with a vague overall impression of the speech maker. I'm a politics nerd, and without looking back over the speech I can only remember a few key points even now.
I wasn't thinking of the speech but Michael Fallon on Radio 4 who has just said exactly that
There are other facts. I’m with Eisenhower and Szilard (and even the sociopathic Curtis Lemay agreed) that the Hiroshima bomb was probably unnecessary; the destruction of Nagasaki was purely gratuitous.
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_weber.html Henry H. ("Hap") Arnold, commanding General of the Army air forces, declared in his 1949 memoirs: "It always appeared to us, atomic bomb or no atomic bomb, the Japanese were already on the verge of collapse." This was confirmed by former Japanese prime minister Fumimaro Konoye, who said: "Fundamentally, the thing that brought about the determination to make peace was the prolonged bombing by the B-29s.”…
…In an article that finally appeared August 19, 1945, on the front pages of the Chicago Tribune and the Washington Times-Herald, Trohan revealed that on January 20, 1945, two days prior to his departure for the Yalta meeting with Stalin and Churchill, President Roosevelt received a 40-page memorandum from General Douglas MacArthur outlining five separate surrender overtures from high-level Japanese officials. (The complete text of Trohan's article is in the Winter 1985-86 Journal, pp. 508-512.)
This memo showed that the Japanese were offering surrender terms virtually identical to the ones ultimately accepted by the Americans at the formal surrender ceremony on September 2 -- that is, complete surrender of everything but the person of the Emperor...
Very partial reading of history there. Those various surrender terms were rejected by the Supreme Council for the Direction of the War who continued to reject terms right through into June. They had absolute control over the running of the war answering only to the Emperor and would not consider any form of surrender. ( The exception being Mitsumasa Yonai who did want to end the war early)
There were various junior ministers who came up with peace plans and surrender terms but they were certainly not 'high level' since they had no authority. And even after June when the Emperor was directing that they should look for a means to end the war, the Council rejected the terms of any possible peace deal.
Re electrical demand. It will peak today at 50.5-51.0 (or maybe a little lower). We're currently generating 47.3GW, so we need to bring on line around 3 to 3.5GW of power at peak. And let's add another 2GW for safety margin.
Fortunately, we have 4.8GW of CCGTs that are not currently generating at all. Plus there are another 1 and a bit of open cycle gas turbines available at a moments notice, plus there is industrial power generation that can be brought on. So, there is probably about 7GW of "dispatchable" power as well as a reasonable amount of pumped storage that needs to be factored in. So, we probably have a 4GW margin between the maximum load today, and the maximum available.
That's probably a little closer than we'd normally like. But it's nowhere near brownout territory.
Fair play to Mrs May - she was as circumspect about Trump as a Tory PM is ever going to be about a US Republican president. If she was prepared to say what she did in public, then clearly she has a lot more stored up for private consumption. A more self-aware and politically astute man than Trump might think to himself that if that is what the Conservative leader of the UK government says just months after Brexit, I am going to struggle to win many friends around the world. Trump, of course, will not give a monkeys. As things stand, it will be him and Netanyahu v the rest.
So, 7/10 for the PM - and that's a lot coming from someone like me. The trade deal remains a cause for concern, though. We represent 4% of all the US's export trade; they represent 16% of ours (the EU is 44%, of course). There's only one side that needs something done quickly. But this is one occasion when it will serve us well to take our time.
So why is the growth rate 2.0? Now that I have bet money on it with Robert this is particularly perplexing.
It's compound interest so the sum is 100*1.003*1.006*1.006*1.006. However, the error in summing them is small and typically underestimates.
Should that not push up the 2.1% fractionally rather than reduce it? I can see why that might get us to 2.2% on the quarterly basis but I can't see why the "official" number is 2.0.
Could be rounding errors.
Eg if we go to an extra decimal places at the far extreme then:
So why is the growth rate 2.0? Now that I have bet money on it with Robert this is particularly perplexing.
It's compound interest so the sum is 100*1.003*1.006*1.006*1.006. However, the error in summing them is small and typically underestimates.
Should that not push up the 2.1% fractionally rather than reduce it? I can see why that might get us to 2.2% on the quarterly basis but I can't see why the "official" number is 2.0.
Is it wise of the Tories to refer to the Republican Party as 'our sister party'? It's a thought that hadn't occurred to me and I wouldn't imagine it's a linkage that would be univerally popular
Historically they are but UKIP is really the sister party of Trump's GOP
Brownouts are more likely, but blackouts are still possible. The grid is a miraculous, if rather sensitive, thing.
As it happens, I'll be interested to see what happens if there is a brownout. Electricity is supposed to be supplied in a range of about 220 to 250 Volts, and all Consumer Electronic devices are supposed to handle this range. But experience shows that this is one of the first things that cheap electronics forego, partly because vendors rare check for undervoltage protection.
TLDR; there might be lots of blown electronics after a severe brownout. Or not.
All this talk of brownouts and blackouts being a possibility is rather quaint. If you live in rural areas you will know that blackouts are becoming more and more common.
Is it wise of the Tories to refer to the Republican Party as 'our sister party'? It's a thought that hadn't occurred to me and I wouldn't imagine it's a linkage that would be univerally popular
In practical terms, I'd have been happy to vote Republican under Reagan, or even Bush snr. This latest crop? No.
I'm sure there are plenty on the right who think the same. If ever there was a time for a centrist party-centre right or centre left-this is it and it's the first time in years we haven't had a viable one even on the horizon
So why is the growth rate 2.0? Now that I have bet money on it with Robert this is particularly perplexing.
It's compound interest so the sum is 100*1.003*1.006*1.006*1.006. However, the error in summing them is small and typically underestimates.
Should that not push up the 2.1% fractionally rather than reduce it? I can see why that might get us to 2.2% on the quarterly basis but I can't see why the "official" number is 2.0.
Presumably rounding?
I think it's more a combination of the factors mentioned in section 3 of the release. They seem to iterate over the numbers until they've achieved the best data quality achievable:
Mr. HYUFD, I think there's a risk, with both the French vote and the two by-elections we have coming [as well as more generally], of looking back at 2016 and believing shocks are likelier to occur than they are.
The EU result wasn't as big a shock as it might've been, given the polling. Trump's victory was a shock, but there were signs of it, and Clinton's campaign was diabolical.
Mind you, if Le Pen does win, buy shares in Belgian toilet paper manufacturers.
Is it wise of the Tories to refer to the Republican Party as 'our sister party'? It's a thought that hadn't occurred to me and I wouldn't imagine it's a linkage that would be univerally popular
In practical terms, I'd have been happy to vote Republican under Reagan, or even Bush snr. This latest crop? No.
I'm sure there are plenty on the right who think the same. If ever there was a time for a centrist party-centre right or centre left-this is it and it's the first time in years we haven't had a viable one even on the horizon
Well, I can't be alone in having no real representation in terms of national parties. I'm fiscally dry, socially sopping wet. I'm spoiled for choice on the latter, bereft of choice on the former. The Tories are the current best of a miserable bunch.
Is this right? Apart from the dodginess of one section of a political party making contributions to another political party, was giving it to UKIP the best use of resources?
Still, I suppose those Breaking Point posters didn't print themselves.
Is it wise of the Tories to refer to the Republican Party as 'our sister party'? It's a thought that hadn't occurred to me and I wouldn't imagine it's a linkage that would be univerally popular
In practical terms, I'd have been happy to vote Republican under Reagan, or even Bush snr. This latest crop? No.
I'm sure there are plenty on the right who think the same. If ever there was a time for a centrist party-centre right or centre left-this is it and it's the first time in years we haven't had a viable one even on the horizon
Is it wise of the Tories to refer to the Republican Party as 'our sister party'? It's a thought that hadn't occurred to me and I wouldn't imagine it's a linkage that would be univerally popular
In practical terms, I'd have been happy to vote Republican under Reagan, or even Bush snr. This latest crop? No.
I'm sure there are plenty on the right who think the same. If ever there was a time for a centrist party-centre right or centre left-this is it and it's the first time in years we haven't had a viable one even on the horizon
I feel your pain.
Maybe you just don't know where the political centre really is. Read Cummings' magnus opus.
Is this right? Apart from the dodginess of one section of a political party making contributions to another political party, was giving it to UKIP the best use of resources?
Still, I suppose those Breaking Point posters didn't print themselves.
Labour Leave isn't Labour, any more than Vote Leave was Tory.
Is this right? Apart from the dodginess of one section of a political party making contributions to another political party, was giving it to UKIP the best use of resources?
Still, I suppose those Breaking Point posters didn't print themselves.
Donation type "cash"???
"Labour Leave Ltd" is the name of a private company, not a charity like the Labour Party.
Is this right? Apart from the dodginess of one section of a political party making contributions to another political party, was giving it to UKIP the best use of resources?
Still, I suppose those Breaking Point posters didn't print themselves.
Donation type "cash"???
"Labour Leave Ltd" is the name of a private company, not a charity like the Labour Party.
Brownouts are more likely, but blackouts are still possible. The grid is a miraculous, if rather sensitive, thing.
As it happens, I'll be interested to see what happens if there is a brownout. Electricity is supposed to be supplied in a range of about 220 to 250 Volts, and all Consumer Electronic devices are supposed to handle this range. But experience shows that this is one of the first things that cheap electronics forego, partly because vendors rare check for undervoltage protection.
TLDR; there might be lots of blown electronics after a severe brownout. Or not.
All this talk of brownouts and blackouts being a possibility is rather quaint. If you live in rural areas you will know that blackouts are becoming more and more common.
Really? Outside of really rural areas (i.e. the sort of people who have their own gens because of it) I haven't heard of any recently.
So why is the growth rate 2.0? Now that I have bet money on it with Robert this is particularly perplexing.
It's compound interest so the sum is 100*1.003*1.006*1.006*1.006. However, the error in summing them is small and typically underestimates.
Should that not push up the 2.1% fractionally rather than reduce it? I can see why that might get us to 2.2% on the quarterly basis but I can't see why the "official" number is 2.0.
Could be rounding errors.
Eg if we go to an extra decimal places at the far extreme then:
100*1.0025*1.0055*1.0055*1.0055 = 101.9
David L - yes, hence 'underestimates'. However, these are given to 1 decimal place, so Phillip's point is probably quite close to the truth.
Is he calling on people to demonstrate in support outside the Russian embassy yet?
I was accused of being a Russian troll by PB's great and good for expressing exactly Boris's current statements.
No apology necessary chaps.
I suggest you review your many and (ahem) varied comments about MH17 ...
I wasn't actually thinking of you when I mentioned PB's great and good, but thanks anyway.
Ooooh, bitchy.
You repeatedly backed whatever the latest stupid explanation from the Russians over MH17 was, whether it was 'it was a Ukranian missile' or 'a Ukranian plane was shadowing it and blew it out the sky'.
As they shifted, so did they. Yet I can't recall you commenting on the rather excellent Dutch report?
Re electrical demand. It will peak today at 50.5-51.0 (or maybe a little lower). We're currently generating 47.3GW, so we need to bring on line around 3 to 3.5GW of power at peak. And let's add another 2GW for safety margin.
Fortunately, we have 4.8GW of CCGTs that are not currently generating at all. Plus there are another 1 and a bit of open cycle gas turbines available at a moments notice, plus there is industrial power generation that can be brought on. So, there is probably about 7GW of "dispatchable" power as well as a reasonable amount of pumped storage that needs to be factored in. So, we probably have a 4GW margin between the maximum load today, and the maximum available.
That's probably a little closer than we'd normally like. But it's nowhere near brownout territory.
My 'source' says it's more precarious than that.
All it requires are a couple of unexpected shutdowns and we're in the sh*t. I don't think that'll happen (and I certainly hope it does not). But my argument's always been that we've cut spare capacity too close to the bone. The moment we have to start asking industries to shut down, we've lost.
Fair play to Mrs May - she was as circumspect about Trump as a Tory PM is ever going to be about a US Republican president. If she was prepared to say what she did in public, then clearly she has a lot more stored up for private consumption. A more self-aware and politically astute man than Trump might think to himself that if that is what the Conservative leader of the UK government says just months after Brexit, I am going to struggle to win many friends around the world. Trump, of course, will not give a monkeys. As things stand, it will be him and Netanyahu v the rest.
So, 7/10 for the PM - and that's a lot coming from someone like me. The trade deal remains a cause for concern, though. We represent 4% of all the US's export trade; they represent 16% of ours (the EU is 44%, of course). There's only one side that needs something done quickly. But this is one occasion when it will serve us well to take our time.
Also we're negotiating with Trump, who literally wrote the book on the art of the deal.
Brownouts are more likely, but blackouts are still possible. The grid is a miraculous, if rather sensitive, thing.
As it happens, I'll be interested to see what happens if there is a brownout. Electricity is supposed to be supplied in a range of about 220 to 250 Volts, and all Consumer Electronic devices are supposed to handle this range. But experience shows that this is one of the first things that cheap electronics forego, partly because vendors rare check for undervoltage protection.
TLDR; there might be lots of blown electronics after a severe brownout. Or not.
All this talk of brownouts and blackouts being a possibility is rather quaint. If you live in rural areas you will know that blackouts are becoming more and more common.
Really? Outside of really rural areas (i.e. the sort of people who have their own gens because of it) I haven't heard of any recently.
The most notable in our area recently as 1pm on Christmas day. But we get maybe 1 or 2 a week. Normally for 20-30 minutes. They appear to cover quite a wide area and we have come to accept them as part of living in a rural area.
Comments
Subsequent foreign heads of government might not be so lucky.....or indeed be in a position to meet the GOP as 'fellow Conservatives'.....
Where are all the posters mewling about May 'sucking up to Trump' today?
Washington Governor Jay Inslee says if President Trump's border wall is anything like his inauguration crowd assessment... it'll be 8 inches high:
Meanwhile - I hope no one starts googling Teresa May:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-01-26/white-house-misspells-uk-prime-ministers-name-official-memo-multiple-times
Criticism of the wall *for not being high enough* fits his agenda nicely.
1 it is her own hair and
2 it is its natural colour - which must be nearly unique in Washington
My sense is a decent number of them will forgive a republican president who beat HRC almost anything.
The interconnector was unlucky; the ship, and its crew, very lucky.
http://worldmaritimenews.com/archives/206959/saga-sky-at-anchor-after-being-damaged-in-storm-angus/
You announce that you're building an expensive and useless artefact while simultaneously turning your friendly neighbour into an enemy. A policy so ridiculous the rest of the world has been talking about it incessantly.
And you political opponents taking the piss is keeping it in the news ?
Scott Adams level analysis there.
Patrick Minford who is a strong proponent of that approach made the case that it would raise UK welfare by 4% but that it would eliminate the UKs manufacturing industry. Even if he's right (and there are good reasons to think he isn't) that doesn't sound like a good trade-off!
It's a bit easier for Singapore where they can just execute people... and don't have to worry about elections...
When the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs come up in conversation (which they do occasionally), I mention one fact: during the war, the US made 500,000 purple heart medals to be given to people they expected to be injured on the invasion of Japan.
They have used those medals in all their wars since: Korea, Vietnam, the Gulf I and II, Afghanistan and all the other minor ones. In all those conflicts, they haven't used up all those medals made for the invasion.
In other words, the Americans expected to have more people killed and injured in that invasion than have occurred in every war since.
Not only is this far fewer than the number killed in the nuclear bombings, it's only one side: the Japanese army and civilians would have suffered massive numbers of dead and wounded.
I have slight sympathy with the argument that the second - Nagasaki - should not have been dropped, but I don't agree with it.
Let's hope we never, ever, get the world into that sort of state agaihn.
Ooops, just realised "Not only is this far fewer" in my last paragraph should have been "Not only is this far more/i>". Sorry.
It's very old but Toland's 'Rising Sun' is an excellent one volume history of the Pacific War from the Japanese perspective. If you ever wanted to use the phrase "Lions led by donkeys" it's far more usefully applied to the Japanese war effort than WW1 Britain.
Are you still confident we won't be seeing any blackouts? IMV we're running mightily close.
A short video showing how the computer graphics for the original Star Wars were made:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMeSw00n3Ac
Fascinating if you're a techie sci-fi geek.
Who can see something wrong with the graphics shown in the film compared to the Death Star as it appeared in the film?
Note: the trench runs vertically up the Death Star, and is not the large equatorial trench most people seem to think it is.
As it happens, I'll be interested to see what happens if there is a brownout. Electricity is supposed to be supplied in a range of about 220 to 250 Volts, and all Consumer Electronic devices are supposed to handle this range. But experience shows that this is one of the first things that cheap electronics forego, partly because vendors rare check for undervoltage protection.
TLDR; there might be lots of blown electronics after a severe brownout. Or not.
By the late 90s, he was a powerless retired academic and she was at the heart of power as Minister for Women in the New Labour Govt.
By her silence, she is guilty of allowing the (alleged) abuse of power by Prof Sathyamurthy at Univ of York to continue.
But, now she has a book to sell ....
So why is the growth rate 2.0? Now that I have bet money on it with Robert this is particularly perplexing.
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_weber.html
Henry H. ("Hap") Arnold, commanding General of the Army air forces, declared in his 1949 memoirs: "It always appeared to us, atomic bomb or no atomic bomb, the Japanese were already on the verge of collapse." This was confirmed by former Japanese prime minister Fumimaro Konoye, who said: "Fundamentally, the thing that brought about the determination to make peace was the prolonged bombing by the B-29s.”…
…In an article that finally appeared August 19, 1945, on the front pages of the Chicago Tribune and the Washington Times-Herald, Trohan revealed that on January 20, 1945, two days prior to his departure for the Yalta meeting with Stalin and Churchill, President Roosevelt received a 40-page memorandum from General Douglas MacArthur outlining five separate surrender overtures from high-level Japanese officials. (The complete text of Trohan's article is in the Winter 1985-86 Journal, pp. 508-512.)
This memo showed that the Japanese were offering surrender terms virtually identical to the ones ultimately accepted by the Americans at the formal surrender ceremony on September 2 -- that is, complete surrender of everything but the person of the Emperor...
War is brutal, the distinction between soldier and civilian is arbitrary, there can be no holds barred in total war.
Lots of the CCGT capacity is on standby, and is very costly when it is used (as the costs of running the plant have to be regained over the short periods it is in use). This adds to consumers' bills.
Despite a reliably comical delivery, Diane Abbott was speaking sense on the radio this morning.
We cannot know how serious such overtures were. But the experience of the battles before and after shows that surrender was not in the minds of the majority of the senior officers.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were tragedies. But so were Tokyo, Nagoya, Osaka, etc, etc.
And through it, one extraordinary man really did the most remarkable thing. Unarmed.
https://twitter.com/paddypower/status/824748247512150017
Mr. HYUFD, don't forget the electorate, and the system. It's very much an uphill struggle for Le Pen.
In practical terms, I'd have been happy to vote Republican under Reagan, or even Bush snr. This latest crop? No.
There were various junior ministers who came up with peace plans and surrender terms but they were certainly not 'high level' since they had no authority. And even after June when the Emperor was directing that they should look for a means to end the war, the Council rejected the terms of any possible peace deal.
Fortunately, we have 4.8GW of CCGTs that are not currently generating at all. Plus there are another 1 and a bit of open cycle gas turbines available at a moments notice, plus there is industrial power generation that can be brought on. So, there is probably about 7GW of "dispatchable" power as well as a reasonable amount of pumped storage that needs to be factored in. So, we probably have a 4GW margin between the maximum load today, and the maximum available.
That's probably a little closer than we'd normally like. But it's nowhere near brownout territory.
So, 7/10 for the PM - and that's a lot coming from someone like me. The trade deal remains a cause for concern, though. We represent 4% of all the US's export trade; they represent 16% of ours (the EU is 44%, of course). There's only one side that needs something done quickly. But this is one occasion when it will serve us well to take our time.
Eg if we go to an extra decimal places at the far extreme then:
100*1.0025*1.0055*1.0055*1.0055 = 101.9
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/grossdomesticproductgdp/bulletins/grossdomesticproductpreliminaryestimate/octtodec2016
The EU result wasn't as big a shock as it might've been, given the polling. Trump's victory was a shock, but there were signs of it, and Clinton's campaign was diabolical.
Mind you, if Le Pen does win, buy shares in Belgian toilet paper manufacturers.
Is this right? Apart from the dodginess of one section of a political party making contributions to another political party, was giving it to UKIP the best use of resources?
Still, I suppose those Breaking Point posters didn't print themselves.
Would you like a bet on her being less than 20 points behind in the second round?
"Labour Leave Ltd" is the name of a private company, not a charity like the Labour Party.
*Raises an eyebrow like Mr Spock*
You repeatedly backed whatever the latest stupid explanation from the Russians over MH17 was, whether it was 'it was a Ukranian missile' or 'a Ukranian plane was shadowing it and blew it out the sky'.
As they shifted, so did they. Yet I can't recall you commenting on the rather excellent Dutch report?
Paging Ed Miliband to thread. Paging Ed Miliband.
John Mills is the chairman of JML.
All it requires are a couple of unexpected shutdowns and we're in the sh*t. I don't think that'll happen (and I certainly hope it does not). But my argument's always been that we've cut spare capacity too close to the bone. The moment we have to start asking industries to shut down, we've lost.