politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Fracking debate: We support even though we think it cou

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Fracking debate: We support even though we think it could be damaging to the environment and NOT in our back yard

politicalbetting.com is proudly powered by WordPress
with "Neat!" theme. Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS).

Read the full story here

AndreaParma_82

So the government should frack in Con-UKIP seats as it's a popular measure.

AveryLP

The problem for Labour is not a perception that fracking is bad for the environment, but a belief that it may suppress the culture of welfare dependency in their Northern heartlands.

The reaction to Lord Howell's remarks last week were a clear indication of this mindset.

Plato

FPT

AA Gill skewers C4

"But it does raise a question that’s been bothering Tristrams for some time: what is the point of Channel 4? It has lost its role of being the smart young modern vision of high-low culture and turned into a car-boot sale of second-hand ideas and really unpleasant victim trolling. Its early-evening staples, cooking, house makeovers, light history and geography, are haemorrhaging audiences. It is now regularly being beaten in the ratings by Richard Desmond’s Channel 5. But a show on a man with 10st testicles gets 4m viewers. So it has to decide whether it’s going to race to the bottom and become a Victorian freak show, with a veil of access to minorities and a bucketful of irony that will stand in for taste and aesthetics.

The rest of us have to ask: do we really want or need a terrestrial subsidised channel that shows Shit Yourself Thin, Weird Things Doctors Find Up Front Bottoms, I Ate My Twin, Two Heads — Better Than One?, Sex Change Challenge, Mum’s Really My Sister and Women Who Love Donkeys Too Much?

...Mind you, talking of brands that have lost their identity, what on terrestrial TV was the BBC thinking of when it commissioned I Love My Country? And then, what was the cognitive process that allowed it actually to broadcast it? This wasn’t just competing with ITV on its own home patch, popular light entertainment. This tacky jumble of embarrassing jingoism was the type of programme nobody has made in this country for 30 years. Few things are as embarrassing as random expressions of unhinged patriotism. It’s essentially declaring your love for a busful of strangers, or kissing a pavement. It’s not something evolved communities in grown-up nations do...." http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/culture/film_and_tv/tv/article1294338.ece

For the Mirror's view of ILMC - its even worse - http://www.mirror.co.uk/opinion/lifestyle-opinion/love-country-bbcs-celebrity-panel-2120863

Andy_JS

While they're protesting against fracking we can get on with planting GM crops.

Plato

Andy_JS said:

While they're protesting against fracking we can get on with planting GM crops.

Have you seen what Greenpeace is stopping in their march against GM? Golden rice would save millions from an awful disability, but its GM'd so EVIL.

I despair at this sort of ideological nonsense.

This from 2005 shows how misplaced lobbying [like Brent Spar] is more harm than good

"UK scientists have developed a new genetically modified strain of "golden rice", producing more beta-carotene.

The human body converts beta-carotene into vitamin A, and this strain produces around 20 times as much as previous varieties.

It could help reduce vitamin A deficiency and childhood blindness in developing countries.

The World Health Organization estimates up to 500,000 children go blind each year because of vitamin A deficiency." http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4386933.stm

anotherDave

SeanT said:

Wait until everyone realises that if we don't frack we are going to get relatively poorer, very quickly, and that what's left of our manufacturing will disappear to countries that do frack (and therefore have cheaper energy).

European resistance to fracking is a new, stupider form of Luddism. It's like legislating against engines, because we have beautiful oxen. It's the Polish cavalry against Nazi tanks.

I think HMG has already committed us to more expensive energy, by giving long term price guarantees to subsidy farmers.

redcliffe62

AndreaParma_82 said:

So the government should frack in Con-UKIP seats as it's a popular measure.

Fracking near London instead of Caithness or Pembrokeshire would show an interest in contributing to a British energy strategy....
Just kidding, they have no interest as they control spending and pollies want it as far from them as possible too.

Nuclear weapons near Plymouth instead of Glasgow? Too dangerous apparently. Lose a few Glaswegians and who cares, just WW1 fodder all over again 100 years later.

richardDodd

SO,, FPT..Glad I made your day yesterday..go and re read your posts..You must be having a whale of a time on holiday if a post on PB makes your day .. Have you worked out how far away from the UK you are..you claimed it was 6,000 miles a few days ago..Must come as a surprise to the locals to find out they are actually on the Pacific coast..

richardDodd

The Government should frack in any constituency .. we need the juice...waiting until the lights go out is simply not acceptable..

JosiasJessop

AveryLP said:

The problem for Labour is not a perception that fracking is bad for the environment, but a belief that it may suppress the culture of welfare dependency in their Northern heartlands.

The reaction to Lord Howell's remarks last week were a clear indication of this mindset.

Lord Howell got it wrong. Whilst I agree that parts of the northeast are indeed desolate, his comments were politically naive and he mentioned the wrong area.

The opponents of fracking do serve a purpose in putting pressure on the companies to keep it honest. The problem is that many of opponents' claims are stupid and overwrought - there have been some corkers in the last week.

I am in favour of fracking with caveats. One thing I would say: companies should not be able to frack without saying what chemicals they are putting into the ground. There should be regular spot-checks to ensure that they are doing as they say.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_additives_for_hydraulic_fracturing

The fact that some companies refuse to say what additives are used makes me suspicious, to say the least.

Plato

AveryLP said:

The problem for Labour is not a perception that fracking is bad for the environment, but a belief that it may suppress the culture of welfare dependency in their Northern heartlands.

The reaction to Lord Howell's remarks last week were a clear indication of this mindset.

As I understand it - the fracking isn't fracking in Sussex but drilling and they have a permit to do this for 40 days.

And if I were still a resident in Geordieland, I'd be delighted if they discovered fields of it.

Up the road from me we had a proposal to build a wood burning energy plant - according to the local press/chats with neighbours it was largely turned down because of the traffic it'd create via lorries not because we had an ideological issue re wood incinerators . I'm sure someone who lives 250 miles away will tell me I'm wrong and they know better using Google.

Living within 2 miles of the proposed site makes my comments *anecdotes*

richardDodd

Redcliffe .. so it was only Scots who were slaughterd in WW1..Amazing..

AveryLP

Root knocks out Warner!

[TMS is better: "Hook by Warner caught by Root"]

isam

Plato said:

AveryLP said:

The problem for Labour is not a perception that fracking is bad for the environment, but a belief that it may suppress the culture of welfare dependency in their Northern heartlands.

The reaction to Lord Howell's remarks last week were a clear indication of this mindset.

As I understand it - the fracking isn't fracking in Sussex but drilling and they have a permit to do this for 40 days.

And if I were still a resident in Geordieland, I'd be delighted if they discovered fields of it.

Up the road from me we had a proposal to build a wood burning energy plant - according to the local press/chats with neighbours it was largely turned down because of the traffic it'd create via lorries not because we had an ideological issue re wood incinerators . I'm sure someone who lives 250 miles away will tell me I'm wrong and they know better using Google.

Living within 2 miles of the proposed site makes my comments *anecdotes*

The gravitas attached to MaxPBs anecdotes by people who are usually dismissive of personal experiences being relayed on here should never be forgotten

This is not to be dismissive of MaxPBs experience last week,I have no doubt he had a good point

isam

By the way, may I recommend raceclear.co.uk to all horse racing punters? Results are on the website for all to see and they are incredible

Plato

As I noted eariler - the Guardian has just *discovered* that Mr Messina a decade ago did something they think now is *spit* HOMOPHOBIC *spit*

But they never noticed until now.

I just despair at such partisan tosh whomever peddles it.

isam said:

Plato said:

AveryLP said:

The problem for Labour is not a perception that fracking is bad for the environment, but a belief that it may suppress the culture of welfare dependency in their Northern heartlands.

The reaction to Lord Howell's remarks last week were a clear indication of this mindset.

As I understand it - the fracking isn't fracking in Sussex but drilling and they have a permit to do this for 40 days.

And if I were still a resident in Geordieland, I'd be delighted if they discovered fields of it.

Up the road from me we had a proposal to build a wood burning energy plant - according to the local press/chats with neighbours it was largely turned down because of the traffic it'd create via lorries not because we had an ideological issue re wood incinerators . I'm sure someone who lives 250 miles away will tell me I'm wrong and they know better using Google.

Living within 2 miles of the proposed site makes my comments *anecdotes*

The gravitas attached to MaxPBs anecdotes by people who are usually dismissive of personal experiences being relayed on here should never be forgotten

This is not to be dismissive of MaxPBs experience last week,I have no doubt he had a good point

MarkSenior

My personal view of fracking is that we should develop the technology for extracting the shale gas/oil then leave it in the ground to be extracted at a much later date . We should be able to buy cheaper fuel from other countries who are selling their shale gas/oil in the immediate future and have a much more valuable asset when theirs has run out .

AveryLP

MarkSenior said:

My personal view of fracking is that we should develop the technology for extracting the shale gas/oil then leave it in the ground to be extracted at a much later date . We should be able to buy cheaper fuel from other countries who are selling their shale gas/oil in the immediate future and have a much more valuable asset when theirs has run out .

Frontload the costs and backload the revenues?

Sounds more Lib Dem than personal, Mark.

GIN1138

If everybody's gas and lecky bills were halved I suspect Fracking would quickly be accepted even by those that have it on their door-step, to say nothing of all the employment opportunities Fracking could present.

Only the governments of silly backward looking, recession ravaged Europe could wring their hands and wail about Shale while the rest of the world rushes on board the Shale bandwagon.

MarkSenior

AveryLP said:

MarkSenior said:

My personal view of fracking is that we should develop the technology for extracting the shale gas/oil then leave it in the ground to be extracted at a much later date . We should be able to buy cheaper fuel from other countries who are selling their shale gas/oil in the immediate future and have a much more valuable asset when theirs has run out .

Frontload the costs and backload the revenues?

Sounds more Lib Dem than personal, Mark.

Investing for the future , not something Conservatives ever think off .

DavidL

You put a test match you need to draw in Manchester. You need a bit of rain. Why is this proving so problematic?

Plato

Yup. It's commonplace across the globe already and a minority of loud voices say it'll destroy the planet and poison us all to boot - well that hasn't happened yet and given all their other dire warnings - I'm a trifle sceptical.

GIN1138 said:

If everybody's gas and lecky bills were halved I suspect Fracking would quickly be accepted even by those that have it on their door-step, to say nothing of all the employment opportunities Fracking could present.

Only the governments of silly backward looking, recession ravaged Europe could wring their hands and wail about Shale while the rest of the world rushes on board the Shale bandwagon.

Pulpstar

Poor article that puts 2 and 2 together and gets 5:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23538771

"US scientists found that even small changes in temperature or rainfall correlated with a rise in assaults, rapes and murders, as well as group conflicts and war."

Fair enough

"The researchers say they are now trying to understand why this causal relationship exists."

Where did these so called journalists go to school. Correlation does not imply causation !!!!!!!

GIN1138

A couple of points:

Whenever I see people on PB talking about "Crosby" it takes me about 5 seconds to realise they are talking about Lynton and not Rod.

Is todays MoS/Survation poll showing more people would support a continuation of the Con/Lib coalition over a Lab-Lib coalition an opinion poll first?

If so, could be significant?

isam

tim said:

Frack, build houses, expand Heathrow, replace NIMBYs with immigrants and kill all cats.

Sorted.

Ignoring that nonsense, your post in the last thread that quoted Derek Laud, many people on here seem to think it was Farage saying "I've never called anyone racist".

Farage hasn't mentioned race regarding the spot checks or vans has he? He was commenting on Lynton Crosbys covert ukip op when he spoke of "politics of the gutter"

Andy_JS

Mugabe didn't rig elections until he realised he couldn't win them legitimately any more.

The elephant in the room is that the same thing could happen in South Africa with the ANC.

FluffyThoughts

redcliffe62 said:

AndreaParma_82 said:

So the government should frack in Con-UKIP seats as it's a popular measure.

Fracking near London instead of Caithness or Pembrokeshire would show an interest in contributing to a British energy strategy....
Just kidding, they have no interest as they control spending and pollies want it as far from them as possible too.

Nuclear weapons near Plymouth instead of Glasgow? Too dangerous apparently. Lose a few Glaswegians and who cares, just WW1 fodder all over again 100 years later.

I read this yesterday at Wiki yesterday. As a Wigan-born "Scot" I thought you'd might appreciate the following section....

Andy_JS

Australia 4 wickets down, leading by 262.

GIN1138

Is Tim a secret Twitcher? :O

GeoffM

@Plato Dire warnings? One of these days, just like the Great Circling Poets of Arium, we'll be wiped out by a virulent disease contracted from a dirty telephone.

Then we'll be sorry.

[obscure geek reference is obscure]

DecrepitJohnL

Pulpstar said:

Poor article that puts 2 and 2 together and gets 5:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23538771

"US scientists found that even small changes in temperature or rainfall correlated with a rise in assaults, rapes and murders, as well as group conflicts and war."

Fair enough

"The researchers say they are now trying to understand why this causal relationship exists."

Where did these so called journalists go to school. Correlation does not imply causation !!!!!!!

It is not the journalists but the researchers who say there is a causal relationship, though they are economists. There is a recent trend for economists to have given up on economics in favour of metaanalyses or regression analyses of large data sets from other disciplines, as here.

Plato

isam said:

tim said:

Frack, build houses, expand Heathrow, replace NIMBYs with immigrants and kill all cats.

Sorted.

Ignoring that nonsense, your post in the last thread that quoted Derek Laud, many people on here seem to think it was Farage saying "I've never called anyone racist".

Farage hasn't mentioned race regarding the spot checks or vans has he? He was commenting on Lynton Crosbys covert ukip op when he spoke of "politics of the gutter"

Frankly anyone who seriously think Mr Crosby is masterminding an anti-Kipper campaign to dig up indiscretions by their 139 councillors needs their head examining.

I read the supposed account of this *covert* strategy and LOL - was it supplied by Lord Oakeshott?

I mean really. UKIP have a rounding figure of councillors compared to the Tories. IIRC they've got about 8000 which is the same as all the LD and Labour ones combined. Why would they possibly want to set up some spying ring to root out 139 Kippers that the local press hadn't done?

That Mr Farage is getting all huffing about it is neither here nor there.

Andy_JS

The Stop Phubbing campaign:

http://stopphubbing.com/

GeoffM

Pulpstar said:

"The researchers say they are now trying to understand why this causal relationship exists."
Where did these so called journalists go to school. Correlation does not imply causation !!!!!!!

On the other hand, as the products of a crippled lefty education system it might actually be the scientists themselves who are making that mistake.

We're stuck with that sort of stupidity, whether it be from the scientists or the journalists, until Gove's reforms start to blossom.

Plato

GeoffM said:

@Plato Dire warnings? One of these days, just like the Great Circling Poets of Arium, we'll be wiped out by a virulent disease contracted from a dirty telephone.

Then we'll be sorry.

[obscure geek reference is obscure]

Then I'll be really sorry for not being on the B Ark...

DecrepitJohnL

GIN1138 said:

If everybody's gas and lecky bills were halved I suspect Fracking would quickly be accepted even by those that have it on their door-step, to say nothing of all the employment opportunities Fracking could present.

Only the governments of silly backward looking, recession ravaged Europe could wring their hands and wail about Shale while the rest of the world rushes on board the Shale bandwagon.

It will doubtless be the same story under both main parties -- privatise the profits: nationalise the risks -- for fracking, the Chancellor has already given tax breaks but it will be the state which picks up the tab if there it does lead to ground water pollution or earthquakes.

MarkSenior

SeanT said:

MarkSenior said:

My personal view of fracking is that we should develop the technology for extracting the shale gas/oil then leave it in the ground to be extracted at a much later date . We should be able to buy cheaper fuel from other countries who are selling their shale gas/oil in the immediate future and have a much more valuable asset when theirs has run out .

Uhm, er, *cough*, what will happen, Mark, is that countries with shale gas reserves will first use these resources themselves, for their own industries, making their economies much more competitive. This is what is already happening in America.

The Chinese, Indians, and Brazilians will do the same.

Will oil prices drop as a result of this? Probably, but we will still be at a disadvantage compared to countries paying almost nothing for energy from their own shale plays.

Furthermore, your party is determined to press on with renewable energy sources, which will, quite likely, be completely unaffordable in the future, thanks to shale.

And finally, it is possible that there is so much shale gas out there, the planet won't run out for a century, so you'll be waiting an awful long time for your jam tomorrow strategy to pay off.

Apart from that, good idea.

Probably , quite likely , possible - not keen on posting facts are you , Sean . My point is that having developed the technology it can be implemented in a short period of time should any of your possibilities arise . Jam pots in the cupboard for many years instead of a jam fest today and bare bread and butter tomorrow .

Plato

Andy_JS said:

The Stop Phubbing campaign:

http://stopphubbing.com/

Perhaps this is oversharing - but I had a BF who wanted to answer his phone during sex.

I mean really? I'd like to think I wasn't that dull...

Slackbladder

I'm also following #twittersilence today, but that's due to me not having anything inane or self absorbed to say.

AveryLP

MarkSenior said:

AveryLP said:

MarkSenior said:

My personal view of fracking is that we should develop the technology for extracting the shale gas/oil then leave it in the ground to be extracted at a much later date . We should be able to buy cheaper fuel from other countries who are selling their shale gas/oil in the immediate future and have a much more valuable asset when theirs has run out .

Frontload the costs and backload the revenues?

Sounds more Lib Dem than personal, Mark.

Investing for the future , not something Conservatives ever think off .

Investment without prospect of a return is not investment. It is consumption expense.

Now you are beginning to sound Brrownian.

Perhaps you are a Lib-Lab coalition supporter, Mark?

Let's put it to the test.

What is the present value of a £1 million cash flow deferred for 70 years? Discount at your cost of capital (say, 3%, min).

You can answer on the back of a postage stamp.

Plato

Slackbladder said:

I'm also following #twittersilence today, but that's due to me not having anything inane or self absorbed to say.

I can't recall the last time I laughed so much since Eurovision - its been very funny for many different reasons. The spoof accounts were epic after midnight and the BBC thinking @Skip_Licker masquerading as @Trolliday and a legit voice was marvellous.

He/she's a very libertarian tranny.

Trolliday @Trolliday
Hi @CCriadoPerez we're lighting candles every time you tweet during #TwitterSilence can you stop as we've now had to take a wonga loan

Stella Creasy started tweeting before 10am - what epic self-control that was for one of its main protagonists.

DecrepitJohnL

GeoffM said:

On the other hand, as the products of a crippled lefty education system it might actually be the scientists themselves who are making that mistake.

We're stuck with that sort of stupidity, whether it be from the scientists or the journalists, until Gove's reforms start to blossom.

Here is a video of the lead researcher presenting the results.
http://emiguel.econ.berkeley.edu/writing-and-talks/talks/conflict-climate-and-african-development

His accent sounds suspiciously American, in which case he'd have been unaffected by the crippled lefty education system introduced here by Mrs Thatcher's Labour government.

isam

tim said:

isam said:

tim said:

Frack, build houses, expand Heathrow, replace NIMBYs with immigrants and kill all cats.

Sorted.

Ignoring that nonsense, your post in the last thread that quoted Derek Laud, many people on here seem to think it was Farage saying "I've never called anyone racist".

Farage hasn't mentioned race regarding the spot checks or vans has he? He was commenting on Lynton Crosbys covert ukip op when he spoke of "politics of the gutter"

I pointed that out to the Key Stage 2 Tories twice when I saw their lack of understanding.
What can you do Sam, Mike gives me these people to work with, I don't choose them

To be fair, you did point it out

It seemed that a whole thread was dominated by a misunderstanding

As a fellow bettor I implore you to follow the horse racing tops of raceclear on twitter... Free everyday, 8 months consecutive profit

Slackbladder

tim said:

Slackbladder said:

I'm also following #twittersilence today, but that's due to me not having anything inane or self absorbed to say.

There's a first.

Getting some self-awareness is also good advice.

MarkSenior

AveryLP said:

MarkSenior said:

AveryLP said:

MarkSenior said:

My personal view of fracking is that we should develop the technology for extracting the shale gas/oil then leave it in the ground to be extracted at a much later date . We should be able to buy cheaper fuel from other countries who are selling their shale gas/oil in the immediate future and have a much more valuable asset when theirs has run out .

Frontload the costs and backload the revenues?

Sounds more Lib Dem than personal, Mark.

Investing for the future , not something Conservatives ever think off .

Investment without prospect of a return is not investment. It is consumption expense.

Now you are beginning to sound Brrownian.

Perhaps you are a Lib-Lab coalition supporter, Mark?

Let's put it to the test.

What is the present value of a £1 million cash flow deferred for 70 years? Discount at your cost of capital (say, 3%, min).

You can answer on the back of a postage stamp.

Why is there no prospect of a return ? The Avery view of Conservatism - exploit everything you can within the shortest time scale and don't concern yourself about the future .

TGOHF

American private enterprise - not the govt - has enabled their revolution. Lucky them.

Ignore these polls of proles and frack like crazy.

Hairshirts are so last decade.

GeoffM

Plato said:

Then I'll be really sorry for not being on the B Ark...

My apologies After Nick Palmer didn't know the Napoleon/Snowball reference yesterday I was being overly careful with using one myself.

Plato

Dearie me - Labour are pushing out stickers saying "Never kissed a Tory"

This makes 6th form politics look intelligent.

Gareth Baines @GABaines
Labour handing out "Never Kiss A Tory" stickers at Leeds Pride - is this all they have to offer? How puerile.

richardDodd

Brilliant ...Labour Policy Number one.. Never kiss a Tory...that ought to go some way to solving the deficit problem , immigration problem, The Eu, Defence costs etc, not to mention The NHS.
Fantastic.. Crosby will be shaking in his shoes with that one..

richardDodd

ask the people at Leeds Pride...they seem to think it is relevant..must be a relief to a lot of Tories tho..

AveryLP

MarkSenior said:

AveryLP said:

MarkSenior said:

AveryLP said:

MarkSenior said:

My personal view of fracking is that we should develop the technology for extracting the shale gas/oil then leave it in the ground to be extracted at a much later date . We should be able to buy cheaper fuel from other countries who are selling their shale gas/oil in the immediate future and have a much more valuable asset when theirs has run out .

Frontload the costs and backload the revenues?

Sounds more Lib Dem than personal, Mark.

Investing for the future , not something Conservatives ever think off .

Investment without prospect of a return is not investment. It is consumption expense.

Now you are beginning to sound Brrownian.

Perhaps you are a Lib-Lab coalition supporter, Mark?

Let's put it to the test.

What is the present value of a £1 million cash flow deferred for 70 years? Discount at your cost of capital (say, 3%, min).

You can answer on the back of a postage stamp.

Why is there no prospect of a return ? The Avery view of Conservatism - exploit everything you can within the shortest time scale and don't concern yourself about the future .

My dear Mark.

This needs putting simply.

Say you decided to spend an evening at home watching one of Plato's hot tip US HDTV series.

You stretch on the sofa and your hand slips down its back. Instead of finding last weeks overspill of prawn biryani your fingers detect something cold and metallic.

Excitedly you draw it out. You discover you have a silver Henri IX touchpiece, struck by Giovanni Hamerani with a three masted ship on one side and St Michael destroying a dragon on t'other.

Soli Deo Gloria!

Immediately you text your bank manager and plead that he holds off the bailiffs 'til Monday. You then telephone JackW and offer him the coin for a thousand pounds.

JackW has seen and heard everything in his long life. He chuckles and teases and then offers to pay you £10,000 in 70 years time.

Would you accept Jack's offer?

redcliffe62

richardDodd said:

Redcliffe .. so it was only Scots who were slaughterd in WW1..Amazing..

It certainly was not the just Scots, however they were deemed more expendable in official records whereas some others were a little bit more respected.

Of the 557,000 Scots who enlisted in all services, 26.4 percent lost their lives. Including my dad's uncle George in 1916 at the Somme. This compares with an average death rate of 11.8 percent for the rest of the British army between 1914 and 1918. Facts beyond reproach and statistically proveable that confirm Scots died at a greater rate as pro rata more were put into battle first "over the top". Machine gun fodder.
12% or 13% is statistical variation, double that figure is not.

All slaughter in that imperial war caused by an inter family rivalry was abhorrent.

redcliffe62

FluffyThoughts said:

redcliffe62 said:

AndreaParma_82 said:

So the government should frack in Con-UKIP seats as it's a popular measure.

Fracking near London instead of Caithness or Pembrokeshire would show an interest in contributing to a British energy strategy....
Just kidding, they have no interest as they control spending and pollies want it as far from them as possible too.

Nuclear weapons near Plymouth instead of Glasgow? Too dangerous apparently. Lose a few Glaswegians and who cares, just WW1 fodder all over again 100 years later.

I read this yesterday at Wiki yesterday. As a Wigan-born "Scot" I thought you'd might appreciate the following section....

I well remember having Burmah shares via my dad when young in the 70's and they were going downhill when other oil companies were going the other way.
Oil and politics are tied at the hip. The North Sea being no different.

richardDodd

redcliffe Deemed more expendable by????

redcliffe62

richardDodd said:

redcliffe Deemed more expendable by????

Pretty straightforward, those that made the decisions. Acceptable losses are hard to equate. Blackadder had it right when the land gained was shown at an actual scale of 1:1.

MarkSenior

SeanT said:

MarkSenior said:

SeanT said:

MarkSenior said:

My personal view of fracking is that we should develop the technology for extracting the shale gas/oil then leave it in the ground to be extracted at a much later date . We should be able to buy cheaper fuel from other countries who are selling their shale gas/oil in the immediate future and have a much more valuable asset when theirs has run out .

Probably , quite likely , possible - not keen on posting facts are you , Sean . My point is that having developed the technology it can be implemented in a short period of time should any of your possibilities arise . Jam pots in the cupboard for many years instead of a jam fest today and bare bread and butter tomorrow .

Facts are not required to counter your argument: merely logic. What you are saying is one of the silliest things I've ever heard.

Here's just one problem (of many) in your proposal: by the time we decided to extract our hoarded shale (in 50 years? 100?) someone might have invented nuclear fusion, or some other infinite resource of energy, meaning that all your jam will have gone off in the cupboard.

Now I must go shoppin'. Northern Scotland tomorrow!

Some years in the future , a shivering SeanT with great granddaughter on knee .

Was it always as cold as this in winter great grandad ?
No when I was younger we had lots of shale gas which we used up as fast as we could and sold off to make us better off at the time .
Did you not think of what might happen when it ran out great grandad ?
No we assumed someone would invent something that would take it's place .
You mean like solar and wind power . Didn't the party you support stop the developement saying it was a waste of money with all that shale gas ?

dr_spyn

Newts 24 : evidence emerges of senior Labour figure in compromising position with Tory voting researcher/candidate/supporter/backer.

http://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/from-the-archive-blog/2013/apr/17/attlee-funeral-1967-thatcher

So Mr Miliband is the slogan 'Never kissed a Tory' a reflection of Labour's inclusive appeal....
or is it a youthful indiscretion?

Sensible Labourites will be wondering who endorsed this crass slogan.

richardDodd

redcliffe you said they were deemed expendable..Do you have minutes of the General staff meeting where it was decided that Scots should die in large numbers first..who was the Senior officer at that meeting and which of his Generals were commanded to carry out that order.. If there is verifiable proof of any of that there must be some form of redress...Or maybe the Scots just had a bloody hard time of it..

MarkSenior

AveryLP said:

MarkSenior said:

AveryLP said:

MarkSenior said:

AveryLP said:

MarkSenior said:

My personal view of fracking is that we should develop the technology for extracting the shale gas/oil then leave it in the ground to be extracted at a much later date . We should be able to buy cheaper fuel from other countries who are selling their shale gas/oil in the immediate future and have a much more valuable asset when theirs has run out .

Frontload the costs and backload the revenues?

Sounds more Lib Dem than personal, Mark.

Investing for the future , not something Conservatives ever think off .


Why is there no prospect of a return ? The Avery view of Conservatism - exploit everything you can within the shortest time scale and don't concern yourself about the future .

My dear Mark.

This needs putting simply.

Say you decided to spend an evening at home watching one of Plato's hot tip US HDTV series.

You stretch on the sofa and your hand slips down its back. Instead of finding last weeks overspill of prawn biryani your fingers detect something cold and metallic.

Excitedly you draw it out. You discover you have a silver Henri IX touchpiece, struck by Giovanni Hamerani with a three masted ship on one side and St Michael destroying a dragon on t'other.

Soli Deo Gloria!

Immediately you text your bank manager and plead that he holds off the bailiffs 'til Monday. You then telephone JackW and offer him the coin for a thousand pounds.

JackW has seen and heard everything in his long life. He chuckles and teases and then offers to pay you £10,000 in 70 years time.

Would you accept Jack's offer?

I would not offer it to Jack W for £ 1,000 but put ii into an auction to get the best price .
A better parallel , however , would be finding a hoard of 500 Henry IX touchpieces . It would be silly to sell them all immediately depressing the market and achieving a low price and I would sell them carefully one at a time every few years leaving the rest for my children and grand children and future great grand children

GeoffM

MarkSenior said:

You mean like solar and wind power . Didn't the party you support stop the developement saying it was a waste of money with all that shale gas ?

The first recorded use of wind being used to power a machine was by the Greek engineer Heron of Alexandria in the first century AD.

I wish the uninformed and those with agendas would stop referring to wind and solar as being in some way "new" and still being "developed". On the timeline, nuclear has a greater claim to being the new Great White Hope.

MarkSenior

AveryLP said:

MarkSenior said:

AveryLP said:

MarkSenior said:

AveryLP said:

MarkSenior said:

My personal view of fracking is that we should develop the technology for extracting the shale gas/oil then leave it in the ground to be extracted at a much later date . We should be able to buy cheaper fuel from other countries who are selling their shale gas/oil in the immediate future and have a much more valuable asset when theirs has run out .

Frontload the costs and backload the revenues?

Sounds more Lib Dem than personal, Mark.

Investing for the future , not something Conservatives ever think off .

.

Why is there no prospect of a return ? The Avery view of Conservatism - exploit everything you can within the shortest time scale and don't concern yourself about the future .

My dear Mark.

This needs putting simply.

Say you decided to spend an evening at home watching one of Plato's hot tip US HDTV series.

You stretch on the sofa and your hand slips down its back. Instead of finding last weeks overspill of prawn biryani your fingers detect something cold and metallic.

Excitedly you draw it out. You discover you have a silver Henri IX touchpiece, struck by Giovanni Hamerani with a three masted ship on one side and St Michael destroying a dragon on t'other.

Soli Deo Gloria!

Immediately you text your bank manager and plead that he holds off the bailiffs 'til Monday. You then telephone JackW and offer him the coin for a thousand pounds.

JackW has seen and heard everything in his long life. He chuckles and teases and then offers to pay you £10,000 in 70 years time.

Would you accept Jack's offer?

Finding just 1 I would put it into auction to achieve the best price . A better parallel is finding a hoard of 1,000 touchpieces . I would be selling one every couple of years and leaving some to my children , grand children and future great grand children rather than depressing the market and selling them all immediately

Plato

GeoffM said:

MarkSenior said:

You mean like solar and wind power . Didn't the party you support stop the developement saying it was a waste of money with all that shale gas ?

The first recorded use of wind being used to power a machine was by the Greek engineer Heron of Alexandria in the first century AD.

I wish the uninformed and those with agendas would stop referring to wind and solar as being in some way "new" and still being "developed". On the timeline, nuclear has a greater claim to being the new Great White Hope.

My brother heated his aquariums using solar power based on OU BBC2 progs in the 70s. That it's never been commercially very viable is another matter entirely.

And of course, watermills are how historical artefacts.

GeoffM

Plato said:

And of course, watermills are now historical artefacts.

Waternills in the chocolate-box picture sense, yes. But they were the forerunners of modern day hydro power, so in that sense years of development have seen the technology mature not die. The World Bank is spending heavily in this area.

MonikerDiCanio

richardDodd said:

redcliffe you said they were deemed expendable..Do you have minutes of the General staff meeting where it was decided that Scots should die in large numbers first..who was the Senior officer at that meeting and which of his Generals were commanded to carry out that order.. If there is verifiable proof of any of that there must be some form of redress...Or maybe the Scots just had a bloody hard time of it..

redcliffe should remember Scots historian Norman Stone’s famous jibe that Haig was the greatest Scottish general ever, since he killed more Englishmen than any other.

Yorkcity

tim said:

richardDodd said:

Brilliant ...Labour Policy Number one.. Never kiss a Tory...that ought to go some way to solving the deficit problem , immigration problem, The Eu, Defence costs etc, not to mention The NHS.
Fantastic.. Crosby will be shaking in his shoes with that one..

Why on earth a slogan from 2008 would be news on a politics site today is beyond me.

Maybe this one has more relevance.

From Fortress on his First thoughts article about Ed Miliband.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/01/comment-week-ed-miliband-blair-legacy


:"Tony Blair had the huge advantage of having to fight a broken and exhausted Tory party that visibly wanted to get out of government and just fight itself without having to be responsible for anything. There was simply no question he was going to win the next election, all that varied from 1994-7 were the estimates of the majority (and the Tories were discredited in late 92, they were already doomed even before "New Labour").

"From 1997-2004 there was simply no serious opposition party against the Blair government. Hague was never more than a joke, IDS actually managed to be worse, and it shows how desperate things were (and the changed landscape after the Iraq invasion alienated a load of left voters) that Michael Howard was the first serious contender against him.

"Blair's legacy was to get the Tories to finally pick a tribute act as their leader. And then he cleared off before the wheels fell off."

AveryLP

@Mark_Senior

I would not offer it to Jack W for £ 1,000 but put it into an auction to get the best price .

A better parallel, however, would be finding a hoard of 500 Henry IX touchpieces. It would be silly to sell them all immediately depressing the market and achieving a low price and I would sell them carefully one at a time every few years leaving the rest for my children and grand children and future great grand children

My dear Mark.

You would never have found a hoard of 500 Henri IX touchpieces. There have never been sufficient numbers of Jacobite supporters to justify striking such a number. Jacobites like JackW are one offs.

Notwithstanding this irrefutable logic, we are beginning to accept that a number of variables can affect value over time.

If we go one step up this learning curve, we will discover that there are various theories by economists designed to define and measure the effects of "time preference". Accountants have it easier as they can simply apply established (Net) Present Value formulae to calculate the value of future cash flows in today's money.

Whatver theory or methodology you chose, one thing is certain. Fracking to create oil reservoirs which can be extracted at an indeterminable future date is not a sensible economic or financial policy.

Even if you did believe that the value of the reserves would be higher in present value terms when extracted at a given date in the future (a highly questionable assumption), then investing in the preparatory fracking costs today is most unlikely to be cost justifiable. The sensible solution would be to leave the shale in the ground and frack it when you need it.

But these kind of sums are being undertaken every day by experts within the energy companies. They will all be looking at quantifying and optimising returns on investment.

Few of them will therefore be Lib Dems.

Andy_JS

"The UKIP candidate who SUPPORTS sharia law: Right-wing party's activist under fire for saying thieves should have their hands cut off":

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2384370/The-UKIP-candidate-SUPPORTS-sharia-law-Dean-Perks-says-thieves-hands-cut-off.html

Andy_JS

One of the Florida theme parks has been partially powered by solar panels since I think the late 1970s so it isn't a new idea.

old_labour

I wonder if the Mail investigated this story themselves or if someone else handed them the research.

The UKIP candidate who SUPPORTS sharia law: Right-wing party's activist under fire for saying thieves should have their hands cut off


It seems to have backfired among those who posted after the story.

old_labour

Beat me to it

Andy_JS said:

"The UKIP candidate who SUPPORTS sharia law: Right-wing party's activist under fire for saying thieves should have their hands cut off":

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2384370/The-UKIP-candidate-SUPPORTS-sharia-law-Dean-Perks-says-thieves-hands-cut-off.html

AveryLP

old_labour said:

I wonder if the Mail investigated this story themselves or if someone else handed them the research.

The UKIP candidate who SUPPORTS sharia law: Right-wing party's activist under fire for saying thieves should have their hands cut off


It seems to have backfired among those who posted after the story.

It was probably leaked to Isabel Oakeshott following a private meeting chaired by Lynton Crosby.

Theuniondivvie

MonikerDiCanio said:

redcliffe should remember Scots historian Norman Stone’s famous jibe that Haig was the greatest Scottish general ever, since he killed more Englishmen than any other.

Still, as a Britnat you'll consider him British (as posterity, and I daresay he himself, did).

Financier

Re: Fracking

What's all this about developing technology?

The Americans and the ROW will have completed the technology development before we start discussing the principle. There is already enough published technology to paper a street of houses without repeating oneself.

We should use the grace period provided by fracking to properly develop the renewable technology that our geographical location provides us with and ignore any EU targets. This includes power transmission with reduced loss or/and more local power generation.

I believe that the Americans this time, after being vulnerable to energy imports for some period, will be cany and use fracking to be self-sufficient in energy for a longer period than if they export some.

Wood pellets as a source of energy are not viable for the UK as we do not have enough raw material and importing it is not a viable long term option.

Finally I am amazed that such an opinion poll was asked of an audience who most probably do not know enough about the real technology of fracking - only that which has been released by scare-mongering greenies.

Ishmael_X

Labour to attack fall in UK living standards

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/44c77ec6-fb97-11e2-8650-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2b13zidps

"Monday will see Labour’s shadow Treasury team claim that the average family is now “out of pocket” compared with 2010."

That will work well, exactly confirming the tory narrative that given the mess they inherited things would be bad for a bit and then get good under Uncle George's masterful guidance. We haven't seen such headless chickenery since Hague was LOTO.

foxinsoxuk

There seems to be some genuine debate as to whether Scots were disproportionally casualties in the first world war:

The Scottish National War Memorial's website
 gives the following criteria for inclusion in its Roll of Honour.

"A member of the Armed Forces of the Crown or of the Merchant Navy who was either a Scotsman (i.e. born in Scotland or who had a Scottish born father or Mother) or served in a Scottish Regiment and was killed or died (except as a result of suicide) as a result of a wound, injury or disease sustained (a) in a theatre of operations for which a medal has been or is awarded; or (B) whilst on duty in aid of the Civil Power."

I assume that the percentage of Scots killed has been calculated by dividing the number of men on the Scottish Roll of Honour by the population of Scotland. If so, it is misleading. 

From here: http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=177607

My great Uncle would have qualified as a Scot by the definition above. He never lived there and died at Gallipolli. It is worth remarking that Scots regiments also included many English, 30% in the case of KOSB.

The truth is not as simple as some would like!

Theuniondivvie said:

MonikerDiCanio said:

redcliffe should remember Scots historian Norman Stone’s famous jibe that Haig was the greatest Scottish general ever, since he killed more Englishmen than any other.

Still, as a Britnat you'll consider him British (as posterity, and I daresay he himself, did).

Gerry_Mander

Have I understood this?

There is an energy resource underground. Extracting it might be a bit dangerous, but it will lead to high paid jobs in the locality.

Labour supporters want to leave it there. Please tell me I'm not hallucinating.

MarkSenior

@ AveryLP

On a technical note I believe 2 pairs of dies are known for Henry IX touchpieces therefore at least 10,000 were probably struck

foxinsoxuk

These would presumably be the same Labour people who deplore the closing of the coal mines.

Presumably a good PR campaign could rename fracking as "liquid coal gas mining"

Gerry_Mander said:

Have I understood this?

There is an energy resource underground. Extracting it might be a bit dangerous, but it will lead to high paid jobs in the locality.

Labour supporters want to leave it there. Please tell me I'm not hallucinating.

MonikerDiCanio

Gerry_Mander said:

Have I understood this?

There is an energy resource underground. Extracting it might be a bit dangerous, but it will lead to high paid jobs in the locality.

Labour supporters want to leave it there. Please tell me I'm not hallucinating.

Old Labour supporters used to chant the slogan " Coal not dole " .

The New Labour ( or Anti-Labour ) incarnation prefers " Slacking not fracking ".

Pulpstar

Andy_JS said:

"The UKIP candidate who SUPPORTS sharia law: Right-wing party's activist under fire for saying thieves should have their hands cut off":

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2384370/The-UKIP-candidate-SUPPORTS-sharia-law-Dean-Perks-says-thieves-hands-cut-off.html

Plenty of support for some 'Sharia style' punishments in the comments section.

Morris_Dancer

Good evening, everyone.

Seriously unimpressed with the bullying tactics of Spain.

richardDodd

If North Sea oil had actually been below the soil in Northern Scotland I wonder if it would have been left down there...

AveryLP

richardDodd said:

If North Sea oil had actually been below the soil in Northern Scotland I wonder if it would have been left down there...

Well, the oil has been left on their hair.

Andy_JS

Chef becomes Kuwaiti for £15 million:

http://news.sky.com/story/1124387/little-chef-bought-by-kuwaiti-group-for-15m

JosiasJessop

GeoffM said:

Plato said:

And of course, watermills are now historical artefacts.

Waternills in the chocolate-box picture sense, yes. But they were the forerunners of modern day hydro power, so in that sense years of development have seen the technology mature not die. The World Bank is spending heavily in this area.

"But they (watermills) were the forerunners of modern day hydro power"

Watermills are a totally different technology from the turbines used in hydro power. They both get energy from fluids, but the mechanism is totally different. It is like saying prop engine developments led directly to the jet engine. In reality, the jet engine was a revolution, not evolution.

Turbines were first invented in the 19th century - indeed, the word did not exist before then. (and of course most jet engines rely on turbines)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbine

Edit: actually, I am wrong wrt invention - they go back much further:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_turbine

But the basic point of revolution between watermills and modern turbines remains.

richardDodd

What Political leverage does the UK have re the Gib scenario.Can an EU country arbitrarilly deny overfly rights to another EU country, and charge an entry fee at the border.

Theuniondivvie

foxinsoxuk said:

There seems to be some genuine debate as to whether Scots were disproportionally casualties in the first world war:

The Scottish National War Memorial's website
 gives the following criteria for inclusion in its Roll of Honour.

"A member of the Armed Forces of the Crown or of the Merchant Navy who was either a Scotsman (i.e. born in Scotland or who had a Scottish born father or Mother) or served in a Scottish Regiment and was killed or died (except as a result of suicide) as a result of a wound, injury or disease sustained (a) in a theatre of operations for which a medal has been or is awarded; or (B) whilst on duty in aid of the Civil Power."

I assume that the percentage of Scots killed has been calculated by dividing the number of men on the Scottish Roll of Honour by the population of Scotland. If so, it is misleading. 

From here: http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=177607

My great Uncle would have qualified as a Scot by the definition above. He never lived there and died at Gallipolli. It is worth remarking that Scots regiments also included many English, 30% in the case of KOSB.

The truth is not as simple as some would like!

You appear to be addressing someone else's point.
Addressing yours, unless you're suggesting that 60% of recorded Scottish losses were actually English serving in Scottish regiments or accounted Scottish by an accident of birth or parentage, Scots casualties were disproportionate.

NickPalmer

Do more than say 5% of voters have a clear idea of what fracking is, how it works, what the potential benefits in % of GDP or risks to the water table and climate change targets are or how much employment it would generate? It's odd that loads of people think it's obvious one way or the other and that it's a party political issue. Sure, government voters vaguely like it as their guys are (maybe) doing it, and opposition voters are dubious for the same reason, but I can't believe many on either side have a detailed, informed view.

As for NIMBYism, Danish TV News's equivalent of Newsnight once did a brilliant report on a survey of where new traveller sites should be positioned. They showed a map of Greater Copenhagen, and straight-faced read out a selection of feedback - "Mr Hansen, here (pointer to southwest of the city), thinks they should be located here (pointer to north of the city). Mrs Jensen, here (pointer to north), thinks they should be located there (pointer to southwest)..."

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Dodd, both would seem to contravene freedom of movement (assuming Gibraltar, as an overseas territory, is covered by the EU).

Grandiose

NickPalmer said:

Do more than say 5% of voters have a clear idea of what fracking is, how it works, what the potential benefits in % of GDP or risks to the water table and climate change targets are or how much employment it would generate? It's odd that loads of people think it's obvious one way or the other and that it's a party political issue. Sure, government voters vaguely like it as their guys are (maybe) doing it, and opposition voters are dubious for the same reason, but I can't believe many on either side have a detailed, informed view.

As for NIMBYism, Danish TV News's equivalent of Newsnight once did a brilliant report on a survey of where new traveller sites should be positioned. They showed a map of Greater Copenhagen, and straight-faced read out a selection of feedback - "Mr Hansen, here (pointer to southwest of the city), thinks they should be located here (pointer to north of the city). Mrs Jensen, here (pointer to north), thinks they should be located there (pointer to southwest)..."

You mean to say... that a poll... might ask people about something... they know very little about? ...


You're right, Nick, of course. But in a democracy it is the prerogative of politicians to make us informed - whether they support or oppose something.

MarkSenior

Theuniondivvie said:

foxinsoxuk said:

There seems to be some genuine debate as to whether Scots were disproportionally casualties in the first world war:

The Scottish National War Memorial's website
 gives the following criteria for inclusion in its Roll of Honour.

"A member of the Armed Forces of the Crown or of the Merchant Navy who was either a Scotsman (i.e. born in Scotland or who had a Scottish born father or Mother) or served in a Scottish Regiment and was killed or died (except as a result of suicide) as a result of a wound, injury or disease sustained (a) in a theatre of operations for which a medal has been or is awarded; or (B) whilst on duty in aid of the Civil Power."

I assume that the percentage of Scots killed has been calculated by dividing the number of men on the Scottish Roll of Honour by the population of Scotland. If so, it is misleading. 

From here: http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=177607

My great Uncle would have qualified as a Scot by the definition above. He never lived there and died at Gallipolli. It is worth remarking that Scots regiments also included many English, 30% in the case of KOSB.

The truth is not as simple as some would like!

You appear to be addressing someone else's point.
Addressing yours, unless you're suggesting that 60% of recorded Scottish losses were actually English serving in Scottish regiments or accounted Scottish by an accident of birth or parentage, Scots casualties were disproportionate.

The original point was that Scots casualties were more than twice as many as should have been proportionate , fox is saying that at the least that is a gross exaggeration .

taffys

The saudis et al should be selling as much oil as they can, as quickly as they can.

Behind fracking, something is stirring in Southern France. The ITER fusion reactor is moving from design state to engineering.

If it works - and its a giant if - well, that will change the global energy game again -and forever.

By 2050 there might not even be a need for fracking, let alone wind.

richardDodd

TUD ..The original poster said that Scots were deemed expendable, as opposed to other soldiers who were given special treatment. .There was no evidence provided to support that theory.

Maybe the Scots Regiments were just unfortunate in facing a very tough. well trained and armed enemy.. and marched into the hot metal wall
Do you really think the High Command of the British forces said ..Send in the Scots, they are expendable...really?.
I rather think some Scottish Generals might have told him where to go.

Next

NickPalmer said:

Do more than say 5% of voters have a clear idea of what fracking is, how it works, what the potential benefits in % of GDP or risks to the water table and climate change targets are or how much employment it would generate? It's odd that loads of people think it's obvious one way or the other and that it's a party political issue. Sure, government voters vaguely like it as their guys are (maybe) doing it, and opposition voters are dubious for the same reason, but I can't believe many on either side have a detailed, informed view.

As for NIMBYism, Danish TV News's equivalent of Newsnight once did a brilliant report on a survey of where new traveller sites should be positioned. They showed a map of Greater Copenhagen, and straight-faced read out a selection of feedback - "Mr Hansen, here (pointer to southwest of the city), thinks they should be located here (pointer to north of the city). Mrs Jensen, here (pointer to north), thinks they should be located there (pointer to southwest)..."

Perhaps a number of Labour voters don't want the government to begin fracking (yet), in case the Tories electorally benefit from it.

Theuniondivvie

MarkSenior said:

The original point was that Scots casualties were more than twice as many as should have been proportionate , fox is saying that at the least that is a gross exaggeration .

As I said he was addressing me about someone else's point, but he started off by saying 'There seems to be some genuine debate as to whether Scots were disproportionally casualties in the first world war:'
Unless my reading skills have sadly degenerated, that's questioning whether the losses were disproportionate, not the grossness of any exaggeration. However if you and he have expressed yourselves badly and accept that losses were disproportionate, that's cool.

MarkSenior

Theuniondivvie said:

MarkSenior said:

The original point was that Scots casualties were more than twice as many as should have been proportionate , fox is saying that at the least that is a gross exaggeration .

As I said he was addressing me about someone else's point, but he started off by saying 'There seems to be some genuine debate as to whether Scots were disproportionally casualties in the first world war:'
Unless my reading skills have sadly degenerated, that's questioning whether the losses were disproportionate, not the grossness of any exaggeration. However if you and he have expressed yourselves badly and accept that losses were disproportionate, that's cool.

I have not seen any figures that show that the losses were disproportionate or not so I cannot give any opinion on the claim .

JosiasJessop

Next said:

NickPalmer said:

Do more than say 5% of voters have a clear idea of what fracking is, how it works, what the potential benefits in % of GDP or risks to the water table and climate change targets are or how much employment it would generate? It's odd that loads of people think it's obvious one way or the other and that it's a party political issue. Sure, government voters vaguely like it as their guys are (maybe) doing it, and opposition voters are dubious for the same reason, but I can't believe many on either side have a detailed, informed view.

As for NIMBYism, Danish TV News's equivalent of Newsnight once did a brilliant report on a survey of where new traveller sites should be positioned. They showed a map of Greater Copenhagen, and straight-faced read out a selection of feedback - "Mr Hansen, here (pointer to southwest of the city), thinks they should be located here (pointer to north of the city). Mrs Jensen, here (pointer to north), thinks they should be located there (pointer to southwest)..."

Perhaps a number of Labour voters don't want the government to begin fracking (yet), in case the Tories electorally benefit from it.

Timescales will be well beyond the 2015 election for any amounts that may make a difference. Think the election after next, if not further out. The only things going on at the moment are limited test drills and trials, e.g. at Blackpool. But even the Blackpool field won't be in the mains for another three years.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/shale-gas-centrica-puts-160m-into-fracking-fields-around-blackpool-8656883.html

The UK Continental Shelf Act was passed in 1964, allowing exploration of the North Sea, and took 20 years to reach the first peak of production. Fracking will probably be quicker, but not much. AIUI (IANAE), fracking wells have a much shorter lifetime than traditional oil or gas wells, meaning drillsites have to be moved regularly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Sea_oil

Does anyone know if extra legislation is needed to permit onshore fracking for production, or is it covered under existing legislation? I assume the licences are standard as for oil/gas extraction?

MonikerDiCanio

Theuniondivvie said:

MarkSenior said:

The original point was that Scots casualties were more than twice as many as should have been proportionate , fox is saying that at the least that is a gross exaggeration .

As I said he was addressing me about someone else's point, but he started off by saying 'There seems to be some genuine debate as to whether Scots were disproportionally casualties in the first world war:'
Unless my reading skills have sadly degenerated, that's questioning whether the losses were disproportionate, not the grossness of any exaggeration. However if you and he have expressed yourselves badly and accept that losses were disproportionate, that's cool.

WW 1 British casualties ;

English: 515,000
Scottish: 74,000
Irish: 51,000
Welsh: 35,000

The proportions relative to the populations are similar.

Don't contaminate the memory of these dead with your propaganda.

MikeK

Pulpstar said:

Andy_JS said:

"The UKIP candidate who SUPPORTS sharia law: Right-wing party's activist under fire for saying thieves should have their hands cut off":

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2384370/The-UKIP-candidate-SUPPORTS-sharia-law-Dean-Perks-says-thieves-hands-cut-off.html

Plenty of support for some 'Sharia style' punishments in the comments section.

Well, he is entitled to his views regarding lopped off digits, but NOT as a UKIP candidate for parliament. Thats my opinion, lets see how the UKIP executive run with this.

HYUFD

Earl of Cardigan first aristocrat to have a baby on benefits
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2384103/Aristocracys-benefits-baby-Earl-Cardigan-having-baby-hell-bring-71-week.html