Other capture technologies are also available. (I work on this stuff, btw)
It makes more sense not to generate the stuff in the first place, then there is no need to get rid of it.
Biomass still generates it. It just happens to have been a plant more recently. The net effect is the same.
There are several issues regarding the use of biomass.
One is land use change which can make biomass more environmentally damaging than fossil.
Another is the time factor - replant trees to replace those that are chopped down and burnt and it will take 40 or more years to extract the CO2 back out of the atmosphere. It is over those 40 years that the climate and the earth will be fecked.
Other capture technologies are also available. (I work on this stuff, btw)
It makes more sense not to generate the stuff in the first place, then there is no need to get rid of it.
Biomass still generates it. It just happens to have been a plant more recently. The net effect is the same.
Good grief what rubbish you post!
Biomass recycles CO2 from the atmosphere into the plant (when the plant is growing) then back out into the atmosphere, so the net effect is zero additional CO2 in the atmosphere.
Burning fossil fuels causes carbon that has been trapped deep underground for 100s of millions of years to be release into the atmosphere as additional CO2.
Well she certainly belongs to the Arbeit Macht Frei wing of the party.
Just last week you were telling HY that you’d vote for his Arbeit Macht Frei party before you’d vote for the social democratic SNP. Labour’s principles are just for window dressing.
Yes, in the UK. I'd build big clean coal power stations. I have a friend who is a geologist who claims we can somehow capture the carbon by pumping it beneath the earth again.
But that doesn't solve the problem that extracting the coal is going to cost $150-200/tonne, which would make UK electricity even more expensive. (Seaborne coal is $63/tonne, albeit with shipping cost of $3-5 to be added)
There's a reason we moved from burning our own coal to importing it.
One would only open the most profitable mines. Those shipping costs look low, I wish I could find a courier who would deliver a tonne of anything for £5.
So none of them then?
None of them are profitable compared to the alternatives. Which is why there are none.
I don't believe you know that to be the case. However, I am not beholden to the idea anyway.
I do believe the market knows that to be the case which is why they closed in the first place.
Other capture technologies are also available. (I work on this stuff, btw)
It makes more sense not to generate the stuff in the first place, then there is no need to get rid of it.
Biomass still generates it. It just happens to have been a plant more recently. The net effect is the same.
There are several issues regarding the use of biomass.
One is land use change which can make biomass more environmentally damaging than fossil.
Another is the time factor - replant trees to replace those that are chopped down and burnt and it will take 40 or more years to extract the CO2 back out of the atmosphere. It is over those 40 years that the climate and the earth will be fecked.
I am not advocating biomass because of the landuse issues you highlight but in terms of CO2 most biomass species, including corn, switchgrass, miscanthus, hemp, sorghum, sugarcane, and bamboo, operate on very short CO2 cycles - i.e. they release back into the atmosphere CO2 they absorbed within the last 1-5 years.
In that sense they are in effect a source of (inefficient) solar power.
"Tory candidate wrote people on Benefits Street should be 'put down' Exclusive: prospective Gower MP Francesca O’Brien made comments on Facebook in 2014"
And yet if the people I am working with in Aberdeen are anything to go by there has been a massive increase in support for the SNP. Whatever idiocy they might have been doing is more than offset by the whole Remain movement which has clearly also fed into the Independence movement. As a strong Leave supporter I wish it were not so but the SNP do have a ready pool of new support because of Brexit.
I tend to agree, but it seems strange since applying the arguments they use about Brexit to the independence question undermines their raison d'etre. Pivoting from one to the other may prove awkward.
Yes, in the UK. I'd build big clean coal power stations. I have a friend who is a geologist who claims we can somehow capture the carbon by pumping it beneath the earth again.
But that doesn't solve the problem that extracting the coal is going to cost $150-200/tonne, which would make UK electricity even more expensive. (Seaborne coal is $63/tonne, albeit with shipping cost of $3-5 to be added)
There's a reason we moved from burning our own coal to importing it.
One would only open the most profitable mines. Those shipping costs look low, I wish I could find a courier who would deliver a tonne of anything for £5.
So none of them then?
None of them are profitable compared to the alternatives. Which is why there are none.
I don't believe you know that to be the case. However, I am not beholden to the idea anyway.
I do believe the market knows that to be the case which is why they closed in the first place.
"Woodhouse Colliery: First UK deep coal mine in decades to go ahead"
Other capture technologies are also available. (I work on this stuff, btw)
It makes more sense not to generate the stuff in the first place, then there is no need to get rid of it.
Biomass still generates it. It just happens to have been a plant more recently. The net effect is the same.
There are several issues regarding the use of biomass.
One is land use change which can make biomass more environmentally damaging than fossil.
Another is the time factor - replant trees to replace those that are chopped down and burnt and it will take 40 or more years to extract the CO2 back out of the atmosphere. It is over those 40 years that the climate and the earth will be fecked.
I am not advocating biomass because of the landuse issues you highlight but in terms of CO2 most biomass species, including corn, switchgrass, miscanthus, hemp, sorghum, sugarcane, and bamboo, opertate on very short CO2 cycles.
In that sense they are in effect a source of (inefficient) solar power.
All of the biomass burnt at Drax is in the form of wood pellets, mostly from North American forests. It takes decades for those trees to regrow.
By some magic trick the CO2 coming out of the stack in Yorkshire is considered to be CO2 released in the US where the trees were felled. Go figure.
Other capture technologies are also available. (I work on this stuff, btw)
It makes more sense not to generate the stuff in the first place, then there is no need to get rid of it.
Biomass still generates it. It just happens to have been a plant more recently. The net effect is the same.
There are several issues regarding the use of biomass.
One is land use change which can make biomass more environmentally damaging than fossil.
Another is the time factor - replant trees to replace those that are chopped down and burnt and it will take 40 or more years to extract the CO2 back out of the atmosphere. It is over those 40 years that the climate and the earth will be fecked.
I am not advocating biomass because of the landuse issues you highlight but in terms of CO2 most biomass species, including corn, switchgrass, miscanthus, hemp, sorghum, sugarcane, and bamboo, opertate on very short CO2 cycles.
In that sense they are in effect a source of (inefficient) solar power.
Be that as it may, burning them still releases carbon into the atmosphere. The overall effect is no different than using coal and offsetting it by planting trees.
I worry @AlastairMeeks is going to lay an egg in the next 5 weeks.
I read in The Sunday Times today the Conservatives new social media strategy includes “shit posting” to drive viral sharing - with one insider saying they wouldn’t be surprised if they brought the Vote Leave red bus back as the ultimate shit post.
End of the benefits freeze: Tories ease up on stamping on the faces of the poor, and expect to receive thanks and gratitude.
How much do you think we can borrow every month ?
I mean, even Labour must have a limit right?
No.
As govts have clearly shown, if they need more money then they will "print" it and call it "Quantitative Easing"
Can someone who understands economics better than me explain the impact of printing more money or QE on the following simple equation (which you can restate in various ways):
Spending = Tax take + Borrowing
With this equation I have always understood that if we want decent public services and wish to keep borrowing under control we need to tax sufficiently. Others may frame it as if you want to reduce borrowing without raising taxes you need to cut public spending.
Mr. Noo, although it's doomed, MacBeth has some great lines.
I especially like "Give me mine armour, I'll fight till from my bones my flesh be hack'd".
Reminds me I need to return to the Complete Works. Only got a couple of comedies left, then it's tragedies, I think.
Who among political observers needs fictitious tragedies at this moment?
It does rather feel like we are in two separate parts of two tragic arcz with Trump and Boris. Trump atop the castle watching suspiciously as Birnam Wood appears to be advancing towards Dunsinane. Meanwhile, Boris is in the Hamlet-feigning-madness stage. That's probably better news for the Dems than the opposition in the UK, since Macbeth gets him comeuppance relatively cleanly, in Hamlet basically everyone ends up dead. Or perhaps Jo Swinson is Fortinbras?
The kingmaker and sole surviving major character was Horatio. If we're looking for people with brief walk-on parts and distant connections to events who went mental before coming back heroes then the correct parallel is Nigel Dodds.
I really hope that isn't a parallel that comes to pass...
I always liked Rosencrantz and Guildenstern... fans of probability might like the fact that Rosencrantz has a run of 92 “heads” in a coin tossing game...
Rosencrantz and Guildenstern were undoubtedly great tossers.
Since they are dead it is right to refer to them in the past tense
And yet if the people I am working with in Aberdeen are anything to go by there has been a massive increase in support for the SNP. Whatever idiocy they might have been doing is more than offset by the whole Remain movement which has clearly also fed into the Independence movement. As a strong Leave supporter I wish it were not so but the SNP do have a ready pool of new support because of Brexit.
I tend to agree, but it seems strange since applying the arguments they use about Brexit to the independence question undermines their raison d'etre. Pivoting from one to the other may prove awkward.
LOL. I do agree. It is an ongoing argument I have with SNP friends although to be fair many of them are in favour of Brexit as they see it making Scottish Independence more likely. So they don't tend to be too committed in their opposition to Brexit.
End of the benefits freeze: Tories ease up on stamping on the faces of the poor, and expect to receive thanks and gratitude.
How much do you think we can borrow every month ?
I mean, even Labour must have a limit right?
No.
As govts have clearly shown, if they need more money then they will "print" it and call it "Quantitative Easing"
Can someone who understands economics better than me explain the impact of printing more money or QE on the following simple equation (which you can restate in various ways):
Spending = Tax take + Borrowing
With this equation I have always understood that if we want decent public services and wish to keep borrowing under control we need to tax sufficiently. Others may frame it as if you want to reduce borrowing without raising taxes you need to cut public spending.
End of the benefits freeze: Tories ease up on stamping on the faces of the poor, and expect to receive thanks and gratitude.
How much do you think we can borrow every month ?
I mean, even Labour must have a limit right?
No.
As govts have clearly shown, if they need more money then they will "print" it and call it "Quantitative Easing"
Can someone who understands economics better than me explain the impact of printing more money or QE on the following simple equation (which you can restate in various ways):
Spending = Tax take + Borrowing
With this equation I have always understood that if we want decent public services and wish to keep borrowing under control we need to tax sufficiently. Others may frame it as if you want to reduce borrowing without raising taxes you need to cut public spending.
In either case, how does QE affect this?
The BofE prints money and lends it to the government. The government pays interest to itself so zero net cost
most of our success in eliminating them has been due to industry moving overseas
Is that true? Industrial emissions of greenhouse gases were fairly modest even in 1990.
I would have thought that the biggest drivers of lower emissions are (in order):
1. The rise of natural gas as a competitive method of electrical generation 2. Greater energy efficiency (in both vehicles, homes and offices) 3. Renewable electricity generation ... 12. Reduced industrial output
Well, Google result number one (will admit I have no idea how reliable this source is) suggests you're wrong. This says (as of 2017) 36% contribution from gas and renewables, 31% from reduced fuel consumption by business and industry, and 18% reduced electricity use from industrial and residential. If we divide the latter by half, that's 40% vs. 36%. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-why-the-uks-co2-emissions-have-fallen-38-since-1990/amp
That is why, as I understand it, Germany has not been as successful in reducing its emissions. It's not because we're more efficient than they are, it's because they still make stuff.
Industrial co2 emissions were only about 20% of the total in 1990, so I can't see how those numbers match.
Business and industry is a larger category than industrial. It might include non-electric heat for offices, shops, etc. for example.
End of the benefits freeze: Tories ease up on stamping on the faces of the poor, and expect to receive thanks and gratitude.
How much do you think we can borrow every month ?
I mean, even Labour must have a limit right?
No.
As govts have clearly shown, if they need more money then they will "print" it and call it "Quantitative Easing"
Can someone who understands economics better than me explain the impact of printing more money or QE on the following simple equation (which you can restate in various ways):
Spending = Tax take + Borrowing
With this equation I have always understood that if we want decent public services and wish to keep borrowing under control we need to tax sufficiently. Others may frame it as if you want to reduce borrowing without raising taxes you need to cut public spending.
In either case, how does QE affect this?
QE isn’t creating money that governments can spend like that. QE is creating digital money and using it to buy the government’s own debt off other people. The original owners of the debt therefore have money to spend and it is hoped that this, together with the effect of driving down interest rates on the debt, might stimulate the economy. There are those who argue that its main effect is actually only indirect, through confidence, and there is little doubt that it has created inflation but in asset prices rather than consumer goods, as was originally feared.
What shape do we think the Tory campaign is going to take? I kept waiting for it to start last time and the only bits of news that broke through were the terrible missteps. When will we be able to form an impression about whether or not things will be different this time?
More schools, hospitals and police. I expect there'll be lots of occasions when some left wing activists start heckling Johnson and that along with selacious Arcuri rumours/allegations will be the extent of the negative publicity.
I only hope that's the worst of it. But they also need to dismantle things like the 2030 carbon-neutral plan in an effective way - there'll probably be half a dozen similar boondoggles that need puncturing. Who are the front men / women / attack dogs other than Boris himself?
Why would they want to do that?
Because its economic suicide. Like emptying a bath with a teacup, whilst others fill it with a hosepipe.
So no need to do anything then all will be fine?
Whatever the UK does or doesn't do will make no difference to total emissions. You do realise that we have already massively reduced co2 and contribute 1% of world output?
So not our problem then let the rest of the world sort it out and if it goes tits up it’s the other buggers fault
Pure posturing for no benefit whilst the country will throw billions down the drain. Utter madness.
So what are you proposing?
I think we should start mining for coal again.
You first. Mine aren't going within 100ft of a pit. Mining is very romantic but has this habit of killing its employees in various sadistic ways.
It has always puzzled me that the Labour left is so keen on environmental issues and yet so romanticizes the coal industry and the Miners’ Strike - which was, after all, about the insistence that no pit capable of producing coal, even if it was never used, should be closed.
As they have provided ample evidence of being fecking clueless on other matters, your puzzlement puzzles me somewhat.
Other capture technologies are also available. (I work on this stuff, btw)
It makes more sense not to generate the stuff in the first place, then there is no need to get rid of it.
Biomass still generates it. It just happens to have been a plant more recently. The net effect is the same.
There are several issues regarding the use of biomass.
One is land use change which can make biomass more environmentally damaging than fossil.
Another is the time factor - replant trees to replace those that are chopped down and burnt and it will take 40 or more years to extract the CO2 back out of the atmosphere. It is over those 40 years that the climate and the earth will be fecked.
I am not advocating biomass because of the landuse issues you highlight but in terms of CO2 most biomass species, including corn, switchgrass, miscanthus, hemp, sorghum, sugarcane, and bamboo, opertate on very short CO2 cycles.
In that sense they are in effect a source of (inefficient) solar power.
All of the biomass burnt at Drax is in the form of wood pellets, mostly from North American forests. It takes decades for those trees to regrow.
By some magic trick the CO2 coming out of the stack in Yorkshire is considered to be CO2 released in the US where the trees were felled. Go figure.
I take your point. However, burning fossil fuels releases carbon that was captured underground over 300m years ago when C02 levels were at 800ppm (3 x pre-industrial levels). It's releasing that fossil fuel carbon that has driven CO2 levels up from 280ppm to 410ppm, not burning biomass.
"Tory candidate wrote people on Benefits Street should be 'put down' Exclusive: prospective Gower MP Francesca O’Brien made comments on Facebook in 2014"
After years of dozens of Tory MPs worshipping at Farage's feet, time to see if they can convince the Tory public who did the same to listen to them and not him.
You first. Mine aren't going within 100ft of a pit. Mining is very romantic but has this habit of killing its employees in various sadistic ways.
It has always puzzled me that the Labour left is so keen on environmental issues and yet so romanticizes the coal industry and the Miners’ Strike - which was, after all, about the insistence that no pit capable of producing coal, even if it was never used, should be closed.
There's nothing odd about it. People in most mining areas had very little relatively well-paid employment available except mining, so whole communities developed unhealthily dependent on it but not seeing any way out. I've met plenty of ex-miners and a number who did see the strike as a heroic last stand for their livelihoods but who were adamant that it was a filthy, dangerous job and they hoped their kids would do anything else.
What happened in the end is that communities adjusted up to a point, but after 10-20 years of depression. If Thatcher had closed the pits gradually while at the same time bringing in alternative employment the resistance would have been much less, but Conservative governments don't do bringing in jobs - it's the free market, innit?
What shape do we think the Tory campaign is going to take? I kept waiting for it to start last time and the only bits of news that broke through were the terrible missteps. When will we be able to form an impression about whether or not things will be different this time?
More schools, hospitals and police. I expect there'll be lots of occasions when some left wing activists start heckling Johnson and that along with selacious Arcuri rumours/allegations will be the extent of the negative publicity.
I only hope that's the worst of it. But they also need to dismantle things like the 2030 carbon-neutral plan in an effective way - there'll probably be half a dozen similar boondoggles that need puncturing. Who are the front men / women / attack dogs other than Boris himself?
Why would they want to do that?
Because its economic suicide. Like emptying a bath with a teacup, whilst others fill it with a hosepipe.
So no need to do anything then all will be fine?
Whatever the UK does or doesn't do will make no difference to total emissions. You do realise that we have already massively reduced co2 and contribute 1% of world output?
So not our problem then let the rest of the world sort it out and if it goes tits up it’s the other buggers fault
Pure posturing for no benefit whilst the country will throw billions down the drain. Utter madness.
So what are you proposing?
I think we should start mining for coal again.
You first. Mine aren't going within 100ft of a pit. Mining is very romantic but has this habit of killing its employees in various sadistic ways.
It has always puzzled me that the Labour left is so keen on environmental issues and yet so romanticizes the coal industry and the Miners’ Strike - which was, after all, about the insistence that no pit capable of producing coal, even if it was never used, should be closed.
As they have provided ample evidence of being fecking clueless on other matters, your puzzlement puzzles me somewhat.
You first. Mine aren't going within 100ft of a pit. Mining is very romantic but has this habit of killing its employees in various sadistic ways.
It has always puzzled me that the Labour left is so keen on environmental issues and yet so romanticizes the coal industry and the Miners’ Strike - which was, after all, about the insistence that no pit capable of producing coal, even if it was never used, should be closed.
There's nothing odd about it. People in most mining areas had very little relatively well-paid employment available except mining, so whole communities developed unhealthily dependent on it but not seeing any way out. I've met plenty of ex-miners and a number who did see the strike as a heroic last stand for their livelihoods but who were adamant that it was a filthy, dangerous job and they hoped their kids would do anything else.
What happened in the end is that communities adjusted up to a point, but after 10-20 years of depression. If Thatcher had closed the pits gradually while at the same time bringing in alternative employment the resistance would have been much less, but Conservative governments don't do bringing in jobs - it's the free market, innit?
I do wonder if the youthful Labour masses see it that way, as it's not often I see it put in that more nuanced sort of way.
It mean's whatever people want it to mean - privitisation is bad, so appearing as tough on it as possible must be good.
I tell you what it is. It’s the only way Labour could lose the BMA.....
Edit - I’m personally massively in favour of nationalising GPs (this Gvt is doing in on the sky anyway as older, practice owning, GPS step down) but they have an insanely powerful pressure group to hand, and threatening to take away the existing GP owned practices and/or private work for consultants will anger the BMA.
That's how you store it. You capture it by absorbing it from the power station flue gas into an amine solvent and then regenerating the solvent to give a pure stream of CO2 to compress and transport to the offshore storage site.
Other capture technologies are also available. (I work on this stuff, btw)
Both expensive, and seriously doubtful in terms of its benefits:
It mean's whatever people want it to mean - privitisation is bad, so appearing as tough on it as possible must be good.
Bevan, when forced to leave GP practices in the doctors’ hands (as otherwise the NHS would have had no GPs and therefore would have been a somewhat meaningless exercise) commented that he was ‘stuffing their mouths with gold.’
I do not suppose Corbyn and Macdonnell feel much different.
It mean's whatever people want it to mean - privitisation is bad, so appearing as tough on it as possible must be good.
I tell you what it is. It’s the only way Labour could lose the BMA.....
If there are any concerns from some areas they'll dial back the language and clarify the committment, whilst those who want it to be as extreme as possible will continue to think it means what they think. It's the same as the Brexit policy in that regard, where it says one thing but many in the party pursue their own approach regardless, and most of their voter base are clear they are for remain, or like the Tory pause on fracking, which they can sell as a ban to those would like it that way, while those less worried by it will see it as the pause.
You first. Mine aren't going within 100ft of a pit. Mining is very romantic but has this habit of killing its employees in various sadistic ways.
It has always puzzled me that the Labour left is so keen on environmental issues and yet so romanticizes the coal industry and the Miners’ Strike - which was, after all, about the insistence that no pit capable of producing coal, even if it was never used, should be closed.
There's nothing odd about it. People in most mining areas had very little relatively well-paid employment available except mining, so whole communities developed unhealthily dependent on it but not seeing any way out. I've met plenty of ex-miners and a number who did see the strike as a heroic last stand for their livelihoods but who were adamant that it was a filthy, dangerous job and they hoped their kids would do anything else.
What happened in the end is that communities adjusted up to a point, but after 10-20 years of depression. If Thatcher had closed the pits gradually while at the same time bringing in alternative employment the resistance would have been much less, but Conservative governments don't do bringing in jobs - it's the free market, innit?
Arthur Scargill, who said that the strike was about the right of miners’ sons to be miners themselves, would disagree with you.
Interesting. Having a look at what happened to vote shares in Ross, Skye and Lochaber vs what happened in West Aberdeen and Kincardine and they are intriguing a shows my issues in trying to eyeball data.
The Lab vote share from 2005 to 2017 goes through an identical pattern
RSL 14.9/15.1/4.9/12.2 WAK 13.1/13.6/4.5/11.1
Eyeballing the Lib Dem Data I thought it looked quite different
RSL 58.7/52.6/35.9/20.9 WAK 46.3/38.4/21.4/8.6
But in actuality it is almost lock step changes between the two constituencies - a slight smaller 2015-2017 drop in WAK
And even the Con data which looks dramatically different is basically the same
RSL 10.1/12.2/6.2/24.8 WAK 28.4/30.3/28.8/47.9
A 19.1% rise in WAK vs a 18.6% rise in RSL.
I'm going to dig into this further and look at various other basic numbers (turnout and SNP vote) plus other 2010 Lid Dem owned seats with Con in 2nd place. To see if this holds as an iron law.
If so this would make some excellent constituency betting base once we had some idea where the national numbers are.
Interesting. Having a look at what happened to vote shares in Ross, Skye and Lochaber vs what happened in West Aberdeen and Kincardine and they are intriguing a shows my issues in trying to eyeball data.
The Lab vote share from 2005 to 2017 goes through an identical pattern
RSL 14.9/15.1/4.9/12.2 WAK 13.1/13.6/4.5/11.1
Eyeballing the Lib Dem Data I thought it looked quite different
RSL 58.7/52.6/35.9/20.9 WAK 46.3/38.4/21.4/8.6
But in actuality it is almost lock step changes between the two constituencies - a slight smaller 2015-2017 drop in WAK
And even the Con data which looks dramatically different is basically the same
RSL 10.1/12.2/6.2/24.8 WAK 28.4/30.3/28.8/47.9
A 19.1% rise in WAK vs a 18.6% rise in RSL.
I'm going to dig into this further and look at various other basic numbers (turnout and SNP vote) plus other 2010 Lid Dem owned seats with Con in 2nd place. To see if this holds as an iron law.
If so this would make some excellent constituency betting base once we had some idea where the national numbers are.
I don't understand it but it sounds interesting. Please continue with the good work.
I think by not standing for election himself Farage and BXP are done for.
It makes him look like he's totally unserious about both Brexit and becoming an MP and is just doing this to look for kicks and to make himself center of attention - all of which is true and probably always has been, but I think UKIP/BXP voters will notice this time.
I take your point. However, burning fossil fuels releases carbon that was captured underground over 300m years ago when C02 levels were at 800ppm (3 x pre-industrial levels). It's releasing that fossil fuel carbon that has driven CO2 levels up from 280ppm to 410ppm, not burning biomass.
When it was stored as carbon is irrelevant. The result is the same. The fact that new biomass crops are grown in its place and draw carbon from the atmosphere once again is more relevant, but it is entirely possible that burning oil and planting a forest would result in less CO2 than burning sugar cane and replanting sugar cane.
You first. Mine aren't going within 100ft of a pit. Mining is very romantic but has this habit of killing its employees in various sadistic ways.
It has always puzzled me that the Labour left is so keen on environmental issues and yet so romanticizes the coal industry and the Miners’ Strike - which was, after all, about the insistence that no pit capable of producing coal, even if it was never used, should be closed.
There's nothing odd about it. People in most mining areas had very little relatively well-paid employment available except mining, so whole communities developed unhealthily dependent on it but not seeing any way out. I've met plenty of ex-miners and a number who did see the strike as a heroic last stand for their livelihoods but who were adamant that it was a filthy, dangerous job and they hoped their kids would do anything else.
What happened in the end is that communities adjusted up to a point, but after 10-20 years of depression. If Thatcher had closed the pits gradually while at the same time bringing in alternative employment the resistance would have been much less, but Conservative governments don't do bringing in jobs - it's the free market, innit?
And yet the previous governments of the 1960s and 70s shut more pits and got rid of far more jobs - and faster - than Thatcher did.
"Tory candidate wrote people on Benefits Street should be 'put down' Exclusive: prospective Gower MP Francesca O’Brien made comments on Facebook in 2014"
Out of curiosity, was Labour as critical of the comments made by their former MZp from Sheffield?
They were remarks made some years ago I believe
Out of curiosity, do you mean was Labour as critical of the comments made by their mp from Sheffield as Tories are currently of Ms O'Brien's comments? I'd guess yes.
You first. Mine aren't going within 100ft of a pit. Mining is very romantic but has this habit of killing its employees in various sadistic ways.
It has always puzzled me that the Labour left is so keen on environmental issues and yet so romanticizes the coal industry and the Miners’ Strike - which was, after all, about the insistence that no pit capable of producing coal, even if it was never used, should be closed.
There's nothing odd about it. People in most mining areas had very little relatively well-paid employment available except mining, so whole communities developed unhealthily dependent on it but not seeing any way out. I've met plenty of ex-miners and a number who did see the strike as a heroic last stand for their livelihoods but who were adamant that it was a filthy, dangerous job and they hoped their kids would do anything else.
What happened in the end is that communities adjusted up to a point, but after 10-20 years of depression. If Thatcher had closed the pits gradually while at the same time bringing in alternative employment the resistance would have been much less, but Conservative governments don't do bringing in jobs - it's the free market, innit?
The fight against Scargill had to be won - from Thatcher’s point of view it was existential for her government - but once it was, a degree of constructive magnanimity might have rewritten politics. Such a thing was beyond her.
You first. Mine aren't going within 100ft of a pit. Mining is very romantic but has this habit of killing its employees in various sadistic ways.
It has always puzzled me that the Labour left is so keen on environmental issues and yet so romanticizes the coal industry and the Miners’ Strike - which was, after all, about the insistence that no pit capable of producing coal, even if it was never used, should be closed.
There's nothing odd about it. People in most mining areas had very little relatively well-paid employment available except mining, so whole communities developed unhealthily dependent on it but not seeing any way out. I've met plenty of ex-miners and a number who did see the strike as a heroic last stand for their livelihoods but who were adamant that it was a filthy, dangerous job and they hoped their kids would do anything else.
What happened in the end is that communities adjusted up to a point, but after 10-20 years of depression. If Thatcher had closed the pits gradually while at the same time bringing in alternative employment the resistance would have been much less, but Conservative governments don't do bringing in jobs - it's the free market, innit?
Arthur Scargill, who said that the strike was about the right of miners’ sons to be miners themselves, would disagree with you.
He would. He did. He lost. Romance, romance, it's always romance...
Interesting. Having a look at what happened to vote shares in Ross, Skye and Lochaber vs what happened in West Aberdeen and Kincardine and they are intriguing a shows my issues in trying to eyeball data.
The Lab vote share from 2005 to 2017 goes through an identical pattern
RSL 14.9/15.1/4.9/12.2 WAK 13.1/13.6/4.5/11.1
Eyeballing the Lib Dem Data I thought it looked quite different
RSL 58.7/52.6/35.9/20.9 WAK 46.3/38.4/21.4/8.6
But in actuality it is almost lock step changes between the two constituencies - a slight smaller 2015-2017 drop in WAK
And even the Con data which looks dramatically different is basically the same
RSL 10.1/12.2/6.2/24.8 WAK 28.4/30.3/28.8/47.9
A 19.1% rise in WAK vs a 18.6% rise in RSL.
I'm going to dig into this further and look at various other basic numbers (turnout and SNP vote) plus other 2010 Lid Dem owned seats with Con in 2nd place. To see if this holds as an iron law.
If so this would make some excellent constituency betting base once we had some idea where the national numbers are.
I don't understand it but it sounds interesting. Please continue with the good work.
The party vote shares in "Ross, Sky and Lochaber" and "West Aberdeenshire and Kimcaedine" varied together almost prefectly. Given the results from one you'd have been able to get the results of the other within a couple of percent.
Given the Lib Dems are flapping their gums about being within 7 points of Ian Balckfowd in RSL then that has strong implications for how all the parties are doing in WAK.
You first. Mine aren't going within 100ft of a pit. Mining is very romantic but has this habit of killing its employees in various sadistic ways.
It has always puzzled me that the Labour left is so keen on environmental issues and yet so romanticizes the coal industry and the Miners’ Strike - which was, after all, about the insistence that no pit capable of producing coal, even if it was never used, should be closed.
There's nothing odd about it. People in most mining areas had very little relatively well-paid employment available except mining, so whole communities developed unhealthily dependent on it but not seeing any way out. I've met plenty of ex-miners and a number who did see the strike as a heroic last stand for their livelihoods but who were adamant that it was a filthy, dangerous job and they hoped their kids would do anything else.
What happened in the end is that communities adjusted up to a point, but after 10-20 years of depression. If Thatcher had closed the pits gradually while at the same time bringing in alternative employment the resistance would have been much less, but Conservative governments don't do bringing in jobs - it's the free market, innit?
And yet the previous governments of the 1960s and 70s shut more pits and got rid of far more jobs - and faster - than Thatcher did.
Similarly, the Tories 1970-74 closed more grammar schools (many when Mrs T was in charge of education) than the Labour government that followed, yet because Labour and Shirley Williams were managing the end game, they got more of the blame.
You first. Mine aren't going within 100ft of a pit. Mining is very romantic but has this habit of killing its employees in various sadistic ways.
It has always puzzled me that the Labour left is so keen on environmental issues and yet so romanticizes the coal industry and the Miners’ Strike - which was, after all, about the insistence that no pit capable of producing coal, even if it was never used, should be closed.
There's nothing odd about it. People in most mining areas had very little relatively well-paid employment available except mining, so whole communities developed unhealthily dependent on it but not seeing any way out. I've met plenty of ex-miners and a number who did see the strike as a heroic last stand for their livelihoods but who were adamant that it was a filthy, dangerous job and they hoped their kids would do anything else.
What happened in the end is that communities adjusted up to a point, but after 10-20 years of depression. If Thatcher had closed the pits gradually while at the same time bringing in alternative employment the resistance would have been much less, but Conservative governments don't do bringing in jobs - it's the free market, innit?
The fight against Scargill had to be won - from Thatcher’s point of view it was existential for her government - but once it was, a degree of constructive magnanimity might have rewritten politics. Such a thing was beyond her.
It was Major and Heseltine who went well beyond Thatcher's programme and decided to stick the knife into the remaining profitable mines.
You first. Mine aren't going within 100ft of a pit. Mining is very romantic but has this habit of killing its employees in various sadistic ways.
It has always puzzled me that the Labour left is so keen on environmental issues and yet so romanticizes the coal industry and the Miners’ Strike - which was, after all, about the insistence that no pit capable of producing coal, even if it was never used, should be closed.
There's nothing odd about it. People in most mining areas had very little relatively well-paid employment available except mining, so whole communities developed unhealthily dependent on it but not seeing any way out. I've met plenty of ex-miners and a number who did see the strike as a heroic last stand for their livelihoods but who were adamant that it was a filthy, dangerous job and they hoped their kids would do anything else.
What happened in the end is that communities adjusted up to a point, but after 10-20 years of depression. If Thatcher had closed the pits gradually while at the same time bringing in alternative employment the resistance would have been much less, but Conservative governments don't do bringing in jobs - it's the free market, innit?
And yet the previous governments of the 1960s and 70s shut more pits and got rid of far more jobs - and faster - than Thatcher did.
Similarly, the Tories 1970-74 closed more grammar schools (many when Mrs T was in charge of education) than the Labour government that followed, yet because Labour and Shirley Williams were managing the end game, they got more of the blame.
Interesting. Having a look at what happened to vote shares in Ross, Skye and Lochaber vs what happened in West Aberdeen and Kincardine and they are intriguing a shows my issues in trying to eyeball data.
The Lab vote share from 2005 to 2017 goes through an identical pattern
RSL 14.9/15.1/4.9/12.2 WAK 13.1/13.6/4.5/11.1
Eyeballing the Lib Dem Data I thought it looked quite different
RSL 58.7/52.6/35.9/20.9 WAK 46.3/38.4/21.4/8.6
But in actuality it is almost lock step changes between the two constituencies - a slight smaller 2015-2017 drop in WAK
And even the Con data which looks dramatically different is basically the same
RSL 10.1/12.2/6.2/24.8 WAK 28.4/30.3/28.8/47.9
A 19.1% rise in WAK vs a 18.6% rise in RSL.
I'm going to dig into this further and look at various other basic numbers (turnout and SNP vote) plus other 2010 Lid Dem owned seats with Con in 2nd place. To see if this holds as an iron law.
If so this would make some excellent constituency betting base once we had some idea where the national numbers are.
I don't understand it but it sounds interesting. Please continue with the good work.
The party vote shares in "Ross, Sky and Lochaber" and "West Aberdeenshire and Kimcaedine" varied together almost prefectly. Given the results from one you'd have been able to get the results of the other within a couple of percent.
Given the Lib Dems are flapping their gums about being within 7 points of Ian Balckfowd in RSL then that has strong implications for how all the parties are doing in WAK.
Is your thesis that if the SLDs are getting back their votes that were temporarily lent to the SCons in RS&L, they'll also be getting them back in WA&K?
If a settlement grows up in a specific location due to a specific industry at that location does it not make sense that the settlement might shrink or disappear once that industry ceases to exist?
'The West Midlands rather than the North is now emerging as the most important battleground for the December 12 poll.
'On top of Mr Watson’s, Tory chiefs have identified as many as 20 Labour seats there that could be vulnerable because of disenchantment with Jeremy Corbyn and his party’s confusion over Brexit. It has also emerged that Boris will head straight to the Midlands to launch the Tories' election campaign on Wednesday after going to see the Queen to ask her to dissolve Parliament that morning.....An MP ally of Jeremy Corbyn, Lloyd Russell-Moyle, slammed Labour’s Leave voters for having racist views as he accused them of being “dangerous” nationalists. Two high profile other candidates are also standing against Mr Watson in a bid to hurt his vote – leftwing firebrand George Galloway, and ex-Tory MP Harvey Proctor, who wants to highlight Mr Watson’s disastrors role in helping to instigate the flawed child abuse witch hunt, Operation Midland. Furthermore, Mr Watson is expected to get no help from Labour HQ and Mr Corbyn’s pressure group Momentum because of his furious battles with the Labour leader.' https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/10271765/tory-oust-labours-tom-watson/
I take your point. However, burning fossil fuels releases carbon that was captured underground over 300m years ago when C02 levels were at 800ppm (3 x pre-industrial levels). It's releasing that fossil fuel carbon that has driven CO2 levels up from 280ppm to 410ppm, not burning biomass.
When it was stored as carbon is irrelevant. The result is the same. The fact that new biomass crops are grown in its place and draw carbon from the atmosphere once again is more relevant, but it is entirely possible that burning oil and planting a forest would result in less CO2 than burning sugar cane and replanting sugar cane.
I doubt it.
Growing a field of sugar cane takes X kg of CO2 out of the atmosphere, burning it puts X kg of CO2 back into the atmosphere = net zero.
Burning fossil fuels quickly releases the carbon trapped by forests over potentially millions of years. Planting a new forest is not going to recapture the carbon stored from millions of years of decaying pre-historic forests.
Interesting. Having a look at what happened to vote shares in Ross, Skye and Lochaber vs what happened in West Aberdeen and Kincardine and they are intriguing a shows my issues in trying to eyeball data.
The Lab vote share from 2005 to 2017 goes through an identical pattern
RSL 14.9/15.1/4.9/12.2 WAK 13.1/13.6/4.5/11.1
Eyeballing the Lib Dem Data I thought it looked quite different
RSL 58.7/52.6/35.9/20.9 WAK 46.3/38.4/21.4/8.6
But in actuality it is almost lock step changes between the two constituencies - a slight smaller 2015-2017 drop in WAK
And even the Con data which looks dramatically different is basically the same
RSL 10.1/12.2/6.2/24.8 WAK 28.4/30.3/28.8/47.9
A 19.1% rise in WAK vs a 18.6% rise in RSL.
I'm going to dig into this further and look at various other basic numbers (turnout and SNP vote) plus other 2010 Lid Dem owned seats with Con in 2nd place. To see if this holds as an iron law.
If so this would make some excellent constituency betting base once we had some idea where the national numbers are.
I don't understand it but it sounds interesting. Please continue with the good work.
The party vote shares in "Ross, Sky and Lochaber" and "West Aberdeenshire and Kimcaedine" varied together almost prefectly. Given the results from one you'd have been able to get the results of the other within a couple of percent.
Given the Lib Dems are flapping their gums about being within 7 points of Ian Balckfowd in RSL then that has strong implications for how all the parties are doing in WAK.
Is your thesis that if the SLDs are getting back their votes that were temporarily lent to the SCons in RS&L, they'll also be getting them back in WA&K?
Yes, exscrlt. That's why it's important to see the other NE seats as well.
I am playing the SCon total seats market and if a rising tide is (based on historical info) raising all boats then the SCons could be in for a truly disastrous night as they leak votes to Lib Dems and let the static SNP through the middle.
But if this is just a one off coincidence then SCons could still keep the bulk of their seats and I would need to consider reconfiguring my money.
Biomass recycles CO2 from the atmosphere into the plant (when the plant is growing) then back out into the atmosphere, so the net effect is zero additional CO2 in the atmosphere.
Burning fossil fuels causes carbon that has been trapped deep underground for 100s of millions of years to be release into the atmosphere as additional CO2.
BS - how many years of growth of that biomass does it take before they are burnt? Grow a tree for X years of CO2 capture before burning to release ALL that CO2 in one go. Its the same thing as the fossil fuels, just green handwavium on the maths claims its recycling.. its just as unsustainable. Open your eyes!
'The West Midlands rather than the North is now emerging as the most important battleground for the December 12 poll.
'On top of Mr Watson’s, Tory chiefs have identified as many as 20 Labour seats there that could be vulnerable because of disenchantment with Jeremy Corbyn and his party’s confusion over Brexit. It has also emerged that Boris will head straight to the Midlands to launch the Tories' election campaign on Wednesday after going to see the Queen to ask her to dissolve Parliament that morning.....An MP ally of Jeremy Corbyn, Lloyd Russell-Moyle, slammed Labour’s Leave voters for having racist views as he accused them of being “dangerous” nationalists. Two high profile other candidates are also standing against Mr Watson in a bid to hurt his vote – leftwing firebrand George Galloway, and ex-Tory MP Harvey Proctor, who wants to highlight Mr Watson’s disastrors role in helping to instigate the flawed child abuse witch hunt, Operation Midland..' https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/10271765/tory-oust-labours-tom-watson/
According to Wiki the Tories were just 200 votes away from winning West Bromwich East in 1983 and less than 1000 away from winning it in 1987, so if it really is in play it implies a big Con majority is a possibility IMO.
If a settlement grows up in a specific location due to a specific industry at that location does it not make sense that the settlement might shrink or disappear once that industry ceases to exist?
It makes sense economically. However people invest time, money and sentiment in living in a place and cannot easily move from it. Their kids can and do, but they cannot, and you end up with hollowed-out communities of old people and unemployed, getting sicker and poorer.
You first. Mine aren't going within 100ft of a pit. Mining is very romantic but has this habit of killing its employees in various sadistic ways.
It has always puzzled me that the Labour left is so keen on environmental issues and yet so romanticizes the coal industry and the Miners’ Strike - which was, after all, about the insistence that no pit capable of producing coal, even if it was never used, should be closed.
There's nothing odd about it. People in most mining areas had very little relatively well-paid employment available except mining, so whole communities developed unhealthily dependent on it but not seeing any way out. I've met plenty of ex-miners and a number who did see the strike as a heroic last stand for their livelihoods but who were adamant that it was a filthy, dangerous job and they hoped their kids would do anything else.
What happened in the end is that communities adjusted up to a point, but after 10-20 years of depression. If Thatcher had closed the pits gradually while at the same time bringing in alternative employment the resistance would have been much less, but Conservative governments don't do bringing in jobs - it's the free market, innit?
And it was left to the EU to pick up the pieces through regional development funds.
If a settlement grows up in a specific location due to a specific industry at that location does it not make sense that the settlement might shrink or disappear once that industry ceases to exist?
It makes sense economically. However people invest time, money and sentiment in living in a place and cannot easily move from it. Their kids can and do, but they cannot, and you end up with hollowed-out communities of old people and unemployed, getting sicker and poorer.
When a new settlement is built there's a lot of planning in ensuring that all the utilities and services required are provided. It shouldn't be beyond us to manage the end-of-life of a community in a better way, rather than just to abandon people there with no work and no prospect of work.
'The West Midlands rather than the North is now emerging as the most important battleground for the December 12 poll.
'On top of Mr Watson’s, Tory chiefs have identified as many as 20 Labour seats there that could be vulnerable because of disenchantment with Jeremy Corbyn and his party’s confusion over Brexit. It has also emerged that Boris will head straight to the Midlands to launch the Tories' election campaign on Wednesday after going to see the Queen to ask her to dissolve Parliament that morning.....An MP ally of Jeremy Corbyn, Lloyd Russell-Moyle, slammed Labour’s Leave voters for having racist views as he accused them of being “dangerous” nationalists. Two high profile other candidates are also standing against Mr Watson in a bid to hurt his vote – leftwing firebrand George Galloway, and ex-Tory MP Harvey Proctor, who wants to highlight Mr Watson’s disastrors role in helping to instigate the flawed child abuse witch hunt, Operation Midland..' https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/10271765/tory-oust-labours-tom-watson/
According to Wiki the Tories were just a 200 away votes from winning West Bromwich East in 1983 and less than 1000 away from winning it in 1987, so if it really is in play it implies a big Con majority is a possibility IMO.
West Bromwich East is 119th on the Tory target list and now requires a smaller swing after the 2017 GE for the Tories to win than some seats Cameron won like Brentford and Isleworth, Brighton Kemptown, Enfield North, Ealing Central and Acton and Hove
Biomass recycles CO2 from the atmosphere into the plant (when the plant is growing) then back out into the atmosphere, so the net effect is zero additional CO2 in the atmosphere.
Burning fossil fuels causes carbon that has been trapped deep underground for 100s of millions of years to be release into the atmosphere as additional CO2.
BS - how many years of growth of that biomass does it take before they are burnt? Grow a tree for X years of CO2 capture before burning to release ALL that CO2 in one go. Its the same thing as the fossil fuels, just green handwavium on the maths claims its recycling.. its just as unsustainable. Open your eyes!
My eyes are open Megalomaniac!
Personally, I am not an advocate of biomass, as I stated elsewhere.
But a lot of biomass is grown on short term cycles (e.g. maize, switchgrass, miscanthus, hemp, sorghum, sugarcane, and bamboo), and the CO2 that burning them releases has been captured from the atmosphere in the past few years. Even with wood pellets, the carbon has been captured in our lifetime.
That is a vast difference to the burning of fossil fuels where the carbon was captured over 100s of millions of years (reducing atmospheric CO2 from 800 ppm to 280ppm before we started burning coal, oil and gas).
'The West Midlands rather than the North is now emerging as the most important battleground for the December 12 poll.
'On top of Mr Watson’s, Tory chiefs have identified as many as 20 Labour seats there that could be vulnerable because of disenchantment with Jeremy Corbyn and his party’s confusion over Brexit. It has also emerged that Boris will head straight to the Midlands to launch the Tories' election campaign on Wednesday after going to see the Queen to ask her to dissolve Parliament that morning.....An MP ally of Jeremy Corbyn, Lloyd Russell-Moyle, slammed Labour’s Leave voters for having racist views as he accused them of being “dangerous” nationalists. Two high profile other candidates are also standing against Mr Watson in a bid to hurt his vote – leftwing firebrand George Galloway, and ex-Tory MP Harvey Proctor, who wants to highlight Mr Watson’s disastrors role in helping to instigate the flawed child abuse witch hunt, Operation Midland. Furthermore, Mr Watson is expected to get no help from Labour HQ and Mr Corbyn’s pressure group Momentum because of his furious battles with the Labour leader.' https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/10271765/tory-oust-labours-tom-watson/
'The West Midlands rather than the North is now emerging as the most important battleground for the December 12 poll.
'On top of Mr Watson’s, Tory chiefs have identified as many as 20 Labour seats there that could be vulnerable because of disenchantment with Jeremy Corbyn and his party’s confusion over Brexit. It has also emerged that Boris will head straight to the Midlands to launch the Tories' election campaign on Wednesday after going to see the Queen to ask her to dissolve Parliament that morning.....An MP ally of Jeremy Corbyn, Lloyd Russell-Moyle, slammed Labour’s Leave voters for having racist views as he accused them of being “dangerous” nationalists. Two high profile other candidates are also standing against Mr Watson in a bid to hurt his vote – leftwing firebrand George Galloway, and ex-Tory MP Harvey Proctor, who wants to highlight Mr Watson’s disastrors role in helping to instigate the flawed child abuse witch hunt, Operation Midland..' https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/10271765/tory-oust-labours-tom-watson/
According to Wiki the Tories were just a 200 away votes from winning West Bromwich East in 1983 and less than 1000 away from winning it in 1987, so if it really is in play it implies a big Con majority is a possibility IMO.
West Bromwich East is 119th on the Tory target list and now requires a smaller swing after the 2017 GE for the Tories to win than some seats Cameron won like Brentford and Isleworth, Brighton Kemptown, Enfield North, Ealing Central and Acton and Hove
Yes, in the UK. I'd build big clean coal power stations. I have a friend who is a geologist who claims we can somehow capture the carbon by pumping it beneath the earth again.
But that doesn't solve the problem that extracting the coal is going to cost $150-200/tonne, which would make UK electricity even more expensive. (Seaborne coal is $63/tonne, albeit with shipping cost of $3-5 to be added)
There's a reason we moved from burning our own coal to importing it.
One would only open the most profitable mines. Those shipping costs look low, I wish I could find a courier who would deliver a tonne of anything for £5.
The day rate for a 170,000 dwt vessel is just $4,000/day. If the power station is by the sea, it'll be cheaper to get coal there from South Africa or South America than by road from a mine in the UK.
Biofuels (whether wood for electricity generation or ethanol for cars/planes) are a bad idea because there's not enough land to grow enough fuel and it puts energy crops in competition with food crops (and wilderness) for land. It might be different if it was a result of growing algae in vats, I suppose.
Trying to decide whether it's better or worse than burning fossil fuels is like trying to decide whether to amputate an arm or a leg.
'The West Midlands rather than the North is now emerging as the most important battleground for the December 12 poll.
'On top of Mr Watson’s, Tory chiefs have identified as many as 20 Labour seats there that could be vulnerable because of disenchantment with Jeremy Corbyn and his party’s confusion over Brexit. It has also emerged that Boris will head straight to the Midlands to launch the Tories' election campaign on Wednesday after going to see the Queen to ask her to dissolve Parliament that morning.....An MP ally of Jeremy Corbyn, Lloyd Russell-Moyle, slammed Labour’s Leave voters for having racist views as he accused them of being “dangerous” nationalists. Two high profile other candidates are also standing against Mr Watson in a bid to hurt his vote – leftwing firebrand George Galloway, and ex-Tory MP Harvey Proctor, who wants to highlight Mr Watson’s disastrors role in helping to instigate the flawed child abuse witch hunt, Operation Midland..' https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/10271765/tory-oust-labours-tom-watson/
According to Wiki the Tories were just a 200 away votes from winning West Bromwich East in 1983 and less than 1000 away from winning it in 1987, so if it really is in play it implies a big Con majority is a possibility IMO.
West Bromwich East is 119th on the Tory target list and now requires a smaller swing after the 2017 GE for the Tories to win than some seats Cameron won like Brentford and Isleworth, Brighton Kemptown, Enfield North, Ealing Central and Acton and Hove
No as if they win those Leave seats the Brexit Party taking Labour votes will be a key factor, that was not the case in 2017.
See Workington for example where there is a small swing from Labour to the Tories but a bigger swing from Labour to the Brexit Party, putting the Tories in front.
Interesting. Having a look at what happened to vote shares in Ross, Skye and Lochaber vs what happened in West Aberdeen and Kincardine and they are intriguing a shows my issues in trying to eyeball data.
The Lab vote share from 2005 to 2017 goes through an identical pattern
RSL 14.9/15.1/4.9/12.2 WAK 13.1/13.6/4.5/11.1
Eyeballing the Lib Dem Data I thought it looked quite different
RSL 58.7/52.6/35.9/20.9 WAK 46.3/38.4/21.4/8.6
But in actuality it is almost lock step changes between the two constituencies - a slight smaller 2015-2017 drop in WAK
And even the Con data which looks dramatically different is basically the same
RSL 10.1/12.2/6.2/24.8 WAK 28.4/30.3/28.8/47.9
A 19.1% rise in WAK vs a 18.6% rise in RSL.
I'm going to dig into this further and look at various other basic numbers (turnout and SNP vote) plus other 2010 Lid Dem owned seats with Con in 2nd place. To see if this holds as an iron law.
If so this would make some excellent constituency betting base once we had some idea where the national numbers are.
I don't understand it but it sounds interesting. Please continue with the good work.
The party vote shares in "Ross, Sky and Lochaber" and "West Aberdeenshire and Kimcaedine" varied together almost prefectly. Given the results from one you'd have been able to get the results of the other within a couple of percent.
Given the Lib Dems are flapping their gums about being within 7 points of Ian Balckfowd in RSL then that has strong implications for how all the parties are doing in WAK.
Is your thesis that if the SLDs are getting back their votes that were temporarily lent to the SCons in RS&L, they'll also be getting them back in WA&K?
Yes, exscrlt. That's why it's important to see the other NE seats as well.
I am playing the SCon total seats market and if a rising tide is (based on historical info) raising all boats then the SCons could be in for a truly disastrous night as they leak votes to Lib Dems and let the static SNP through the middle.
But if this is just a one off coincidence then SCons could still keep the bulk of their seats and I would need to consider reconfiguring my money.
Think the Tories will do well in the West Midlands but a 20% gap to close in West Bromwich East is too much.
It's possible the Tory vote could stand still and Labour could drop 20%, putting the seat on a knife-edge. Also, George Galloway and Harvey Proctor are both standing as independents in the seat, which muddies the waters still further.
'The West Midlands rather than the North is now emerging as the most important battleground for the December 12 poll.
'On top of Mr Watson’s, Tory chiefs have identified as many as 20 Labour seats there that could be vulnerable because of disenchantment with Jeremy Corbyn and his party’s confusion over Brexit. It has also emerged that Boris will head straight to the Midlands to launch the Tories' election campaign on Wednesday after going to see the Queen to ask her to dissolve Parliament that morning.....An MP ally of Jeremy Corbyn, Lloyd Russell-Moyle, slammed Labour’s Leave voters for having racist views as he accused them of being “dangerous” nationalists. Two high profile other candidates are also standing against Mr Watson in a bid to hurt his vote – leftwing firebrand George Galloway, and ex-Tory MP Harvey Proctor, who wants to highlight Mr Watson’s disastrors role in helping to instigate the flawed child abuse witch hunt, Operation Midland..' https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/10271765/tory-oust-labours-tom-watson/
According to Wiki the Tories were just 200 votes away from winning West Bromwich East in 1983 and less than 1000 away from winning it in 1987, so if it really is in play it implies a big Con majority is a possibility IMO.
Useless fact: Crispin Blunt was the Tory candidate in 1992 attempting to overturn that 983 vote majority from 1987.
If a settlement grows up in a specific location due to a specific industry at that location does it not make sense that the settlement might shrink or disappear once that industry ceases to exist?
It makes sense economically. However people invest time, money and sentiment in living in a place and cannot easily move from it. Their kids can and do, but they cannot, and you end up with hollowed-out communities of old people and unemployed, getting sicker and poorer.
When a new settlement is built there's a lot of planning in ensuring that all the utilities and services required are provided. It shouldn't be beyond us to manage the end-of-life of a community in a better way, rather than just to abandon people there with no work and no prospect of work.
Should there be? Yes. Can there be? Yes. Will there be? No. There never is.
Biomass recycles CO2 from the atmosphere into the plant (when the plant is growing) then back out into the atmosphere, so the net effect is zero additional CO2 in the atmosphere.
Burning fossil fuels causes carbon that has been trapped deep underground for 100s of millions of years to be release into the atmosphere as additional CO2.
BS - how many years of growth of that biomass does it take before they are burnt? Grow a tree for X years of CO2 capture before burning to release ALL that CO2 in one go. Its the same thing as the fossil fuels, just green handwavium on the maths claims its recycling.. its just as unsustainable. Open your eyes!
Its sustainable. So long as it is modern CO2 that is being captured, released, recaptured and released it is net zero.
Fossil fuels is not the same thing. It is releasing CO2 from a previous era today. Nothing is being recaptured.
'The West Midlands rather than the North is now emerging as the most important battleground for the December 12 poll.
'On top of Mr Watson’s, Tory chiefs have identified as many as 20 Labour seats there that could be vulnerable because of disenchantment with Jeremy Corbyn and his party’s confusion over Brexit. It has also emerged that Boris will head straight to the Midlands to launch the Tories' election campaign on Wednesday after going to see the Queen to ask her to dissolve Parliament that morning.....An MP ally of Jeremy Corbyn, Lloyd Russell-Moyle, slammed Labour’s Leave voters for having racist views as he accused them of being “dangerous” nationalists. Two high profile other candidates are also standing against Mr Watson in a bid to hurt his vote – leftwing firebrand George Galloway, and ex-Tory MP Harvey Proctor, who wants to highlight Mr Watson’s disastrors role in helping to instigate the flawed child abuse witch hunt, Operation Midland. Furthermore, Mr Watson is expected to get no help from Labour HQ and Mr Corbyn’s pressure group Momentum because of his furious battles with the Labour leader.' https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/10271765/tory-oust-labours-tom-watson/
I imagine there will be some in Momentum who wouldn't shed a tear at Watson's seat going Tory - they probably wouldn't see a difference lol.
Apparently, a general election deal between Lib Dems and Plaid Cymru has been agreed.
PC won't field a candidate in Brecon and Radnorshire or Montgomeryshire (probably the only constituencies the LibDems care about)
In return, LDs stand down in constituencies including Ynys Môn, Arfon, Dwyfor Meirionnydd, Carmarthen East, Llanelli.
Fury on the Plaid Cymru blogs. There are hardly any LibDems in these seats, and almost all of them will never vote Plaid Cymru anyhow.
This pernicious alliance means I will canvass actively against the (former Tory) Londoner who the LibDems have parachuted into Montgomeryshire. It will be a pleasure to see him lose.
The LibDems really do turn everything to ordure ...
'The West Midlands rather than the North is now emerging as the most important battleground for the December 12 poll.
'On top of Mr Watson’s, Tory chiefs have identified as many as 20 Labour seats there that could be vulnerable because of disenchantment with Jeremy Corbyn and his party’s confusion over Brexit. It has also emerged that Boris will head straight to the Midlands to launch the Tories' election campaign on Wednesday after going to see the Queen to ask her to dissolve Parliament that morning.....An MP ally of Jeremy Corbyn, Lloyd Russell-Moyle, slammed Labour’s Leave voters for having racist views as he accused them of being “dangerous” nationalists. Two high profile other candidates are also standing against Mr Watson in a bid to hurt his vote – leftwing firebrand George Galloway, and ex-Tory MP Harvey Proctor, who wants to highlight Mr Watson’s disastrors role in helping to instigate the flawed child abuse witch hunt, Operation Midland. Furthermore, Mr Watson is expected to get no help from Labour HQ and Mr Corbyn’s pressure group Momentum because of his furious battles with the Labour leader.' https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/10271765/tory-oust-labours-tom-watson/
I imagine there will be some in Momentum who wouldn't shed a tear at Watson's seat going Tory - they probably wouldn't see a difference lol.
True unless Boris gets a Tory majority of 1 as a result
No as if they win those Leave seats the Brexit Party taking Labour votes will be a key factor, that was not the case in 2017.
See Workington for example where there is a small swing from Labour to the Tories but a bigger swing from Labour to the Brexit Party, putting the Tories in front.
No, we discussed this the other day. In some ways it's better for the Tories - what appears to have happened (looking at the crosstabs) is that BXP have hurt both parties equally, but the Conservatives have got a chunk of direct switchers, On this evidence, the impact of BXP will be neutral, but the improvement in Tory fortunes in the industrial north is evidently still continuing.
Apparently, a general election deal between Lib Dems and Plaid Cymru has been agreed.
PC won't field a candidate in Brecon and Radnorshire or Montgomeryshire (probably the only constituencies the LibDems care about)
In return, LDs stand down in constituencies including Ynys Môn, Arfon, Dwyfor Meirionnydd, Carmarthen East, Llanelli.
Fury on the Plaid Cymru blogs. There are hardly any LibDems in these seats, and almost all of them will never vote Plaid Cymru anyhow.
This pernicious alliance means I will canvass actively against the (former Tory) Londoner who the LibDems have parachuted into Montgomeryshire. It will be a pleasure to see him lose.
The LibDems really do turn everything to ordure ...
Apparently, a general election deal between Lib Dems and Plaid Cymru has been agreed.
PC won't field a candidate in Brecon and Radnorshire or Montgomeryshire (probably the only constituencies the LibDems care about)
In return, LDs stand down in constituencies including Ynys Môn, Arfon, Dwyfor Meirionnydd, Carmarthen East, Llanelli.
Fury on the Plaid Cymru blogs. There are hardly any LibDems in these seats, and almost all of them will never vote Plaid Cymru anyhow.
This pernicious alliance means I will canvass actively against the (former Tory) Londoner who the LibDems have parachuted into Montgomeryshire. It will be a pleasure to see him lose.
The LibDems really do turn everything to ordure ...
Pah! Get over it!
There's too much division in politics in this country; we need more not less co-operation.
Apparently, a general election deal between Lib Dems and Plaid Cymru has been agreed.
PC won't field a candidate in Brecon and Radnorshire or Montgomeryshire (probably the only constituencies the LibDems care about)
In return, LDs stand down in constituencies including Ynys Môn, Arfon, Dwyfor Meirionnydd, Carmarthen East, Llanelli.
Fury on the Plaid Cymru blogs. There are hardly any LibDems in these seats, and almost all of them will never vote Plaid Cymru anyhow.
This pernicious alliance means I will canvass actively against the (former Tory) Londoner who the LibDems have parachuted into Montgomeryshire. It will be a pleasure to see him lose.
The LibDems really do turn everything to ordure ...
Comments
One is land use change which can make biomass more environmentally damaging than fossil.
Another is the time factor - replant trees to replace those that are chopped down and burnt and it will take 40 or more years to extract the CO2 back out of the atmosphere. It is over those 40 years that the climate and the earth will be fecked.
Biomass recycles CO2 from the atmosphere into the plant (when the plant is growing) then back out into the atmosphere, so the net effect is zero additional CO2 in the atmosphere.
Burning fossil fuels causes carbon that has been trapped deep underground for 100s of millions of years to be release into the atmosphere as additional CO2.
As govts have clearly shown, if they need more money then they will "print" it and call it "Quantitative Easing"
In that sense they are in effect a source of (inefficient) solar power.
Best prices
Con 11/10
LD 2/1
Lab 11/4
They were remarks made some years ago I believe
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-50274212
By some magic trick the CO2 coming out of the stack in Yorkshire is considered to be CO2 released in the US where the trees were felled. Go figure.
Spending = Tax take + Borrowing
With this equation I have always understood that if we want decent public services and wish to keep borrowing under control we need to tax sufficiently. Others may frame it as if you want to reduce borrowing without raising taxes you need to cut public spending.
In either case, how does QE affect this?
What happened in the end is that communities adjusted up to a point, but after 10-20 years of depression. If Thatcher had closed the pits gradually while at the same time bringing in alternative employment the resistance would have been much less, but Conservative governments don't do bringing in jobs - it's the free market, innit?
Edit - I’m personally massively in favour of nationalising GPs (this Gvt is doing in on the sky anyway as older, practice owning, GPS step down) but they have an insanely powerful pressure group to hand, and threatening to take away the existing GP owned practices and/or private work for consultants will anger the BMA.
The health and climate impacts of carbon capture and direct air capture
https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2019/EE/C9EE02709B#!divAbstract
With the rapidly falling costs of direct renewables, current carbon capture technology is a waste of time.
I do not suppose Corbyn and Macdonnell feel much different.
Interesting. Having a look at what happened to vote shares in Ross, Skye and Lochaber vs what happened in West Aberdeen and Kincardine and they are intriguing a shows my issues in trying to eyeball data.
The Lab vote share from 2005 to 2017 goes through an identical pattern
RSL 14.9/15.1/4.9/12.2
WAK 13.1/13.6/4.5/11.1
Eyeballing the Lib Dem Data I thought it looked quite different
RSL 58.7/52.6/35.9/20.9
WAK 46.3/38.4/21.4/8.6
But in actuality it is almost lock step changes between the two constituencies - a slight smaller 2015-2017 drop in WAK
And even the Con data which looks dramatically different is basically the same
RSL 10.1/12.2/6.2/24.8
WAK 28.4/30.3/28.8/47.9
A 19.1% rise in WAK vs a 18.6% rise in RSL.
I'm going to dig into this further and look at various other basic numbers (turnout and SNP vote) plus other 2010 Lid Dem owned seats with Con in 2nd place. To see if this holds as an iron law.
If so this would make some excellent constituency betting base once we had some idea where the national numbers are.
It makes him look like he's totally unserious about both Brexit and becoming an MP and is just doing this to look for kicks and to make himself center of attention - all of which is true and probably always has been, but I think UKIP/BXP voters will notice this time.
When it was stored as carbon is irrelevant. The result is the same. The fact that new biomass crops are grown in its place and draw carbon from the atmosphere once again is more relevant, but it is entirely possible that burning oil and planting a forest would result in less CO2 than burning sugar cane and replanting sugar cane.
Such a thing was beyond her.
Given the Lib Dems are flapping their gums about being within 7 points of Ian Balckfowd in RSL then that has strong implications for how all the parties are doing in WAK.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/11/03/labour-mp-chris-bryant-backed-senior-tories-including-michael/
What is wrong with them.
'On top of Mr Watson’s, Tory chiefs have identified as many as 20 Labour seats there that could be vulnerable because of disenchantment with Jeremy Corbyn and his party’s confusion over Brexit.
It has also emerged that Boris will head straight to the Midlands to launch the Tories' election campaign on Wednesday after going to see the Queen to ask her to dissolve Parliament that morning.....An MP ally of Jeremy Corbyn, Lloyd Russell-Moyle, slammed Labour’s Leave voters for having racist views as he accused them of being “dangerous” nationalists. Two high profile other candidates are also standing against Mr Watson in a bid to hurt his vote – leftwing firebrand George Galloway, and ex-Tory MP Harvey Proctor, who wants to highlight Mr Watson’s disastrors role in helping to instigate the flawed child abuse witch hunt, Operation Midland.
Furthermore, Mr Watson is expected to get no help from Labour HQ and Mr Corbyn’s pressure group Momentum because of his furious battles with the Labour leader.'
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/10271765/tory-oust-labours-tom-watson/
Growing a field of sugar cane takes X kg of CO2 out of the atmosphere, burning it puts X kg of CO2 back into the atmosphere = net zero.
Burning fossil fuels quickly releases the carbon trapped by forests over potentially millions of years. Planting a new forest is not going to recapture the carbon stored from millions of years of decaying pre-historic forests.
I am playing the SCon total seats market and if a rising tide is (based on historical info) raising all boats then the SCons could be in for a truly disastrous night as they leak votes to Lib Dems and let the static SNP through the middle.
But if this is just a one off coincidence then SCons could still keep the bulk of their seats and I would need to consider reconfiguring my money.
However people invest time, money and sentiment in living in a place and cannot easily move from it. Their kids can and do, but they cannot, and you end up with hollowed-out communities of old people and unemployed, getting sicker and poorer.
Lab wakes up to its old persons problem.
http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/targets/conservative
Personally, I am not an advocate of biomass, as I stated elsewhere.
But a lot of biomass is grown on short term cycles (e.g. maize, switchgrass, miscanthus, hemp, sorghum, sugarcane, and bamboo), and the CO2 that burning them releases has been captured from the atmosphere in the past few years. Even with wood pellets, the carbon has been captured in our lifetime.
That is a vast difference to the burning of fossil fuels where the carbon was captured over 100s of millions of years (reducing atmospheric CO2 from 800 ppm to 280ppm before we started burning coal, oil and gas).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2019_United_Kingdom_general_election#2019
Trying to decide whether it's better or worse than burning fossil fuels is like trying to decide whether to amputate an arm or a leg.
See Workington for example where there is a small swing from Labour to the Tories but a bigger swing from Labour to the Brexit Party, putting the Tories in front.
https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1190402686828580865?s=20
Plus
https://twitter.com/OpiniumResearch/status/1190963601462484992?s=20
Yes.
Can there be?
Yes.
Will there be?
No.
There never is.
https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/1191107198354706432?s=20
Fossil fuels is not the same thing. It is releasing CO2 from a previous era today. Nothing is being recaptured.
PC won't field a candidate in Brecon and Radnorshire or Montgomeryshire (probably the only constituencies the LibDems care about)
In return, LDs stand down in constituencies including Ynys Môn, Arfon, Dwyfor Meirionnydd, Carmarthen East, Llanelli.
Fury on the Plaid Cymru blogs. There are hardly any LibDems in these seats, and almost all of them will never vote Plaid Cymru anyhow.
This pernicious alliance means I will canvass actively against the (former Tory) Londoner who the LibDems have parachuted into Montgomeryshire. It will be a pleasure to see him lose.
The LibDems really do turn everything to ordure ...
And what news of Corporal Francois?
There's too much division in politics in this country; we need more not less co-operation.