This, this here, is the biggest and best insight that one needs to embrace in order to make sense of UK politics right now - and if he wins, for the next few years.
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.
I don't see the significance of the pedigree of carbon being released. Surely what matters to the greenhouse effect is the quantity being released.
To get the same energy, burning oil and burning biomass release the same carbon (if anything, I'd say fossil fuels tend to be more efficient, so there might be less carbon released for energy gained). Then it is just a matter of which offsetting method draws more carbon out of the atmosphere, a forest, or a new biomass crop.
Electricity from biomass is no cheaper than renewables, and extremely unlikely to fall in price in the same way that they will over the next decade. It would make considerably more sense to plant more forests and not cut them down.
In the very short term - the next decade - it would make sense to replace coal with natural gas. Virtually no one burns oil for electricity, other than emergency generators.
Fun fact, the island of St Lucia gets all its power from burning imported oil.
Fun fact, only one British league football team is mentioned in the New Testament.
Orient?
Wolves Arsenal Spurs
must all be in with a chance
(But are we taking KJV or RSV)?
Wolves and Spurs are not the full names of the teams. Neither is Orient.
They are turned back to the iniquities of their forfarthers, which refused to hear my words; and they went after other gods to serve them: the house of Israel and the house of Judah have broken my covenant which I made with their fathers.
Moses gets a ton of mentions. Too many to list.
Although being on loan to Fenerbahce maybe rules him out of this one.
John the Baptist was very good with his head, I hear.
HYUFD says: "It needs Chuka for the LDs to win Labour moderates, he was in Ed Miliband's Shadow Cabinet not the Coalition unlike Swinson and Davey and Cable"
Well - whilst I support the LibDems I hope that Chuka doesn`t get elected. I don`t approved of politicians that jump ship: is he a collectivist or a liberal? Is Gyimah`s ideology conservatism or liberalism?
I have no idea why there is this slavering over Chuka.
There is no evidence that he is good at practical politics (he was the de facto leader of the disastrously launched TIG-gers); there is no evidence he believes in anything very much ("nightclubs full of trash"); there is no evidence he can convert undecided voters or is electorally successfully.
Someone would have to really hate the LibDems to wish Chuka on them as leader. (No, I can't do it ... )
Like you, I don't approve of defectors who jump ship without holding by-elections, but the best of the defectors in terms of practical politics for the LibDems was Heidi Allen. I think she was the only one who might have held her seat.
Chuka or Luciana Berger are the only LDs I can see winning a general election as they need moderate Labour voters to overtake Labour as the main opposition to the Tories
They are turned back to the iniquities of their forfarthers, which refused to hear my words; and they went after other gods to serve them: the house of Israel and the house of Judah have broken my covenant which I made with their fathers.
Moses gets a ton of mentions. Too many to list.
Although being on loan to Fenerbahce maybe rules him out of this one.
John the Baptist was very good with his head, I hear.
Archangel Gabriel was very good on the wings.....
It's not biblical but it reminds me that in my playing days the Scottish Goalkeeper, Alan Rough (sic), was known as The Ancient Mariner.
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.
I don't see the significance of the pedigree of carbon being released. Surely what matters to the greenhouse effect is the quantity being released.
To get the same energy, burning oil and burning biomass release the same carbon (if anything, I'd say fossil fuels tend to be more efficient, so there might be less carbon released for energy gained). Then it is just a matter of which offsetting method draws more carbon out of the atmosphere, a forest, or a new biomass crop.
Eh?
If I grow a tree and then burn it, the net carbon released is zero. If I did a lump of coal out the ground and burn it, the net carbon released is something.
Strictly speaking, both are zero carbon (in the sense that all carbon on the planet and in the atmosphere is always in balance) it's just the tree does it over a 30-80 year timescale, and the coal over a 10-30 million year one.
there's a great book with a geological perspective on this, and other aspects of the earth's history "Timefulness: How Thinking Like a Geologist Can Help Save the World" which is really well-written (almost poetry in places) and nice and short.
On what possible basis does Farage get an invite to any debates? He represents a private company, not a party, which has zero MPs, is almost certain to win zero seats, has never even stood for Parliament before and is not a candidate himself.
If you believe this, you should be aware that right now you can back the Brexit party to get zero seats on Betfair at 2.12 (11/10).
I think this is a great bet at this price.
You can still get 1.10 on Brexit party nil to nine seats
I actually prefer the bet on zero seats. I expect the Brexit party to crash and burn but the nature of their support is such that if they don't, they'll pick up support in quite a few locations. It's not too hard to imagine how the Brexit party message might cut through with some voters. If so, you could easily see how quite a few seats might fall to them.
HYUFD says: "It needs Chuka for the LDs to win Labour moderates, he was in Ed Miliband's Shadow Cabinet not the Coalition unlike Swinson and Davey and Cable"
Well - whilst I support the LibDems I hope that Chuka doesn`t get elected. I don`t approved of politicians that jump ship: is he a collectivist or a liberal? Is Gyimah`s ideology conservatism or liberalism?
I have no idea why there is this slavering over Chuka.
There is no evidence that he is good at practical politics (he was the de facto leader of the disastrously launched TIG-gers); there is no evidence he believes in anything very much ("nightclubs full of trash"); there is no evidence he can convert undecided voters or is electorally successfully.
Someone would have to really hate the LibDems to wish Chuka on them as leader. (No, I can't do it ... )
Like you, I don't approve of defectors who jump ship without holding by-elections, but the best of the defectors in terms of practical politics for the LibDems was Heidi Allen. I think she was the only one who might have held her seat.
Chuka or Luciana Berger are the only LDs I can see winning a general election as they need moderate Labour voters to overtake Labour as the main opposition to the Tories
I think you overrate Chuka's or Luciana's ability to garner votes.
We'll see on Dec 12th, but I expect them both to lose.
Although we have told the LibDems this many times, It actually isn't a good look to parachute in some self-proclaimed "big star" into a seat. Especially when the "big star" actually turns out to emit very feeble levels of radiation.
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.
I don't see the significance of the pedigree of carbon being released. Surely what matters to the greenhouse effect is the quantity being released.
To get the same energy, burning oil and burning biomass release the same carbon (if anything, I'd say fossil fuels tend to be more efficient, so there might be less carbon released for energy gained). Then it is just a matter of which offsetting method draws more carbon out of the atmosphere, a forest, or a new biomass crop.
I can't understand what you're struggling to understand about pedigree. What matters is the net quantity released.
Biomass you're continuously harvesting and replanting new crops so net output is virtually nothing. Instead of greenhouse gases if you think of it like money where emitting gases is like spending money then biomass is like spending your wages - you earn some money [plant crops] then you spend it [consume crops]
Fossil fuels have no offsetting. There aren't new forests like you try to imply for fossil fuels and if you were to plant forests then you could do that and still generate energy via better means. Fiscally its like getting into debt to fund your spending.
Either way its moot. The UK is an island, we ought to be able to get all our energy offshore. Between offshore wind farms which are now cheaper to build and run than alternatives and tidal lagoons which can be built naturally and can provide energy on demand when the wind is less available or demand spikes we have no long term need to burn fossil fuels.
Chris said: "You got a much better price than I did - about 13 - but it's currently 7.4-8 and by comparison with the election markets it still seems good value, unless I'm missing something."
"Turns out I was gilding the lily. Not 45. It was 25. Still, 7.6 now, as you say, so smug city. If he gets a good majority it would be surely be tempting. Also tempting to put his feet up for the hols, however, so think I might close out now. Thanks for the spot since I would not have known. It's not a market I check often now the GE is on."
So - are you closing your bets now for a profit or letting them run??
I will lay back more than stake so I swap a profile of PP or small loss, for one of P or p.
Where PP is high profit, P is medium profit, and p is small profit.
HYUFD says: "It needs Chuka for the LDs to win Labour moderates, he was in Ed Miliband's Shadow Cabinet not the Coalition unlike Swinson and Davey and Cable"
Well - whilst I support the LibDems I hope that Chuka doesn`t get elected. I don`t approved of politicians that jump ship: is he a collectivist or a liberal? Is Gyimah`s ideology conservatism or liberalism?
I have no idea why there is this slavering over Chuka.
There is no evidence that he is good at practical politics (he was the de facto leader of the disastrously launched TIG-gers); there is no evidence he believes in anything very much ("nightclubs full of trash"); there is no evidence he can convert undecided voters or is electorally successfully.
Someone would have to really hate the LibDems to wish Chuka on them as leader. (No, I can't do it ... )
Like you, I don't approve of defectors who jump ship without holding by-elections, but the best of the defectors in terms of practical politics for the LibDems was Heidi Allen. I think she was the only one who might have held her seat.
Chuka or Luciana Berger are the only LDs I can see winning a general election as they need moderate Labour voters to overtake Labour as the main opposition to the Tories
I think you overrate Chuka's or Luciana's ability to garner votes.
We'll see on Dec 12th, but I expect them both to lose.
Although we have told the LibDems this many times, It actually isn't a good look to parachute in some self-proclaimed "big star" into a seat. Especially when the "big star" actually turns out to emit very feeble levels of radiation.
That is how the LibDems lost their seats in Wales
Given the huge swings to the LDs in the recent Kensington and Battersea polls I would not rule out them winning, indeed Berger was ahead in a recent Finchley and Golders Green poll.
Most LD gains will come in central London and university town Remain central
Morning all and on thread of course the debate should only be between Johnson and Corbyn. The girl guide from Bearsden will be lucky to win more than 30-40 seats (probably mostly from Labour) and the MEP who has declined to stand is ineligible under our modern system to be PM. In 2017 the "Leaders" Debate was a shambolic nonsense which put most people off with 7 people being very shoutie at one another.
Technically you don’t need to be in Parliament to be PM, although it has been a while... I think Halifax was the last peer seriously considered who was going to be in the house of Peers (Hume only got the nod because he said he’d disclaim and sit in the Commons)
I can't understand what you're struggling to understand about pedigree. What matters is the net quantity released.
Biomass you're continuously harvesting and replanting new crops so net output is virtually nothing. Instead of greenhouse gases if you think of it like money where emitting gases is like spending money then biomass is like spending your wages - you earn some money [plant crops] then you spend it [consume crops]
Fossil fuels have no offsetting. There aren't new forests like you try to imply for fossil fuels and if you were to plant forests then you could do that and still generate energy via better means. Fiscally its like getting into debt to fund your spending.
Either way its moot. The UK is an island, we ought to be able to get all our energy offshore. Between offshore wind farms which are now cheaper to build and run than alternatives and tidal lagoons which can be built naturally and can provide energy on demand when the wind is less available or demand spikes we have no long term need to burn fossil fuels.
Not being awkward but the electrification of transport is going to require additional power sources as all of it is currently powered by fossil fuels.
On the other hand increased insulation would reduce heating costs.
HYUFD says: "It needs Chuka for the LDs to win Labour moderates, he was in Ed Miliband's Shadow Cabinet not the Coalition unlike Swinson and Davey and Cable"
Well - whilst I support the LibDems I hope that Chuka doesn`t get elected. I don`t approved of politicians that jump ship: is he a collectivist or a liberal? Is Gyimah`s ideology conservatism or liberalism?
I have no idea why there is this slavering over Chuka.
There is no evidence that he is good at practical politics (he was the de facto leader of the disastrously launched TIG-gers); there is no evidence he believes in anything very much ("nightclubs full of trash"); there is no evidence he can convert undecided voters or is electorally successfully.
Someone would have to really hate the LibDems to wish Chuka on them as leader. (No, I can't do it ... )
Like you, I don't approve of defectors who jump ship without holding by-elections, but the best of the defectors in terms of practical politics for the LibDems was Heidi Allen. I think she was the only one who might have held her seat.
Chuka or Luciana Berger are the only LDs I can see winning a general election as they need moderate Labour voters to overtake Labour as the main opposition to the Tories
I think you overrate Chuka's or Luciana's ability to garner votes.
We'll see on Dec 12th, but I expect them both to lose.
Although we have told the LibDems this many times, It actually isn't a good look to parachute in some self-proclaimed "big star" into a seat. Especially when the "big star" actually turns out to emit very feeble levels of radiation.
That is how the LibDems lost their seats in Wales
Given the huge swings to the LDs in the recent Kensington and Battersea polls I would not rule out them winning, indeed Berger was ahead in a recent Finchley and Golders Green poll.
Most LD gains will come in central London and university town Remain central
Like rcs1000, I am bearish on the LibDems.
The University towns all have howling Remainers as MPs. They are the Labour MPs for those constituencies who conspicuously (whether from self-interest or belief) take a strongly Remainer line.
The only real exceptions are Guildford and Portsmouth S. I think the LibDems could well take Guildford, whereas probably the Tories are favourites in chaotic Portsmouth S.
I think it will be slim pickings for the LibDems in the University towns.
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.
I don't see the significance of the pedigree of carbon being released. Surely what matters to the greenhouse effect is the quantity being released.
To get the same energy, burning oil and burning biomass release the same carbon (if anything, I'd say fossil fuels tend to be more efficient, so there might be less carbon released for energy gained). Then it is just a matter of which offsetting method draws more carbon out of the atmosphere, a forest, or a new biomass crop.
Electricity from biomass is no cheaper than renewables, and extremely unlikely to fall in price in the same way that they will over the next decade. It would make considerably more sense to plant more forests and not cut them down.
In the very short term - the next decade - it would make sense to replace coal with natural gas. Virtually no one burns oil for electricity, other than emergency generators.
Fun fact, the island of St Lucia gets all its power from burning imported oil.
Fun fact, only one British league football team is mentioned in the New Testament.
Orient?
Wolves Arsenal Spurs
must all be in with a chance
(But are we taking KJV or RSV)?
The King James Bible still refers to the First Division and thinks Liverpool are the champions. But the New Revised Standard Version does at least mention Karren Brady. However it's only the Apocrypha that refers to the forbidden Gospel of St Ferguson.
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.
I don't see the significance of the pedigree of carbon being released. Surely what matters to the greenhouse effect is the quantity being released.
To get the same energy, burning oil and burning biomass release the same carbon (if anything, I'd say fossil fuels tend to be more efficient, so there might be less carbon released for energy gained). Then it is just a matter of which offsetting method draws more carbon out of the atmosphere, a forest, or a new biomass crop.
I can't understand what you're struggling to understand about pedigree. What matters is the net quantity released.
Biomass you're continuously harvesting and replanting new crops so net output is virtually nothing. Instead of greenhouse gases if you think of it like money where emitting gases is like spending money then biomass is like spending your wages - you earn some money [plant crops] then you spend it [consume crops]
Fossil fuels have no offsetting. There aren't new forests like you try to imply for fossil fuels and if you were to plant forests then you could do that and still generate energy via better means. Fiscally its like getting into debt to fund your spending.
Either way its moot. The UK is an island, we ought to be able to get all our energy offshore. Between offshore wind farms which are now cheaper to build and run than alternatives and tidal lagoons which can be built naturally and can provide energy on demand when the wind is less available or demand spikes we have no long term need to burn fossil fuels.
It would have been easier to make progress if the Green Party had been less two faced in the past, opposing the Severn barrage
On what possible basis does Farage get an invite to any debates? He represents a private company, not a party, which has zero MPs, is almost certain to win zero seats, has never even stood for Parliament before and is not a candidate himself.
If you believe this, you should be aware that right now you can back the Brexit party to get zero seats on Betfair at 2.12 (11/10).
I think this is a great bet at this price.
You can still get 1.10 on Brexit party nil to nine seats
I actually prefer the bet on zero seats. I expect the Brexit party to crash and burn but the nature of their support is such that if they don't, they'll pick up support in quite a few locations. It's not too hard to imagine how the Brexit party message might cut through with some voters. If so, you could easily see how quite a few seats might fall to them.
Yes, I've been surprised in the recent flurry of emails how the Brexiteers in Broxtowe (OK, just 5 of the replies) are still tossing up between the Tory and the BXP candidate, on the basis of "I have to decide which is more reliably pro-Brexit". I'm not discouraging them for obvious reasons, but tactical voting doesn't seem to be a thing for the hard core.
You got a much better price than I did - about 13 - but it's currently 7.4-8 and by comparison with the election markets it still seems good value, unless I'm missing something.
Turns out I was gilding the lily. Not 45. It was 25. Still, 7.6 now, as you say, so smug city. If he gets a good majority it would be surely be tempting. Also tempting to put his feet up for the hols, however, so think I might close out now. Thanks for the spot since I would not have known. It's not a market I check often now the GE is on.
Is it too pedantic to point out that it's "painting the lily"?
Would it be pedantic to point out @kinabalu is quite within his rights?
I had a small bet last week on the Betfair Exchange "Meaningful Vote to pass in 2019?" market. This morning I see that the implied probability on that market has shot up from about 5% to about 20%.
If I understand correctly, that means the date of the first sitting of the new parliament is determined by the advice of the outgoing PM regardless of the election result, in which case parliament will be meeting again before Christmas.
That being the case, if Johnson gets a majority, I think having a meaningful vote on his deal before the New Year would be a "no brainer" in political terms.
I did that bet at 45 for the exact same reason.
Me and you - bloody hell.
You got a much better price than I did - about 13 - but it's currently 7.4-8 and by comparison with the election markets it still seems good value, unless I'm missing something.
I am not tempted by the current price. Depending how many new MPs there are, Boris might ask the chief whip to take informal soundings on their Brexit positions before risking a vote. At 45 or even 25 that would be a different matter.
Not to mention that it might take a full week of negotiations with smaller parties before Jeremy Corbyn is summoned to the Palace.
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.
I don't see the significance of the pedigree of carbon being released. Surely what matters to the greenhouse effect is the quantity being released.
To get the same energy, burning oil and burning biomass release the same carbon (if anything, I'd say fossil fuels tend to be more efficient, so there might be less carbon released for energy gained). Then it is just a matter of which offsetting method draws more carbon out of the atmosphere, a forest, or a new biomass crop.
Eh?
If I grow a tree and then burn it, the net carbon released is zero. If I did a lump of coal out the ground and burn it, the net carbon released is something.
sure, if the alternative to growing trees (or other crops for burning) on that fertile bit of land, was keeping anything from growing on it. i think the point is you could, in theory, grow a tree, and not burn it but burn a lump of coal instead
we need to grow trees and then not burn them, and also not burn the lump of coal.
i don't think we have a load of spare extra land available on the planet to grow crops for burning, so probably not a good solution.
OK so you burn the coal, its gone and electricity is consumed. Where do you get your electricity from tomorrow? Can't plant more trees because the tree is already there.
It's quite natural for non-participants in this one to cry foul. But seriously, it's difficult to map out a route that takes anyone except Johnson or Corbyn to Number 10. I think ITV should have announced the two-stage plan (two leaders in one debate, everyone in the second one) together, and most people would see that as reasonable.
My impression - I can't evidence it scientifically - is that for many voters Brexit is starting to be parked as the dominant issue. There was a poll some weeks back saying IIRC that around half the voters saw it as primary - by polling day, I suspect that'll be down to 25-30%. Leavers feel the job is more or less being done, Remainers feel they've got a shot at stopping it but it's not the only issue. I had nearly 100 replies to my Facebook video endorsing my successor as Labour candidate - some agree, some disagree, but only one mentions Brexit at all.
Where I think you might be right is that it is less of an issue for the average Labour voter. That may mean that Cummings has majorly miscalculated. The idea that Labour heartlands that voted Leave are going to vote Tory may be as bad an error as the dementia tax. This will mean that if Conservatives lose to SNP or LD in Scotland, and lose seats to LDs in southern England then we are heading back to hung parliament land. The question does remain as to how badly do Labour need to do for them to ditch Corbyn? A decent LoTO is what is needed to bring British politics back to being sensible.
Wrong as this poll of Workington shows there is a small swing from Labour to the Tories in Labour Leave seats but a bigger swing from Labour to the Brexit Party giving the Tories the seat
I don't think the Workington poll is plausible. Hanretty has Workington 61-39 for Leave. This poll has Con+BXP=58. Since Leave voters are more likely to be GE non-voters and there are probably more leave voters voting Lab in the seat than Tory voting Remainers, I think the Con+BXP share is just too high. I still think the Tories will win the seat, but I think it will be a lot closer.
I think you overrate Chuka's or Luciana's ability to garner votes.
We'll see on Dec 12th, but I expect them both to lose.
Although we have told the LibDems this many times, It actually isn't a good look to parachute in some self-proclaimed "big star" into a seat. Especially when the "big star" actually turns out to emit very feeble levels of radiation.
That is how the LibDems lost their seats in Wales
Given the huge swings to the LDs in the recent Kensington and Battersea polls I would not rule out them winning, indeed Berger was ahead in a recent Finchley and Golders Green poll.
Most LD gains will come in central London and university town Remain central
Like rcs1000, I am bearish on the LibDems.
The University towns all have howling Remainers as MPs. They are the Labour MPs for those constituencies who conspicuously (whether from self-interest or belief) take a strongly Remainer line.
The only real exceptions are Guildford and Portsmouth S. I think the LibDems could well take Guildford, whereas probably the Tories are favourites in chaotic Portsmouth S.
I think it will be slim pickings for the LibDems in the University towns.
I live in Guildford and, with Milton going and the local Conservative Party in meltdown, I would expect the LDs to take it. I generally agree with your comment but will watch Fife NE (home of St Andrews Uni) with some interest. South Cambridgeshire is also of some interest as it is the home to some Cambridge colleges such as Girton, and to more students living out from other colleges. They may tip it in a seat where Labour are nowhere and (again) the local Conservatives are in meltdown.
Either way its moot. The UK is an island, we ought to be able to get all our energy offshore. Between offshore wind farms which are now cheaper to build and run than alternatives and tidal lagoons which can be built naturally and can provide energy on demand when the wind is less available or demand spikes we have no long term need to burn fossil fuels.
It would have been easier to make progress if the Green Party had been less two faced in the past, opposing the Severn barrage
That was insanity!
We need a source of energy on demand which wind and solar can not produce, to cope with spikes if not anything else. The Severn barrage and lagoons like it would be a fantastic green source for that - muppets like the Greens quite readily say what they're against but rarely say what they're in favour of.
I can't understand what you're struggling to understand about pedigree. What matters is the net quantity released.
Biomass you're continuously harvesting and replanting new crops so net output is virtually nothing. Instead of greenhouse gases if you think of it like money where emitting gases is like spending money then biomass is like spending your wages - you earn some money [plant crops] then you spend it [consume crops]
Fossil fuels have no offsetting. There aren't new forests like you try to imply for fossil fuels and if you were to plant forests then you could do that and still generate energy via better means. Fiscally its like getting into debt to fund your spending.
Either way its moot. The UK is an island, we ought to be able to get all our energy offshore. Between offshore wind farms which are now cheaper to build and run than alternatives and tidal lagoons which can be built naturally and can provide energy on demand when the wind is less available or demand spikes we have no long term need to burn fossil fuels.
Not being awkward but the electrification of transport is going to require additional power sources as all of it is currently powered by fossil fuels.
On the other hand increased insulation would reduce heating costs.
Personal insulation works quite well - pullovers and long-johns &c - without the need to spend on buildings. Invest in wardrobes as an alternative to double glazing.
I can't understand what you're struggling to understand about pedigree. What matters is the net quantity released.
Biomass you're continuously harvesting and replanting new crops so net output is virtually nothing. Instead of greenhouse gases if you think of it like money where emitting gases is like spending money then biomass is like spending your wages - you earn some money [plant crops] then you spend it [consume crops]
Fossil fuels have no offsetting. There aren't new forests like you try to imply for fossil fuels and if you were to plant forests then you could do that and still generate energy via better means. Fiscally its like getting into debt to fund your spending.
Either way its moot. The UK is an island, we ought to be able to get all our energy offshore. Between offshore wind farms which are now cheaper to build and run than alternatives and tidal lagoons which can be built naturally and can provide energy on demand when the wind is less available or demand spikes we have no long term need to burn fossil fuels.
Not being awkward but the electrification of transport is going to require additional power sources as all of it is currently powered by fossil fuels.
On the other hand increased insulation would reduce heating costs.
Yes. But worth noting that internal combustion engines (and the supply chain for their fuel) are very energy inefficient, so you don't need a 1:1 increase in kwh units of electricity produced to offset kwh units of petrol/diesel consumed.
Electric road vehicles also in the main charge at night when electricity capacity far exceed demand. I haven't seen the maths for the UK market but I'd be very surprised if EVs in of themselves require much of a capacity increase to the UK generating market if at all.
Compared with petrol/diesel, from an overall energy, cost and CO2 perspective you're still better off running EVs from clunky hard to ramp-up and ramp-down coal, better still from modern natural gas and best of all from distributed offshore wind (or solar with storage in other markets).
Either way its moot. The UK is an island, we ought to be able to get all our energy offshore. Between offshore wind farms which are now cheaper to build and run than alternatives and tidal lagoons which can be built naturally and can provide energy on demand when the wind is less available or demand spikes we have no long term need to burn fossil fuels.
It would have been easier to make progress if the Green Party had been less two faced in the past, opposing the Severn barrage
That was insanity!
We need a source of energy on demand which wind and solar can not produce, to cope with spikes if not anything else. The Severn barrage and lagoons like it would be a fantastic green source for that - muppets like the Greens quite readily say what they're against but rarely say what they're in favour of.
And they are still at it. An example is their opposition to the Glendye windfarm in Aberdeenshire.
Not sure why the Guardian polling average has the Tories slightly higher than most other polling averages. Maybe they're using a different weighting system.
I too am not a subscriber to Chuka Mania. Do any of the Lib Dem specialists know of anyone not yet in Parliament on say the top-30 target seats that might be any better?
I can't understand what you're struggling to understand about pedigree. What matters is the net quantity released.
Biomass you're continuously harvesting and replanting new crops so net output is virtually nothing. Instead of greenhouse gases if you think of it like money where emitting gases is like spending money then biomass is like spending your wages - you earn some money [plant crops] then you spend it [consume crops]
Fossil fuels have no offsetting. There aren't new forests like you try to imply for fossil fuels and if you were to plant forests then you could do that and still generate energy via better means. Fiscally its like getting into debt to fund your spending.
Either way its moot. The UK is an island, we ought to be able to get all our energy offshore. Between offshore wind farms which are now cheaper to build and run than alternatives and tidal lagoons which can be built naturally and can provide energy on demand when the wind is less available or demand spikes we have no long term need to burn fossil fuels.
Not being awkward but the electrification of transport is going to require additional power sources as all of it is currently powered by fossil fuels.
On the other hand increased insulation would reduce heating costs.
Yes electrification of transport will require additional power sources but there's no reason we can't continue building ever more efficient offshore wind etc which can increase our electrical output.
Plus the additional power consumption can be managed with a smarter energy network. If you are charging your vehicle at home overnight then why not have it programmable to be able to draw the power overnight? The wind will still be blowing to produce electricity overnight but consumption is dramatically lower overnight. This makes fiscal sense for customers who can benefit by recharging their car with cheaper off-peak rates.
The "leader ratings are highly indicative of election results" meme is everywhere. But has data been published that's more than 1-dimensional? What about the higher dimensions? In particular,
* have leader ratings been getting more indicative over the years? * what about the degree of confidence that respondents express in each leader?
To take a bird's eye view, when was the last general election that was "presidential"? Under Blair? It doesn't seem to me that elections are getting ever more presidential at all.
"Oh but leader ratings" may have some truth in it, but mostly it seems to be whingeing from the Tories and LibDems in respect of Jeremy Corbyn, because they can't imagine why people
* might vote for their offspring not to be up to their eyebrows in debt by the time they're 20 * don't trust the Tories on the NHS * have got little time for the LibDems who obviously want another hung parliament.
Either way its moot. The UK is an island, we ought to be able to get all our energy offshore. Between offshore wind farms which are now cheaper to build and run than alternatives and tidal lagoons which can be built naturally and can provide energy on demand when the wind is less available or demand spikes we have no long term need to burn fossil fuels.
It would have been easier to make progress if the Green Party had been less two faced in the past, opposing the Severn barrage
That was insanity!
We need a source of energy on demand which wind and solar can not produce, to cope with spikes if not anything else. The Severn barrage and lagoons like it would be a fantastic green source for that - muppets like the Greens quite readily say what they're against but rarely say what they're in favour of.
And they are still at it. An example is their opposition to the Glendye windfarm in Aberdeenshire.
Simply saying no to everything isn't a solution, this is why the Greens are not taking seriously and they do damage to the green cause.
The UK has such abundant on and offshore natural resources with regarding to wind and water that we can and should be able to produce much more energy than we currently consume. Long term we should be able to have a competitive advantage over other nations by having cheaper green energy than other countries. If we can have abundant cheap electricity that would provide a shot in the arm to industry etc and be fantastic for our economic output and for the environment . . . but the idea of cheap energy is anathema to so-called Greens.
Either way its moot. The UK is an island, we ought to be able to get all our energy offshore. Between offshore wind farms which are now cheaper to build and run than alternatives and tidal lagoons which can be built naturally and can provide energy on demand when the wind is less available or demand spikes we have no long term need to burn fossil fuels.
It would have been easier to make progress if the Green Party had been less two faced in the past, opposing the Severn barrage
That was insanity!
We need a source of energy on demand which wind and solar can not produce, to cope with spikes if not anything else. The Severn barrage and lagoons like it would be a fantastic green source for that - muppets like the Greens quite readily say what they're against but rarely say what they're in favour of.
I remember reading a Friends of the Earth report that was supportive of the Severn barrage/lagoons. Hard to know why the Greens would trash it. They look the Brexit Party in their purity - no scheme is good enough if it doesn't take us back to the Stone Age.
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.
W.
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.
I don't see the significance of the pedigree of carbon being released. Surely what matters to the greenhouse effect is the quantity being released.
To get the same energy, burning oil and burning biomass release the same carbon (if anything, I'd say fossil fuels tend to be more efficient, so there might be less carbon released for energy gained). Then it is just a matter of which offsetting method draws more carbon out of the atmosphere, a forest, or a new biomass crop.
Eh?
If I grow a tree and then burn it, the net carbon released is zero. If I did a lump of coal out the ground and burn it, the net carbon released is something.
sure, if the alternative to growing trees (or other crops for burning) on that fertile bit of land, was keeping anything from growing on it. i think the point is you could, in theory, grow a tree, and not burn it but burn a lump of coal instead
we need to grow trees and then not burn them, and also not burn the lump of coal.
i don't think we have a load of spare extra land available on the planet to grow crops for burning, so probably not a good solution.
OK so you burn the coal, its gone and electricity is consumed. Where do you get your electricity from tomorrow? Can't plant more trees because the tree is already there.
well yes, the lack of infinite unused wasteland suitable for growing stuff is a bit of a problem whichever way you look at it. i think burning fuel made by current photosynthesis, done right (I guess that probably doesn't mean growing a tree and burning it), is maybe sometimes a good idea, especially for things that probably aren't going to be electrified any time soon (aviation?).
Either way its moot. The UK is an island, we ought to be able to get all our energy offshore. Between offshore wind farms which are now cheaper to build and run than alternatives and tidal lagoons which can be built naturally and can provide energy on demand when the wind is less available or demand spikes we have no long term need to burn fossil fuels.
It would have been easier to make progress if the Green Party had been less two faced in the past, opposing the Severn barrage
That was insanity!
We need a source of energy on demand which wind and solar can not produce, to cope with spikes if not anything else. The Severn barrage and lagoons like it would be a fantastic green source for that - muppets like the Greens quite readily say what they're against but rarely say what they're in favour of.
I remember reading a Friends of the Earth report that was supportive of the Severn barrage/lagoons. Hard to know why the Greens would trash it. They look the Brexit Party in their purity - no scheme is good enough if it doesn't take us back to the Stone Age.
Either way its moot. The UK is an island, we ought to be able to get all our energy offshore. Between offshore wind farms which are now cheaper to build and run than alternatives and tidal lagoons which can be built naturally and can provide energy on demand when the wind is less available or demand spikes we have no long term need to burn fossil fuels.
It would have been easier to make progress if the Green Party had been less two faced in the past, opposing the Severn barrage
That was insanity!
We need a source of energy on demand which wind and solar can not produce, to cope with spikes if not anything else. The Severn barrage and lagoons like it would be a fantastic green source for that - muppets like the Greens quite readily say what they're against but rarely say what they're in favour of.
I remember reading a Friends of the Earth report that was supportive of the Severn barrage/lagoons. Hard to know why the Greens would trash it. They look the Brexit Party in their purity - no scheme is good enough if it doesn't take us back to the Stone Age.
Extinction Rebellion is also opposing HS2, which offers the long-term hope of renewable long-distance rail travel and removing domestic flights. They seem to view technology and economic growth as the original sin.
They are more backward than the DUP, if you ask me.
Looking at Chukka`s intended seat, London and Westminster, it would be pretty extraordinary if he won it right? Current odds have Libdems at evens and Tories at evens.
In 2017 47% voted Tory and 11% LibDem. Would take massive switching from Lab to LibDem.
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.
W.
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.
To get the same energy, burning oil and burning biomass release the same carbon (if anything, I'd say fossil fuels tend to be more efficient, so there might be less carbon released for energy gained). Then it is just a matter of which offsetting method draws more carbon out of the atmosphere, a forest, or a new biomass crop.
Eh?
If I grow a tree and then burn it, the net carbon released is zero. If I did a lump of coal out the ground and burn it, the net carbon released is something.
sure, if the alternative to growing trees (or other crops for burning) on that fertile bit of land, was keeping anything from growing on it. i think the point is you could, in theory, grow a tree, and not burn it but burn a lump of coal instead
we need to grow trees and then not burn them, and also not burn the lump of coal.
i don't think we have a load of spare extra land available on the planet to grow crops for burning, so probably not a good solution.
OK so you burn the coal, its gone and electricity is consumed. Where do you get your electricity from tomorrow? Can't plant more trees because the tree is already there.
well yes, the lack of infinite unused wasteland suitable for growing stuff is a bit of a problem whichever way you look at it. i think burning fuel made by current photosynthesis, done right (I guess that probably doesn't mean growing a tree and burning it), is maybe sometimes a good idea, especially for things that probably aren't going to be electrified any time soon (aviation?).
I would have thought that Wind, Solar and Water (tidal, hydro and pumped storage) together with the many storage solutions talked about on here recently would be a higher priority.
Looking at Chukka`s intended seat, London and Westminster, it would be pretty extraordinary if he won it right? Current odds have Libdems at evens and Tories at evens.
In 2017 47% voted Tory and 11% LibDem. Would take massive switching from Lab to LibDem.
Evens Tories in that seat is a good price yeah?
What's the price for Labour? Aren't they quite well placed to win having been second and way ahead of the Lib Dems (although I am sure there is a bar chart that says something different)?
The thing I find most amazing about people remebering the 70s is how Tories forget how they were in power for half of it.
The current breed of Tories have had the Men in Black neuralyzer applied as far as ole Ted goes. Tbf they probably do love zero hours contracts, Ed Sheeran and Katy Perry.
Either way its moot. The UK is an island, we ought to be able to get all our energy offshore. Between offshore wind farms which are now cheaper to build and run than alternatives and tidal lagoons which can be built naturally and can provide energy on demand when the wind is less available or demand spikes we have no long term need to burn fossil fuels.
It would have been easier to make progress if the Green Party had been less two faced in the past, opposing the Severn barrage
That was insanity!
We need a source of energy on demand which wind and solar can not produce, to cope with spikes if not anything else. The Severn barrage and lagoons like it would be a fantastic green source for that - muppets like the Greens quite readily say what they're against but rarely say what they're in favour of.
I remember reading a Friends of the Earth report that was supportive of the Severn barrage/lagoons. Hard to know why the Greens would trash it. They look the Brexit Party in their purity - no scheme is good enough if it doesn't take us back to the Stone Age.
Interesting. And another argument in favour of vastly increasing offshore wind.
Wind is high overnight, so if we can produce energy all the time - in the daytime powering our day to day use, in the nighttime recharging our vehicles and whenever there's a surplus putting it into storage and whenever there's a spike [or wind issues] consuming what we've stored then we would have bountiful cheap and green energy.
If we can switch our electricity to green sources like this that are economically competitive in their own right and abolish all the green taxes we currenty pay on energy consumption we could actually be encouraging energy to be consumed in our nation - which has a lot of green energy potential.
Producing goods in our own country via green sources rather than in the far East via dirty sources then flying them over, would be very beneficial both for the environment and our economy.
What a shame all 'Greens' seem to want is to end consumption rather than finding ways to increase it but in a good way.
The seventies were a super decade for music. The musicians managed to break the shackles of record label commercialism. The variety was so large everyone is bound to find stuff they think is awful and stuff they think are great. By the early 80's the record companies had wrested control again, meaning that most of the non-commercial stuff (but nevertheless good) struggled to get noticed.
Either way its moot. The UK is an island, we ought to be able to get all our energy offshore. Between offshore wind farms which are now cheaper to build and run than alternatives and tidal lagoons which can be built naturally and can provide energy on demand when the wind is less available or demand spikes we have no long term need to burn fossil fuels.
It would have been easier to make progress if the Green Party had been less two faced in the past, opposing the Severn barrage
That was insanity!
We need a source of energy on demand which wind and solar can not produce, to cope with spikes if not anything else. The Severn barrage and lagoons like it would be a fantastic green source for that - muppets like the Greens quite readily say what they're against but rarely say what they're in favour of.
I remember reading a Friends of the Earth report that was supportive of the Severn barrage/lagoons. Hard to know why the Greens would trash it. They look the Brexit Party in their purity - no scheme is good enough if it doesn't take us back to the Stone Age.
My recollection was that the Greens were opposed to the old plan of the single large tidal barrage, but supportive of the plan for multiple tidal lagoons - that produce most of the energy but with a lot less negative environmental impact.
Looking at Chukka`s intended seat, London and Westminster, it would be pretty extraordinary if he won it right? Current odds have Libdems at evens and Tories at evens.
In 2017 47% voted Tory and 11% LibDem. Would take massive switching from Lab to LibDem.
Evens Tories in that seat is a good price yeah?
Using GE2017 as the baseline is a mistake particularly in London. That was then this is now.
Either way its moot. The UK is an island, we ought to be able to get all our energy offshore. Between offshore wind farms which are now cheaper to build and run than alternatives and tidal lagoons which can be built naturally and can provide energy on demand when the wind is less available or demand spikes we have no long term need to burn fossil fuels.
It would have been easier to make progress if the Green Party had been less two faced in the past, opposing the Severn barrage
That was insanity!
We need a source of energy on demand which wind and solar can not produce, to cope with spikes if not anything else. The Severn barrage and lagoons like it would be a fantastic green source for that - muppets like the Greens quite readily say what they're against but rarely say what they're in favour of.
I remember reading a Friends of the Earth report that was supportive of the Severn barrage/lagoons. Hard to know why the Greens would trash it. They look the Brexit Party in their purity - no scheme is good enough if it doesn't take us back to the Stone Age.
Extinction Rebellion is also opposing HS2, which offers the long-term hope of renewable long-distance rail travel and removing domestic flights. They seem to view technology and economic growth as the original sin.
They are more backward than the DUP, if you ask me.
Because HS2 was sold on speed rather than capacity and getting rid of HS2 would please a lot of the home counties who suffer the building work yet don't see any benefit.
I can't understand what you're struggling to understand about pedigree. What matters is the net quantity released.
Biomass you're continuously harvesting and replanting new crops so net output is virtually nothing. Instead of greenhouse gases if you think of it like money where emitting gases is like spending money then biomass is like spending your wages - you earn some money [plant crops] then you spend it [consume crops]
Fossil fuels have no offsetting. There aren't new forests like you try to imply for fossil fuels and if you were to plant forests then you could do that and still generate energy via better means. Fiscally its like getting into debt to fund your spending.
Either way its moot. The UK is an island, we ought to be able to get all our energy offshore. Between offshore wind farms which are now cheaper to build and run than alternatives and tidal lagoons which can be built naturally and can provide energy on demand when the wind is less available or demand spikes we have no long term need to burn fossil fuels.
Not being awkward but the electrification of transport is going to require additional power sources as all of it is currently powered by fossil fuels.
On the other hand increased insulation would reduce heating costs.
I had some sort of strange phone call recently claiming that my cavity wall insulation had been botched because the material used retained water. I think they were wanting to claim compensation for expensive remedial works on my behalf. Since I've moved from the house they were phoning about I simply told them not to phone me again. Anyone know whether it was a scam call, or another scandal about to emerge?
Interesting though. I had not realized it was a Shakie misquote.
Bet there are others.
The quality of mercy is not stained. It dropeth like a gentile jew from Devon.
Reminds one of the poster on Merseyside in the 60's: 'what will you do when Christ comes to Liverpool?' Some at least were defaced with 'Play St John at inside right'!
For those a lot younger than me, Ian St John was a famous Liverpool centre forward in the 60's,
Stocky said: "Looking at Chukka`s intended seat, London and Westminster, it would be pretty extraordinary if he won it right? Current odds have Libdems at evens and Tories at evens.
In 2017 47% voted Tory and 11% LibDem. Would take massive switching from Lab to LibDem.
Evens Tories in that seat is a good price yeah?"
"What's the price for Labour? Aren't they quite well placed to win having been second and way ahead of the Lib Dems (although I am sure there is a bar chart that says something different)?"
Labour are 6/1. I don`t fancy them in this seat.
LibDems can certainly come 2nd, but evens Tories to win it looks a good bet to me.
Either way its moot. The UK is an island, we ought to be able to get all our energy offshore. Between offshore wind farms which are now cheaper to build and run than alternatives and tidal lagoons which can be built naturally and can provide energy on demand when the wind is less available or demand spikes we have no long term need to burn fossil fuels.
It would have been easier to make progress if the Green Party had been less two faced in the past, opposing the Severn barrage
That was insanity!
We need a source of energy on demand which wind and solar can not produce, to cope with spikes if not anything else. The Severn barrage and lagoons like it would be a fantastic green source for that - muppets like the Greens quite readily say what they're against but rarely say what they're in favour of.
I remember reading a Friends of the Earth report that was supportive of the Severn barrage/lagoons. Hard to know why the Greens would trash it. They look the Brexit Party in their purity - no scheme is good enough if it doesn't take us back to the Stone Age.
Extinction Rebellion is also opposing HS2, which offers the long-term hope of renewable long-distance rail travel and removing domestic flights. They seem to view technology and economic growth as the original sin.
They are more backward than the DUP, if you ask me.
Because HS2 was sold on speed rather than capacity and getting rid of HS2 would please a lot of the home counties who suffer the building work yet don't see any benefit.
Agreed. HS2 should have simple been called West Coast main line upgrade which was urgently required to meet capacity issues.
Can we have more TBP v Tory interviews please? Watching a lady from TBP gut a Tory MP on sky just now was brilliant. Far more convincing on why Johnson’s deal is crap than any other I’ve seen.
I can't understand what you're struggling to understand about pedigree. What matters is the net quantity released.
Biomass you're continuously harvesting and replanting new crops so net output is virtually nothing. Instead of greenhouse gases if you think of it like money where emitting gases is like spending money then biomass is like spending your wages - you earn some money [plant crops] then you spend it [consume crops]
Fossil fuels have no offsetting. There aren't new forests like you try to imply for fossil fuels and if you were to plant forests then you could do that and still generate energy via better means. Fiscally its like getting into debt to fund your spending.
Either way its moot. The UK is an island, we ought to be able to get all our energy offshore. Between offshore wind farms which are now cheaper to build and run than alternatives and tidal lagoons which can be built naturally and can provide energy on demand when the wind is less available or demand spikes we have no long term need to burn fossil fuels.
Not being awkward but the electrification of transport is going to require additional power sources as all of it is currently powered by fossil fuels.
On the other hand increased insulation would reduce heating costs.
I had some sort of strange phone call recently claiming that my cavity wall insulation had been botched because the material used retained water. I think they were wanting to claim compensation for expensive remedial works on my behalf. Since I've moved from the house they were phoning about I simply told them not to phone me again. Anyone know whether it was a scam call, or another scandal about to emerge?
I suspect it's another scandal about to emerge - cavity walls have a gap for a reason and I suspect the people filling it rarely cared about the detail when filling it (they just filled it and moved on to the next house).
On the other hand I suspect the company who insulated the house have probably disappeared so I would be curious as to whom they wished to sue.
I too am not a subscriber to Chuka Mania. Do any of the Lib Dem specialists know of anyone not yet in Parliament on say the top-30 target seats that might be any better?
Nickie Aiken the leader of Westminster council standing against him..she is a good campaigner and very personable. Will be a good contest
You got a much better price than I did - about 13 - but it's currently 7.4-8 and by comparison with the election markets it still seems good value, unless I'm missing something.
Turns out I was gilding the lily. Not 45. It was 25. Still, 7.6 now, as you say, so smug city. If he gets a good majority it would be surely be tempting. Also tempting to put his feet up for the hols, however, so think I might close out now. Thanks for the spot since I would not have known. It's not a market I check often now the GE is on.
Is it too pedantic to point out that it's "painting the lily"?
Would it be pedantic to point out @kinabalu is quite within his rights?
An error is still an error. If you gild a lily you end up with an unusual and - if it's done right - beautiful thing. The point about painting it, and gilding gold, is that it is a complete waste of time. It can only look the same, or worse.
Mind you, usage does eventually legitimise errors. "Reign in" and "hone in on" are pretty much the default spelling now.
Either way its moot. The UK is an island, we ought to be able to get all our energy offshore. Between offshore wind farms which are now cheaper to build and run than alternatives and tidal lagoons which can be built naturally and can provide energy on demand when the wind is less available or demand spikes we have no long term need to burn fossil fuels.
It would have been easier to make progress if the Green Party had been less two faced in the past, opposing the Severn barrage
That was insanity!
We need a source of energy on demand which wind and solar can not produce, to cope with spikes if not anything else. The Severn barrage and lagoons like it would be a fantastic green source for that - muppets like the Greens quite readily say what they're against but rarely say what they're in favour of.
I remember reading a Friends of the Earth report that was supportive of the Severn barrage/lagoons. Hard to know why the Greens would trash it. They look the Brexit Party in their purity - no scheme is good enough if it doesn't take us back to the Stone Age.
Extinction Rebellion is also opposing HS2, which offers the long-term hope of renewable long-distance rail travel and removing domestic flights. They seem to view technology and economic growth as the original sin.
They are more backward than the DUP, if you ask me.
Because HS2 was sold on speed rather than capacity and getting rid of HS2 would please a lot of the home counties who suffer the building work yet don't see any benefit.
Bring back proper canals with the boats pulled by horses...XR would be happy with that
I hate to spoil the party, but this was a suggestion from a designer, as to how the Budesliga could be more colourful, rather than a genuine Kit Launch.
Either way its moot. The UK is an island, we ought to be able to get all our energy offshore. Between offshore wind farms which are now cheaper to build and run than alternatives and tidal lagoons which can be built naturally and can provide energy on demand when the wind is less available or demand spikes we have no long term need to burn fossil fuels.
It would have been easier to make progress if the Green Party had been less two faced in the past, opposing the Severn barrage
That was insanity!
We need a source of energy on demand which wind and solar can not produce, to cope with spikes if not anything else. The Severn barrage and lagoons like it would be a fantastic green source for that - muppets like the Greens quite readily say what they're against but rarely say what they're in favour of.
I remember reading a Friends of the Earth report that was supportive of the Severn barrage/lagoons. Hard to know why the Greens would trash it. They look the Brexit Party in their purity - no scheme is good enough if it doesn't take us back to the Stone Age.
Stocky said: "Looking at Chukka`s intended seat, London and Westminster, it would be pretty extraordinary if he won it right? Current odds have Libdems at evens and Tories at evens.
In 2017 47% voted Tory and 11% LibDem. Would take massive switching from Lab to LibDem.
Evens Tories in that seat is a good price yeah?"
"What's the price for Labour? Aren't they quite well placed to win having been second and way ahead of the Lib Dems (although I am sure there is a bar chart that says something different)?"
Labour are 6/1. I don`t fancy them in this seat.
LibDems can certainly come 2nd, but evens Tories to win it looks a good bet to me.
I agree with this. I also think the original Lib Dem cabal from the 2017 election will outpoll the new influx who have defected/shifted constituencies. I think there will be local resentment that Wollaston did not call a by-election and a few raised eyebrows regarding Gyimah, Lee and Umunna abandoning their own seats for somewhere they have no connection.
Either way its moot. The UK is an island, we ought to be able to get all our energy offshore. Between offshore wind farms which are now cheaper to build and run than alternatives and tidal lagoons which can be built naturally and can provide energy on demand when the wind is less available or demand spikes we have no long term need to burn fossil fuels.
It would have been easier to make progress if the Green Party had been less two faced in the past, opposing the Severn barrage
That was insanity!
We need a source of energy on demand which wind and solar can not produce, to cope with spikes if not anything else. The Severn barrage and lagoons like it would be a fantastic green source for that - muppets like the Greens quite readily say what they're against but rarely say what they're in favour of.
I remember reading a Friends of the Earth report that was supportive of the Severn barrage/lagoons. Hard to know why the Greens would trash it. They look the Brexit Party in their purity - no scheme is good enough if it doesn't take us back to the Stone Age.
Extinction Rebellion is also opposing HS2, which offers the long-term hope of renewable long-distance rail travel and removing domestic flights. They seem to view technology and economic growth as the original sin.
They are more backward than the DUP, if you ask me.
Because HS2 was sold on speed rather than capacity and getting rid of HS2 would please a lot of the home counties who suffer the building work yet don't see any benefit.
Bring back proper canals with the boats pulled by horses...XR would be happy with that
Stocky said: "Looking at Chukka`s intended seat, London and Westminster, it would be pretty extraordinary if he won it right? Current odds have Libdems at evens and Tories at evens.
In 2017 47% voted Tory and 11% LibDem. Would take massive switching from Lab to LibDem.
Evens Tories in that seat is a good price yeah?"
"What's the price for Labour? Aren't they quite well placed to win having been second and way ahead of the Lib Dems (although I am sure there is a bar chart that says something different)?"
Labour are 6/1. I don`t fancy them in this seat.
LibDems can certainly come 2nd, but evens Tories to win it looks a good bet to me.
That's interesting. My model has Labour winning it with the Lib Dems 3rd, although the Tories would win if BXP were squeezed right down. Maybe my model is just wrong.
Either way its moot. The UK is an island, we ought to be able to get all our energy offshore. Between offshore wind farms which are now cheaper to build and run than alternatives and tidal lagoons which can be built naturally and can provide energy on demand when the wind is less available or demand spikes we have no long term need to burn fossil fuels.
It would have been easier to make progress if the Green Party had been less two faced in the past, opposing the Severn barrage
That was insanity!
We need a source of energy on demand which wind and solar can not produce, to cope with spikes if not anything else. The Severn barrage and lagoons like it would be a fantastic green source for that - muppets like the Greens quite readily say what they're against but rarely say what they're in favour of.
I remember reading a Friends of the Earth report that was supportive of the Severn barrage/lagoons. Hard to know why the Greens would trash it. They look the Brexit Party in their purity - no scheme is good enough if it doesn't take us back to the Stone Age.
Extinction Rebellion is also opposing HS2, which offers the long-term hope of renewable long-distance rail travel and removing domestic flights. They seem to view technology and economic growth as the original sin.
They are more backward than the DUP, if you ask me.
Because HS2 was sold on speed rather than capacity and getting rid of HS2 would please a lot of the home counties who suffer the building work yet don't see any benefit.
Agreed. HS2 should have simple been called West Coast main line upgrade which was urgently required to meet capacity issues.
EIIR are just the latest lot of posturing fools - in line of descent from the St Pauls' lot and the people who save the world by pouring oil in the Tate. Scratch the surface and they turn out to be ignoramuses (-i?).
The tidal lagoons were a pig in a poke, which iirc would generate electricity at extreme cost. The barrage itself had much potential.
I won't comment on the Green Party - not worth the ink.
Don't really agree with the premise of this argument. Did you think in 2017 that Paul Nutall should have taken part in the May/Corbyn audience Q&A programme? After all, UKIP won the 2014 Euros and LabCon only got 47.5% of the vote between them.
As for the precedent about a leader with Corbyns ratings being involved, there is barely any precedent. The debates have existed less than a decade and have taken on all sorts of formats in that time. Johnson v Corbyn makes perfect sense, at the last COMPARABLE set of elections (GE17) Con and Lab received an eye watering 82.5% of the vote!
I can't understand what you're struggling to understand about pedigree. What matters is the net quantity released.
Biomass you're continuously harvesting and replanting new crops so net output is virtually nothing. Instead of greenhouse gases if you think of it like money where emitting gases is like spending money then biomass is like spending your wages - you earn some money [plant crops] then you spend it [consume crops]
Fossil fuels have no offsetting. There aren't new forests like you try to imply for fossil fuels and if you were to plant forests then you could do that and still generate energy via better means. Fiscally its like getting into debt to fund your spending.
Either way its moot. The UK is an island, we ought to be able to get all our energy offshore. Between offshore wind farms which are now cheaper to build and run than alternatives and tidal lagoons which can be built naturally and can provide energy on demand when the wind is less available or demand spikes we have no long term need to burn fossil fuels.
Not being awkward but the electrification of transport is going to require additional power sources as all of it is currently powered by fossil fuels.
On the other hand increased insulation would reduce heating costs.
I had some sort of strange phone call recently claiming that my cavity wall insulation had been botched because the material used retained water. I think they were wanting to claim compensation for expensive remedial works on my behalf. Since I've moved from the house they were phoning about I simply told them not to phone me again. Anyone know whether it was a scam call, or another scandal about to emerge?
I suspect it's another scandal about to emerge - cavity walls have a gap for a reason and I suspect the people filling it rarely cared about the detail when filling it (they just filled it and moved on to the next house).
On the other hand I suspect the company who insulated the house have probably disappeared so I would be curious as to whom they wished to sue.
I would say the next scandal will be particulate pollution from wood stoves, which were mistakenly categorised as "green".
Cavity wall insulation applicability is dependent on exposure and local climate, and usually absolutely fine if done competently.
The 70s was an awesome decade for music. But most of it was American.
The heyday of Hall & Oates and of their TV equivalent Starsky & Hutch. The tall moody blonde or the short gritty hirsute brunette? It divided the female population both here and across the pond.
This is precisely the sort of thing that will lead to the Scottish Conservatives retaining almost all their seats.
Based on that photo, there's no mistaking an SNP activist and a ray of sunshine......
Indeed. Once you tune out all the sarcasm and sledging, you recognise they are getting rather nervous that the Scottish Conservatives might piss on their parade.
The best way for any Unionist to stop independence getting legs next year is to deny the SNP any of the gains they want in Scotland this year, and deny the possibility of any alternative Government led by Corbyn.
That means Labour are utterly toast in Scotland, and the Tories will retain most of their seats. On a very good night, they might only lost 2-3 but gain 5-6 others.
Which is why I've taken the 16/1 on Tories on 16+ seats with Ladbrokes.
With punters like this - betting with the heart rather than the head - Shadsy will be leading a comfortable retirement.
OnlyLivingBoy said: "That's interesting. My model has Labour winning it with the Lib Dems 3rd, although the Tories would win if BXP were squeezed right down. Maybe my model is just wrong."
Not sure if this has been pointed out already, but the spreads on the LibDems at all the spread-bet providers have dropped quite sharply over the weekend: they were at 45-50, now 39-44.
Brom said: " I think there will be local resentment that Wollaston did not call a by-election and a few raised eyebrows regarding Gyimah, Lee and Umunna abandoning their own seats for somewhere they have no connection."
I dearly hope that you are correct. I shall raise a glass in celebration if all four of Wollaston, Gyimah, Lee and Umunna are not elected.
Not sure if this has been pointed out already, but the spreads on the LibDems at all the spread-bet providers have dropped quite sharply over the weekend: they were at 45-50, now 39-44.
Richard_Nabavi said: "Not sure if this has been pointed out already, but the spreads on the LibDems at all the spread-bet providers have dropped quite sharply over the weekend: they were at 45-50, now 39-44."
Yes, I noticed this too. However, some commentators on podcasts I listen to still talk of LibDems winning 50+ seats. I`d love to see 50+ seats but can`t see it myself. I think they will come second in an awful lot of consituencies.
Can we have more TBP v Tory interviews please? Watching a lady from TBP gut a Tory MP on sky just now was brilliant. Far more convincing on why Johnson’s deal is crap than any other I’ve seen.
Yes I'm rooting for a strong performance on Dec 12th from BXP.
Mr. Stocky, I have some sympathy with Umunna. That might sound odd, but he actually had the nerve to leave Labour rather than put up with the far left and rise in anti-Semitism, and I think he deserves credit rather than censure for doing that, in stark contrast to the dozens of moderates who wibble about the situation being unacceptable and are currently campaigning for the unacceptable to become the Prime Minister.
Comments
'He stoppeth one in three....'
"Timefulness: How Thinking Like a Geologist Can Help Save the World"
which is really well-written (almost poetry in places) and nice and short.
We'll see on Dec 12th, but I expect them both to lose.
Although we have told the LibDems this many times, It actually isn't a good look to parachute in some self-proclaimed "big star" into a seat. Especially when the "big star" actually turns out to emit very feeble levels of radiation.
That is how the LibDems lost their seats in Wales
Biomass you're continuously harvesting and replanting new crops so net output is virtually nothing. Instead of greenhouse gases if you think of it like money where emitting gases is like spending money then biomass is like spending your wages - you earn some money [plant crops] then you spend it [consume crops]
Fossil fuels have no offsetting. There aren't new forests like you try to imply for fossil fuels and if you were to plant forests then you could do that and still generate energy via better means. Fiscally its like getting into debt to fund your spending.
Either way its moot. The UK is an island, we ought to be able to get all our energy offshore. Between offshore wind farms which are now cheaper to build and run than alternatives and tidal lagoons which can be built naturally and can provide energy on demand when the wind is less available or demand spikes we have no long term need to burn fossil fuels.
Where PP is high profit, P is medium profit, and p is small profit.
Most LD gains will come in central London and university town Remain central
On the other hand increased insulation would reduce heating costs.
The University towns all have howling Remainers as MPs. They are the Labour MPs for those constituencies who conspicuously (whether from self-interest or belief) take a strongly Remainer line.
The only real exceptions are Guildford and Portsmouth S. I think the LibDems could well take Guildford, whereas probably the Tories are favourites in chaotic Portsmouth S.
I think it will be slim pickings for the LibDems in the University towns.
https://grammarist.com/usage/gild-the-lily/
https://twitter.com/DannyDutch/status/1189862430731653120?s=20
Not to mention that it might take a full week of negotiations with smaller parties before Jeremy Corbyn is summoned to the Palace.
I think you overrate Chuka's or Luciana's ability to garner votes.
We'll see on Dec 12th, but I expect them both to lose.
Although we have told the LibDems this many times, It actually isn't a good look to parachute in some self-proclaimed "big star" into a seat. Especially when the "big star" actually turns out to emit very feeble levels of radiation.
That is how the LibDems lost their seats in Wales
Given the huge swings to the LDs in the recent Kensington and Battersea polls I would not rule out them winning, indeed Berger was ahead in a recent Finchley and Golders Green poll.
Most LD gains will come in central London and university town Remain central
Like rcs1000, I am bearish on the LibDems.
The University towns all have howling Remainers as MPs. They are the Labour MPs for those constituencies who conspicuously (whether from self-interest or belief) take a strongly Remainer line.
The only real exceptions are Guildford and Portsmouth S. I think the LibDems could well take Guildford, whereas probably the Tories are favourites in chaotic Portsmouth S.
I think it will be slim pickings for the LibDems in the University towns.
I live in Guildford and, with Milton going and the local Conservative Party in meltdown, I would expect the LDs to take it. I generally agree with your comment but will watch Fife NE (home of St Andrews Uni) with some interest. South Cambridgeshire is also of some interest as it is the home to some Cambridge colleges such as Girton, and to more students living out from other colleges. They may tip it in a seat where Labour are nowhere and (again) the local Conservatives are in meltdown.
We need a source of energy on demand which wind and solar can not produce, to cope with spikes if not anything else. The Severn barrage and lagoons like it would be a fantastic green source for that - muppets like the Greens quite readily say what they're against but rarely say what they're in favour of.
Electric road vehicles also in the main charge at night when electricity capacity far exceed demand. I haven't seen the maths for the UK market but I'd be very surprised if EVs in of themselves require much of a capacity increase to the UK generating market if at all.
Compared with petrol/diesel, from an overall energy, cost and CO2 perspective you're still better off running EVs from clunky hard to ramp-up and ramp-down coal, better still from modern natural gas and best of all from distributed offshore wind (or solar with storage in other markets).
I too am not a subscriber to Chuka Mania. Do any of the Lib Dem specialists know of anyone not yet in Parliament on say the top-30 target seats that might be any better?
Plus the additional power consumption can be managed with a smarter energy network. If you are charging your vehicle at home overnight then why not have it programmable to be able to draw the power overnight? The wind will still be blowing to produce electricity overnight but consumption is dramatically lower overnight. This makes fiscal sense for customers who can benefit by recharging their car with cheaper off-peak rates.
Bet there are others.
The quality of mercy is not stained. It dropeth like a gentile jew from Devon.
* have leader ratings been getting more indicative over the years?
* what about the degree of confidence that respondents express in each leader?
To take a bird's eye view, when was the last general election that was "presidential"? Under Blair? It doesn't seem to me that elections are getting ever more presidential at all.
"Oh but leader ratings" may have some truth in it, but mostly it seems to be whingeing from the Tories and LibDems in respect of Jeremy Corbyn, because they can't imagine why people
* might vote for their offspring not to be up to their eyebrows in debt by the time they're 20
* don't trust the Tories on the NHS
* have got little time for the LibDems who obviously want another hung parliament.
The UK has such abundant on and offshore natural resources with regarding to wind and water that we can and should be able to produce much more energy than we currently consume. Long term we should be able to have a competitive advantage over other nations by having cheaper green energy than other countries. If we can have abundant cheap electricity that would provide a shot in the arm to industry etc and be fantastic for our economic output and for the environment . . . but the idea of cheap energy is anathema to so-called Greens.
https://twitter.com/StuartMaconie/status/1191295395844042752?s=20
That said, the opposition to schemes like this doesn't just come from the Greens. It's a brave politician who fucks with the RSPB.
i think burning fuel made by current photosynthesis, done right (I guess that probably doesn't mean growing a tree and burning it), is maybe sometimes a good idea, especially for things that probably aren't going to be electrified any time soon (aviation?).
They are more backward than the DUP, if you ask me.
In 2017 47% voted Tory and 11% LibDem. Would take massive switching from Lab to LibDem.
Evens Tories in that seat is a good price yeah?
Wind is high overnight, so if we can produce energy all the time - in the daytime powering our day to day use, in the nighttime recharging our vehicles and whenever there's a surplus putting it into storage and whenever there's a spike [or wind issues] consuming what we've stored then we would have bountiful cheap and green energy.
If we can switch our electricity to green sources like this that are economically competitive in their own right and abolish all the green taxes we currenty pay on energy consumption we could actually be encouraging energy to be consumed in our nation - which has a lot of green energy potential.
Producing goods in our own country via green sources rather than in the far East via dirty sources then flying them over, would be very beneficial both for the environment and our economy.
What a shame all 'Greens' seem to want is to end consumption rather than finding ways to increase it but in a good way.
For those a lot younger than me, Ian St John was a famous Liverpool centre forward in the 60's,
Stocky said:
"Looking at Chukka`s intended seat, London and Westminster, it would be pretty extraordinary if he won it right? Current odds have Libdems at evens and Tories at evens.
In 2017 47% voted Tory and 11% LibDem. Would take massive switching from Lab to LibDem.
Evens Tories in that seat is a good price yeah?"
"What's the price for Labour? Aren't they quite well placed to win having been second and way ahead of the Lib Dems (although I am sure there is a bar chart that says something different)?"
Labour are 6/1. I don`t fancy them in this seat.
LibDems can certainly come 2nd, but evens Tories to win it looks a good bet to me.
On the other hand I suspect the company who insulated the house have probably disappeared so I would be curious as to whom they wished to sue.
Will be a good contest
Mind you, usage does eventually legitimise errors. "Reign in" and "hone in on" are pretty much the default spelling now.
Still it's a great idea.
https://www.theengineer.co.uk/highview-power-energy-storage/
In a GE the baseline support that helps them in local elections on small turnout will not help here.
The tidal lagoons were a pig in a poke, which iirc would generate electricity at extreme cost. The barrage itself had much potential.
I won't comment on the Green Party - not worth the ink.
As for the precedent about a leader with Corbyns ratings being involved, there is barely any precedent. The debates have existed less than a decade and have taken on all sorts of formats in that time. Johnson v Corbyn makes perfect sense, at the last COMPARABLE set of elections (GE17) Con and Lab received an eye watering 82.5% of the vote!
Cavity wall insulation applicability is dependent on exposure and local climate, and usually absolutely fine if done competently.
Your model doesn`t allow for the Chuka factor??
What else do you want promising? He'll say it. He'll promise it.
Once his majority is secure....
I dearly hope that you are correct. I shall raise a glass in celebration if all four of Wollaston, Gyimah, Lee and Umunna are not elected.
Yes, I noticed this too. However, some commentators on podcasts I listen to still talk of LibDems winning 50+ seats. I`d love to see 50+ seats but can`t see it myself. I think they will come second in an awful lot of consituencies.
Odd place to be.