I always thought freedom of movement was potenitally sellable as a benefit of EU membership - basically because it is. Most salesmen can sell a good product. But I might have been underestimating the good sense of the British public. They seem to want it already.
People are reading too much into this response. It seems like motherhood and apple pie to me - after Brexit should we aim to retain does not mean do you support in all cases. If they asked are you for or against freedom of movement I would expect a different response.
People are overreacting to that yougov poll on reciprocal rights to live and work in the UK and EU.
I explained my view on here last night.
All it means is that there is going to be a lot of buyers remorse.
Leicester folk will have to retire to Skeggy again, not the Costas. The rich will be fine in Tuscany, free movement is considerably easier for those with money.
They will still be able to do so, just as you can in Australia and Florida now, but there will be an income qualification and a need to apply for a residency permit.
Spain’s economy depends upon such people so I don’t expect too many obstacles to be placed in the way.
Non-EU citizens need an annual income of 35,000 Euros a year to qualify for Spanish residency. That’s one hell of a large pension pot.
A question regarding air travel and emissions . . . is there a safety or technological reason why hydrogen [ie like in hydrogen cars, not blimps] isn't or can't be used to fuel jets?
Electric jets seem to be a very long time off but electricity can be used to create hydrogen and the only emission from hydrogen cars is water vapor from memory - could jets be powered that way?
Dunno but the attack on air travel is not entirely well placed
And I don't see people changing their eating and buying habits. Easy to attack the Emma Thompson's of this world whilst munching on your own avocado or kiwi fruit.
Much of the stuff you buy doesn't spend 3 months at sea to get here, y'know ...
Jon Ashworth on Sky, talking to Kay Burley, about the insane race to outbid the conservatives by umpteen billions on the NHS came to a juddering halt when Burley asked if this extra money takes into account labour's 4 day working week
He looked dumbfounded and said the 4 day week will not happen for the next ten years
Burley obvious retort was so the 4 day week promise is an illusion
Sums up labour
Anyone voting Tory will need to accept that the entire basis of their proposition to the electorate is also based on lies. As we will all find out next year.
Jon Ashworth on Sky, talking to Kay Burley, about the insane race to outbid the conservatives by umpteen billions on the NHS came to a juddering halt when Burley asked if this extra money takes into account labour's 4 day working week
He looked dumbfounded and said the 4 day week will not happen for the next ten years
Burley obvious retort was so the 4 day week promise is an illusion
Sums up labour
Anyone voting Tory will need to accept that the entire basis of their proposition to the electorate is also based on lies. As we will all find out next year.
They don’t care as long as they are in power. Just need to fool the plebs once every 5 years.
Morning all! A busy working day split into two by ITV who are taking all the Stockton South candidates on a boat ride down the Tees to do some filming. Will be a little odd to be there with my former Labour colleagues as the assistant campaign manager for the other side, but c'est la vie.
People are overreacting to that yougov poll on reciprocal rights to live and work in the UK and EU.
I explained my view on here last night.
All it means is that there is going to be a lot of buyers remorse.
Leicester folk will have to retire to Skeggy again, not the Costas. The rich will be fine in Tuscany, free movement is considerably easier for those with money.
They will still be able to do so, just as you can in Australia and Florida now, but there will be an income qualification and a need to apply for a residency permit.
Spain’s economy depends upon such people so I don’t expect too many obstacles to be placed in the way.
There already is a residency qualification and a requirement to prove health are coverage in Spain.
Nigel who? He should be grateful that it looks like his life’s work is about to be achieved - but instead he’s mad because others are now getting the credit for it.
I can't remember who said it but it's true that "there's no limit to what you can achieve, so long as you don't care who gets the credit for it."
I prefer John Grisham's description of the American Dream:
'Basically the American Dream means benefitting from other people's misfortune.'
Kinda sums up the state of things in the US right now ...
Being personally successful in a capitalist system almost always means that. It's amazing the psychological contortions people go through to persuade themselves otherwise.
I always thought freedom of movement was potenitally sellable as a benefit of EU membership - basically because it is. Most salesmen can sell a good product. But I might have been underestimating the good sense of the British public. They seem to want it already.
People are reading too much into this response. It seems like motherhood and apple pie to me - after Brexit should we aim to retain does not mean do you support in all cases. If they asked are you for or against freedom of movement I would expect a different response.
Yes, but that's a problem with all polling, as most of us on this forum are well aware of. You can always get a different answer with artful wording of the question. But the fact is the ability to look for a job over a whole continent is good for workers. Having a bigger pool of talent to draw from is good for companies. So there are big risks for the political party that is responsible for taking those benefits away.
A question regarding air travel and emissions . . . is there a safety or technological reason why hydrogen [ie like in hydrogen cars, not blimps] isn't or can't be used to fuel jets?
Electric jets seem to be a very long time off but electricity can be used to create hydrogen and the only emission from hydrogen cars is water vapor from memory - could jets be powered that way?
Two reasons off the top of my head:
1. Relatively low energy density. You need a lot of space to store even compressed hydrogen.
2. Jet engines are really good at going at high speeds. Using hydrogen to generate electricity to power a prop would limit achieveable speeds to perhaps 400mph.
3. Assuming we're using fuel cells to convert the hydrogen into electricity (the only way to get just water as a byproduct), means having a lot of heavy equipment on board, especially as it would need to deal with very high peak power requirements.
(Of course, it might be possible to skip the whole fuel cell thing, and create a hydrogen turbine, where the kerosene is swapped for hydrogen. It wouldn't be quite as clean, but it'd probably work. That being said, kerosene is pretty much the perfect fuel. It works at a wide range of temperatures and is happy with the rarified atmosphere at 40,000 feet.)
Jon Ashworth on Sky, talking to Kay Burley, about the insane race to outbid the conservatives by umpteen billions on the NHS came to a juddering halt when Burley asked if this extra money takes into account labour's 4 day working week
He looked dumbfounded and said the 4 day week will not happen for the next ten years
Burley obvious retort was so the 4 day week promise is an illusion
Sums up labour
Let's wait and see what's in the manifestos shall we?
A question regarding air travel and emissions . . . is there a safety or technological reason why hydrogen [ie like in hydrogen cars, not blimps] isn't or can't be used to fuel jets?
Electric jets seem to be a very long time off but electricity can be used to create hydrogen and the only emission from hydrogen cars is water vapor from memory - could jets be powered that way?
Two reasons off the top of my head:
1. Relatively low energy density. You need a lot of space to store even compressed hydrogen.
2. Jet engines are really good at going at high speeds. Using hydrogen to generate electricity to power a prop would limit achieveable speeds to perhaps 400mph.
If the plane carried liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen it could be a horizontal rocket travelling at 29,000 mph. It would get hot though because of the friction with the atmosphere.
Nigel who? He should be grateful that it looks like his life’s work is about to be achieved - but instead he’s mad because others are now getting the credit for it.
I can't remember who said it but it's true that "there's no limit to what you can achieve, so long as you don't care who gets the credit for it."
I prefer John Grisham's description of the American Dream:
'Basically the American Dream means benefitting from other people's misfortune.'
Kinda sums up the state of things in the US right now ...
Being personally successful in a capitalist system almost always means that. It's amazing the psychological contortions people go through to persuade themselves otherwise.
Whereas socialism means benefiting from other people’s hard work.
I always thought freedom of movement was potenitally sellable as a benefit of EU membership - basically because it is. Most salesmen can sell a good product. But I might have been underestimating the good sense of the British public. They seem to want it already.
People are reading too much into this response. It seems like motherhood and apple pie to me - after Brexit should we aim to retain does not mean do you support in all cases. If they asked are you for or against freedom of movement I would expect a different response.
Obviously, the question is crucial. Do you believe in freedom of movement for UK citizens would get a different response to Do you believe in freedom of movement for Romanian citizens. Perhaps the best question would be: Do you believe UK citizens should lose the right to retire to the Med to ensure that EU citizens lose the right to live and work in the UK?
A Labour member beaten in the race for a plum seat by a close ally of Jeremy Corbyn has hit out at the party's "crooked" candidate selection process.
Sundip Meghani lost out to Claudia Webbe in the race to contest Labour-held Leicester East at the general election. Islington councillor Ms Webbe is a member of Labour's ruling national executive committee and had tried unsuccessfully to be chosen as the party's candidate in a number of constituencies. She was chosen as the candidate in Leicester seat - which Keith Vaz held with a majority of more than 22,000 in 2017 - by a selection panel including two NEC members.
In a statement posted on Twitter, Mr Meghani, a lead investigator at the Independent Office for Police Conduct, said: "In my job I challenge abuse of power and corruption - and as a Labour member I fight injustice and unfairness. "So I cannot stay silent on the obvious dodgy practices and nepotism involved in this process, where Labour's ruling executive chose a member of Labour's ruling executive as the candidiate."
He added: "This type of conduct, where a well-connected favourite is nodded through, is no better than the Etonian old boys' network that Labour seeks to condemn."
We will soon be in a position where the London party holds all 591 English & Welsh seats in Westminster.
Isn't Claudia from Leicester?
Edit: And wasn't Vaz the previous MP actually not from Leicester?
I don't know where Vaz was from. Claudia certainly says she was born in Leicester.
Let me put it this way.
How many former Councillors for Islington end up as MPs? And how many former Councillors for Rhondda-Cynon-Taff end up as MPs? Why are those numbers so very different?
TBH I only actually know of Margaret Hodge and Claudia Webbe off the top of my head. Was Corbyn, have I forgotten that. Maybe just my limited knowledge..
Labour seems to have a fair number of candidates who come from the area the want to represent, although that includes Webbe I'm guessing most of the rest of them haven't been Islington councillors previously.
I'm perplexed about the YouGov and wonder if someone can help me out.
I'm an arty-farty type (hence the occasional poetry) and not a mathematician so the fact that something doesn't ring true may be all down to me.
Leaving aside the fact that YouGov starts with polling much more favourable to the blues, here's my perplexity. Okay, so I don't see how a poll can show a higher Cons figure when you take out the non-BXP seats. You cannot remove a region (Cons held seats) and then apply the net loss to the national figure. Either the figures are national polling figures, or they're not. If they are regional breakdowns then we should have the regional breakdowns.
Forgive my ignorance, but this methodology looks totally flawed.
I'm also not factoring in the inevitable small sample size once you begin chopping out a region.
I guess the other way of putting this more simply is that the Conservatives don't hold a 14% lead across all the non-tory held seats. Right? If YouGov are going to try this then they need to poll every constituency, remove all the blue seats, and then release the figures for all the remaining 'regions' (non tory held seats).
Otherwise this looks to me like a crock of sh*t.
So people will now be becoming aware that BXP are not standing in their seat so are naming another party. It could also be that BXP were already in decline, and them not standing is tacit support for Boris which has seen some of their supporters move to Con.
The thing with online panels is that they will know your address and therefore be able to pull up the candidates list.
Finally 42% today might not mean many more seats as it may just mean bigger majorities in already held seats, ie only helpful in 50 most marginal seats.
A question regarding air travel and emissions . . . is there a safety or technological reason why hydrogen [ie like in hydrogen cars, not blimps] isn't or can't be used to fuel jets?
Electric jets seem to be a very long time off but electricity can be used to create hydrogen and the only emission from hydrogen cars is water vapor from memory - could jets be powered that way?
Two reasons off the top of my head:
1. Relatively low energy density. You need a lot of space to store even compressed hydrogen.
2. Jet engines are really good at going at high speeds. Using hydrogen to generate electricity to power a prop would limit achieveable speeds to perhaps 400mph.
Once there are sufficient renewables, the supply of electricity at zero marginal cost (on a small scale, it's already regularly available at negative cost at times in Australia) will be used for the manufacture of chemicals and synthetic fuels. It's already technically feasible - just rather expensive. A lot of money is going into research to change that. Couple of decades, tops.
The Middle East will therefore likely remain dominant in petrochemicals...
Jon Ashworth on Sky, talking to Kay Burley, about the insane race to outbid the conservatives by umpteen billions on the NHS came to a juddering halt when Burley asked if this extra money takes into account labour's 4 day working week
He looked dumbfounded and said the 4 day week will not happen for the next ten years
Burley obvious retort was so the 4 day week promise is an illusion
Sums up labour
Let's wait and see what's in the manifestos shall we?
Nigel who? He should be grateful that it looks like his life’s work is about to be achieved - but instead he’s mad because others are now getting the credit for it.
I can't remember who said it but it's true that "there's no limit to what you can achieve, so long as you don't care who gets the credit for it."
I prefer John Grisham's description of the American Dream:
'Basically the American Dream means benefitting from other people's misfortune.'
Kinda sums up the state of things in the US right now ...
Being personally successful in a capitalist system almost always means that. It's amazing the psychological contortions people go through to persuade themselves otherwise.
Whereas socialism means benefiting from other people’s hard work.
John Grisham assumes a zero sum game, which it is not.
Capitalism and free markets seem to me to rely far more on the opportunity to leverage the skills and brains of everyone in a society, rather than direction by people who are only good at winning bureaucratic battles.
O/T Recently, my near PB namesake suggested backing the LibDems to win the hitherto Tory-held consitituency of The Cotswolds if near double digit odds could be attained. Well so it has proved with those nice folk at Ladbrokes offering 8/1 or 17/2 including their daily odds boost against such an eventuality. It's definitely not one for me, but don't let me dissuade you from having a small punt.
Hmmm. Not convinced those are attractive odds.
The campaign polling story so far has been Conservatives going forward, LibDems going backwards. A lot of LibDem longshots are falling ever further out of range. In the SW, they have efffectively given up on winning Torbay; I wonder how long before they give up on Dr. Sarah in Totnes and focus on still in reach North Devon and North Cornwall?
Is it? The LDs dipped 3-4% in the initial aftermath of the election announcement, but every single poll in the last week has had them in 15-17%, so I think they're pretty much stable. (Likewise, Sunil's Elbow had their share up 0.1% in the last week, and the Wikipedia chart shows them as flat.)
I agree the Conservatives have picked up with the decline of the BXP, mind.
I never felt the LDs had much of a chance in the South West. Bollocks to Brexit works in South West London, but is less compelling in Cornwall and Devon.
They need an anti-Brexit slogan that incorporates “alright, my lurver” and “get off my land”.
I expect their local literature will go big on how they defend the Green Belt.
People are overreacting to that yougov poll on reciprocal rights to live and work in the UK and EU.
I explained my view on here last night.
All it means is that there is going to be a lot of buyers remorse.
Leicester folk will have to retire to Skeggy again, not the Costas. The rich will be fine in Tuscany, free movement is considerably easier for those with money.
They will still be able to do so, just as you can in Australia and Florida now, but there will be an income qualification and a need to apply for a residency permit.
Spain’s economy depends upon such people so I don’t expect too many obstacles to be placed in the way.
Non-EU citizens need an annual income of 35,000 Euros a year to qualify for Spanish residency. That’s one hell of a large pension pot.
I always thought freedom of movement was potenitally sellable as a benefit of EU membership - basically because it is. Most salesmen can sell a good product. But I might have been underestimating the good sense of the British public. They seem to want it already.
People are reading too much into this response. It seems like motherhood and apple pie to me - after Brexit should we aim to retain does not mean do you support in all cases. If they asked are you for or against freedom of movement I would expect a different response.
Because "freedom of movement" has been maligned as meaning a three bed house with 20 Romanian men living in it, rather than the rights of all of us to make a living, enjoy our retirement or find love right across our continent. I see this response as being a more accurate one because it strips out all the toxic tabloid rhetoric and asks people about the principles underlying the policy - which of course they support because it is common sense.
Lib Dems should not run a bloody candidate in Canterbury. Sort it out.
A report on 5 live this morning confirmed they are to stand and were scathing in their attack on the labour candidate's token support for remain while being part of Corbyn's labour party
It sounded very aggressive towards labour, but if you think about it for a minute any sign Jo Swinson was helping Corbyn would have a really negative affect to any conservatives who might just lend her a vote at this GE
That sounds about right. I don't expect the LDs will try very hard there, or in similar Lab/Con marginals, but they have to at least show if only for the reason you give.
Party professionals understand these things. I remember when a resident of Guildford I told a Labour canvasser that I normally voted Labour but would be voting tactically LD, he simply replied 'Well done'.
There's no shame in that kind of thing, as long as we're stuck with FPTP.
Jon Ashworth on Sky, talking to Kay Burley, about the insane race to outbid the conservatives by umpteen billions on the NHS came to a juddering halt when Burley asked if this extra money takes into account labour's 4 day working week
He looked dumbfounded and said the 4 day week will not happen for the next ten years
Burley obvious retort was so the 4 day week promise is an illusion
Sums up labour
Anyone voting Tory will need to accept that the entire basis of their proposition to the electorate is also based on lies. As we will all find out next year.
They don’t care as long as they are in power. Just need to fool the plebs once every 5 years.
My guess is that the betrayals coming up will be profoundly damaging to the Tories’ electoral chances for many years to come. More important, though, is the damage they will do the country.
O/T Recently, my near PB namesake suggested backing the LibDems to win the hitherto Tory-held consitituency of The Cotswolds if near double digit odds could be attained. Well so it has proved with those nice folk at Ladbrokes offering 8/1 or 17/2 including their daily odds boost against such an eventuality. It's definitely not one for me, but don't let me dissuade you from having a small punt.
Hmmm. Not convinced those are attractive odds.
The campaign polling story so far has been Conservatives going forward, LibDems going backwards. A lot of LibDem longshots are falling ever further out of range. In the SW, they have efffectively given up on winning Torbay; I wonder how long before they give up on Dr. Sarah in Totnes and focus on still in reach North Devon and North Cornwall?
Is it? The LDs dipped 3-4% in the initial aftermath of the election announcement, but every single poll in the last week has had them in 15-17%, so I think they're pretty much stable. (Likewise, Sunil's Elbow had their share up 0.1% in the last week, and the Wikipedia chart shows them as flat.)
I agree the Conservatives have picked up with the decline of the BXP, mind.
I never felt the LDs had much of a chance in the South West. Bollocks to Brexit works in South West London, but is less compelling in Cornwall and Devon.
They need an anti-Brexit slogan that incorporates “alright, my lurver” and “get off my land”.
I expect their local literature will go big on how they defend the Green Belt.
Yet again.
My house was built on the Green Belt. I love how much it annoys people.
Nigel who? He should be grateful that it looks like his life’s work is about to be achieved - but instead he’s mad because others are now getting the credit for it.
I can't remember who said it but it's true that "there's no limit to what you can achieve, so long as you don't care who gets the credit for it."
I prefer John Grisham's description of the American Dream:
'Basically the American Dream means benefitting from other people's misfortune.'
Kinda sums up the state of things in the US right now ...
Being personally successful in a capitalist system almost always means that. It's amazing the psychological contortions people go through to persuade themselves otherwise.
With all due respect, that's complete and utter shit.
I'm building a new business (well, not right now, as I'm on a plane) that will hopefully radically change car insurance. It will make insurance more affordable to poorer people and reduce the number of road accidents each year.
If I do it right, I expect I will make a very large amount of money, possibly billions.
I'm pretty sure I'm doing the opposite of benefiting from people's misfortunes.
Nigel who? He should be grateful that it looks like his life’s work is about to be achieved - but instead he’s mad because others are now getting the credit for it.
I can't remember who said it but it's true that "there's no limit to what you can achieve, so long as you don't care who gets the credit for it."
I prefer John Grisham's description of the American Dream:
'Basically the American Dream means benefitting from other people's misfortune.'
Kinda sums up the state of things in the US right now ...
Being personally successful in a capitalist system almost always means that. It's amazing the psychological contortions people go through to persuade themselves otherwise.
You can be successful without crapping on everyone. So you're wrong.
I notice the insertion of the word 'personal.' Success can mean personal gain as well as social conscience. Memetically, of course, the likes of Richard Dawkins would state that social conscience is part of personal gain i.e. not altruistic.
A question regarding air travel and emissions . . . is there a safety or technological reason why hydrogen [ie like in hydrogen cars, not blimps] isn't or can't be used to fuel jets?
Electric jets seem to be a very long time off but electricity can be used to create hydrogen and the only emission from hydrogen cars is water vapor from memory - could jets be powered that way?
Two reasons off the top of my head:
1. Relatively low energy density. You need a lot of space to store even compressed hydrogen.
2. Jet engines are really good at going at high speeds. Using hydrogen to generate electricity to power a prop would limit achieveable speeds to perhaps 400mph.
A question regarding air travel and emissions . . . is there a safety or technological reason why hydrogen [ie like in hydrogen cars, not blimps] isn't or can't be used to fuel jets?
Electric jets seem to be a very long time off but electricity can be used to create hydrogen and the only emission from hydrogen cars is water vapor from memory - could jets be powered that way?
Dunno but the attack on air travel is not entirely well placed
And I don't see people changing their eating and buying habits. Easy to attack the Emma Thompson's of this world whilst munching on your own avocado or kiwi fruit.
Much of the stuff you buy doesn't spend 3 months at sea to get here, y'know ...
That's much, much less than agriculture, forestry and other land use (around 25%) and electricity and heat production (also around 25%), according to America's Environmental Protection Agency.
Even the global fashion industry accounts for over 8% of carbon emissions - more than all international flights and maritime shipping combined
So you try to follow up the sources and first of all, the "global fashion industry" turns out to mean the production of all the clothes and shoes in the world, despite which the number seems quite shady, and even if it's right, it's mainly electricity, which they already counted in the 25% for electricity and heat production.
A question regarding air travel and emissions . . . is there a safety or technological reason why hydrogen [ie like in hydrogen cars, not blimps] isn't or can't be used to fuel jets?
Electric jets seem to be a very long time off but electricity can be used to create hydrogen and the only emission from hydrogen cars is water vapor from memory - could jets be powered that way?
Two reasons off the top of my head:
1. Relatively low energy density. You need a lot of space to store even compressed hydrogen.
2. Jet engines are really good at going at high speeds. Using hydrogen to generate electricity to power a prop would limit achieveable speeds to perhaps 400mph.
Once there are sufficient renewables, the supply of electricity at zero marginal cost (on a small scale, it's already regularly available at negative cost at times in Australia) will be used for the manufacture of chemicals and synthetic fuels. It's already technically feasible - just rather expensive. A lot of money is going into research to change that. Couple of decades, tops.
The Middle East will therefore likely remain dominant in petrochemicals...
Oh yes, if electricity is essentially free you can create synthetic anything.
I'm perplexed about the YouGov and wonder if someone can help me out.
I'm an arty-farty type (hence the occasional poetry) and not a mathematician so the fact that something doesn't ring true may be all down to me.
Leaving aside the fact that YouGov starts with polling much more favourable to the blues, here's my perplexity. Okay, so I don't see how a poll can show a higher Cons figure when you take out the non-BXP seats. You cannot remove a region (Cons held seats) and then apply the net loss to the national figure. Either the figures are national polling figures, or they're not. If they are regional breakdowns then we should have the regional breakdowns.
Forgive my ignorance, but this methodology looks totally flawed.
I'm also not factoring in the inevitable small sample size once you begin chopping out a region.
I guess the other way of putting this more simply is that the Conservatives don't hold a 14% lead across all the non-tory held seats. Right? If YouGov are going to try this then they need to poll every constituency, remove all the blue seats, and then release the figures for all the remaining 'regions' (non tory held seats).
Otherwise this looks to me like a crock of sh*t.
I'm cheekily going to bump this ^^^
Although Nemtynakht responded (thank you) no one so far has addressed my point.
Either YouGov conduct a full poll of every constituency and then remove the tory held seats from the figure. Or their new methodology is MASSIVELY flawed.
I'm surprised Mike / Robert haven't yet picked up on this.
I'm even more surprised YouGov are allowed by BPC to get away with it.
Less surprised the Daily Express have headlined it
A question regarding air travel and emissions . . . is there a safety or technological reason why hydrogen [ie like in hydrogen cars, not blimps] isn't or can't be used to fuel jets?
Electric jets seem to be a very long time off but electricity can be used to create hydrogen and the only emission from hydrogen cars is water vapor from memory - could jets be powered that way?
Two reasons off the top of my head:
1. Relatively low energy density. You need a lot of space to store even compressed hydrogen.
2. Jet engines are really good at going at high speeds. Using hydrogen to generate electricity to power a prop would limit achieveable speeds to perhaps 400mph.
A question regarding air travel and emissions . . . is there a safety or technological reason why hydrogen [ie like in hydrogen cars, not blimps] isn't or can't be used to fuel jets?
Electric jets seem to be a very long time off but electricity can be used to create hydrogen and the only emission from hydrogen cars is water vapor from memory - could jets be powered that way?
Two reasons off the top of my head:
1. Relatively low energy density. You need a lot of space to store even compressed hydrogen.
2. Jet engines are really good at going at high speeds. Using hydrogen to generate electricity to power a prop would limit achieveable speeds to perhaps 400mph.
3. Assuming we're using fuel cells to convert the hydrogen into electricity (the only way to get just water as a byproduct), means having a lot of heavy equipment on board, especially as it would need to deal with very high peak power requirements.
(Of course, it might be possible to skip the whole fuel cell thing, and create a hydrogen turbine, where the kerosene is swapped for hydrogen. It wouldn't be quite as clean, but it'd probably work. That being said, kerosene is pretty much the perfect fuel. It works at a wide range of temperatures and is happy with the rarified atmosphere at 40,000 feet.)
4. Hydrogen in its elemental form is very corrosive, which is a challenge for building something to use it continuously for a decade. There's been research on storing it as a hydride in cars, but I don't know how far they've progressed with that.
One alternative might be to use the Sabatier process to create methane from your hydrogen (and carbon dioxide). I've no idea how useful LPG is for flying jet planes, but it was considered good enough for rockets as part of the Mars Plan.
O/T Recently, my near PB namesake suggested backing the LibDems to win the hitherto Tory-held consitituency of The Cotswolds if near double digit odds could be attained. Well so it has proved with those nice folk at Ladbrokes offering 8/1 or 17/2 including their daily odds boost against such an eventuality. It's definitely not one for me, but don't let me dissuade you from having a small punt.
Hmmm. Not convinced those are attractive odds.
The campaign polling story so far has been Conservatives going forward, LibDems going backwards. A lot of LibDem longshots are falling ever further out of range. In the SW, they have efffectively given up on winning Torbay; I wonder how long before they give up on Dr. Sarah in Totnes and focus on still in reach North Devon and North Cornwall?
Is it? The LDs dipped 3-4% in the initial aftermath of the election announcement, but every single poll in the last week has had them in 15-17%, so I think they're pretty much stable. (Likewise, Sunil's Elbow had their share up 0.1% in the last week, and the Wikipedia chart shows them as flat.)
I agree the Conservatives have picked up with the decline of the BXP, mind.
I never felt the LDs had much of a chance in the South West. Bollocks to Brexit works in South West London, but is less compelling in Cornwall and Devon.
They need an anti-Brexit slogan that incorporates “alright, my lurver” and “get off my land”.
I expect their local literature will go big on how they defend the Green Belt.
Yet again.
My house was built on the Green Belt. I love how much it annoys people.
Good morning Gallowgate, you are a naughty boy gloating at your destruction of the green belt. All that brown stuff about as well.
A Labour member beaten in the race for a plum seat by a close ally of Jeremy Corbyn has hit out at the party's "crooked" candidate selection process.
Sundip Meghani lost out to Claudia Webbethan 22,000 in 2017 - by a selection panel including two NEC members.
In a statement posted on Twitter, Mr Meghani, a lead investigator at the Independent Office for Police Conduct, said: "In my job I challenge abuse of power and corruption - and as a Labour member I fight injustice and unfairness. "So I cannot stay silent on the obvious dodgy practices and nepotism involved in this process, where Labour's ruling executive chose a member of Labour's ruling executive as the candidiate."
He added: "This type of conduct, where a well-connected favourite is nodded through, is no better than the Etonian old boys' network that Labour seeks to condemn."
We will soon be in a position where the London party holds all 591 English & Welsh seats in Westminster.
Isn't Claudia from Leicester?
Edit: And wasn't Vaz the previous MP actually not from Leicester?
I don't know where Vaz was from. Claudia certainly says she was born in Leicester.
Let me put it this way.
How many former Councillors for Islington end up as MPs? And how many former Councillors for Rhondda-Cynon-Taff end up as MPs? Why are those numbers so very different?
TBH I only actually know of Margaret Hodge and Claudia Webbe off the top of my head. Was Corbyn, have I forgotten that. Maybe just my limited knowledge..
Labour seems to have a fair number of candidates who come from the area the want to represent, although that includes Webbe I'm guessing most of the rest of them haven't been Islington councillors previously.
Webbe has been trying and failing to get a Parliamentary seat for years now. Every time Labour members were given the opportunity to select her they said no, but in the end a seat has been found where her candidacy can be imposed. The bizarre thing is that they have worked so hard to find her a seat while not letting Chris Williamson stand in his. I guess the far-left feels it needs to maintain its quota of Jewbaiting, pro-Corbyn MPs within the PLP.
O/T Recently, my near PB namesake suggested backing the LibDems to win the hitherto Tory-held consitituency of The Cotswolds if near double digit odds could be attained. Well so it has proved with those nice folk at Ladbrokes offering 8/1 or 17/2 including their daily odds boost against such an eventuality. It's definitely not one for me, but don't let me dissuade you from having a small punt.
Hmmm. Not convinced those are attractive odds.
The campaign polling story so far has been Conservatives going forward, LibDems going backwards. A lot of LibDem longshots are falling ever further out of range. In the SW, they have efffectively given up on winning Torbay; I wonder how long before they give up on Dr. Sarah in Totnes and focus on still in reach North Devon and North Cornwall?
Is it? The LDs dipped 3-4% in the initial aftermath of the election announcement, but every single poll in the last week has had them in 15-17%, so I think they're pretty much stable. (Likewise, Sunil's Elbow had their share up 0.1% in the last week, and the Wikipedia chart shows them as flat.)
I agree the Conservatives have picked up with the decline of the BXP, mind.
I never felt the LDs had much of a chance in the South West. Bollocks to Brexit works in South West London, but is less compelling in Cornwall and Devon.
They need an anti-Brexit slogan that incorporates “alright, my lurver” and “get off my land”.
I expect their local literature will go big on how they defend the Green Belt.
Yet again.
My house was built on the Green Belt. I love how much it annoys people.
Good morning Gallowgate, you are a naughty boy gloating at your destruction of the green belt. All that brown stuff about as well.
But I have wonderful views of rural Northumberland
Nigel who? He should be grateful that it looks like his life’s work is about to be achieved - but instead he’s mad because others are now getting the credit for it.
I can't remember who said it but it's true that "there's no limit to what you can achieve, so long as you don't care who gets the credit for it."
I prefer John Grisham's description of the American Dream:
'Basically the American Dream means benefitting from other people's misfortune.'
Kinda sums up the state of things in the US right now ...
Being personally successful in a capitalist system almost always means that. It's amazing the psychological contortions people go through to persuade themselves otherwise.
You can be successful without crapping on everyone. So you're wrong.
I notice the insertion of the word 'personal.' Success can mean personal gain as well as social conscience. Memetically, of course, the likes of Richard Dawkins would state that social conscience is part of personal gain i.e. not altruistic.
Very few and far between though , majority of them do lots and lots of crapping.
A question regarding air travel and emissions . . . is there a safety or technological reason why hydrogen [ie like in hydrogen cars, not blimps] isn't or can't be used to fuel jets?
Electric jets seem to be a very long time off but electricity can be used to create hydrogen and the only emission from hydrogen cars is water vapor from memory - could jets be powered that way?
Two reasons off the top of my head:
1. Relatively low energy density. You need a lot of space to store even compressed hydrogen.
2. Jet engines are really good at going at high speeds. Using hydrogen to generate electricity to power a prop would limit achieveable speeds to perhaps 400mph.
2. Why wouldn't you use the hydrogen to power jet turbines, turboprops etc.?
Is it weight or volume or both that matters for aviation? That table appears to show hydrogen has a higher energy density by weight that jet fuel or avgas, but a lower energy density by volume.
Lib Dems should not run a bloody candidate in Canterbury. Sort it out.
A report on 5 live this morning confirmed they are to stand and were scathing in their attack on the labour candidate's token support for remain while being part of Corbyn's labour party
It sounded very aggressive towards labour, but if you think about it for a minute any sign Jo Swinson was helping Corbyn would have a really negative affect to any conservatives who might just lend her a vote at this GE
But it makes a mockery of the remain alliance..ie it is only one on Jo Swinsons terms.. People will see through that.. The other thing is although the LDs may not canvass they will.still get votes. It's just the way of it.
A question regarding air travel and emissions . . . is there a safety or technological reason why hydrogen [ie like in hydrogen cars, not blimps] isn't or can't be used to fuel jets?
Electric jets seem to be a very long time off but electricity can be used to create hydrogen and the only emission from hydrogen cars is water vapor from memory - could jets be powered that way?
Two reasons off the top of my head:
1. Relatively low energy density. You need a lot of space to store even compressed hydrogen.
2. Jet engines are really good at going at high speeds. Using hydrogen to generate electricity to power a prop would limit achieveable speeds to perhaps 400mph.
2. Why wouldn't you use the hydrogen to power jet turbines, turboprops etc.?
Re (1): volume matters. If we make a plane bigger to store all the hydrogen, then we need more aluminium, carbon fibre, etc. Plus this rather ignores the containment issue. Hydrogen needs to be compressed to make it fit into a reasonable space. (And even then, it's massively less energy dense than kerosene.)
Re (2): I agree, that makes more sense. Although I don't know if it how well hydrogen works at different temperatures, pressures, etc.
A question regarding air travel and emissions . . . is there a safety or technological reason why hydrogen [ie like in hydrogen cars, not blimps] isn't or can't be used to fuel jets?
Electric jets seem to be a very long time off but electricity can be used to create hydrogen and the only emission from hydrogen cars is water vapor from memory - could jets be powered that way?
Two reasons off the top of my head:
1. Relatively low energy density. You need a lot of space to store even compressed hydrogen.
2. Jet engines are really good at going at high speeds. Using hydrogen to generate electricity to power a prop would limit achieveable speeds to perhaps 400mph.
2. Why wouldn't you use the hydrogen to power jet turbines, turboprops etc.?
Is it weight or volume or both that matters for aviation? That table appears to show hydrogen has a higher energy density by weight that jet fuel or avgas, but a lower energy density by volume.
A question regarding air travel and emissions . . . is there a safety or technological reason why hydrogen [ie like in hydrogen cars, not blimps] isn't or can't be used to fuel jets?
Electric jets seem to be a very long time off but electricity can be used to create hydrogen and the only emission from hydrogen cars is water vapor from memory - could jets be powered that way?
Two reasons off the top of my head:
1. Relatively low energy density. You need a lot of space to store even compressed hydrogen.
2. Jet engines are really good at going at high speeds. Using hydrogen to generate electricity to power a prop would limit achieveable speeds to perhaps 400mph.
2. Why wouldn't you use the hydrogen to power jet turbines, turboprops etc.?
If it was easy and obvious it would have been done.
Well, yes... but just because it is not done yet doesn't mean it won't be relatively easy once we work out how to do it
I used to spend a lot of time gliding... it occured to me that the Romans had all the technology required to build and fly quite workable sailplanes, but never worked out how to do it and/or never saw the need/benefits.
A question regarding air travel and emissions . . . is there a safety or technological reason why hydrogen [ie like in hydrogen cars, not blimps] isn't or can't be used to fuel jets?
Electric jets seem to be a very long time off but electricity can be used to create hydrogen and the only emission from hydrogen cars is water vapor from memory - could jets be powered that way?
Two reasons off the top of my head:
1. Relatively low energy density. You need a lot of space to store even compressed hydrogen.
2. Jet engines are really good at going at high speeds. Using hydrogen to generate electricity to power a prop would limit achieveable speeds to perhaps 400mph.
O/T Recently, my near PB namesake suggested backing the LibDems to win the hitherto Tory-held consitituency of The Cotswolds if near double digit odds could be attained. Well so it has proved with those nice folk at Ladbrokes offering 8/1 or 17/2 including their daily odds boost against such an eventuality. It's definitely not one for me, but don't let me dissuade you from having a small punt.
Hmmm. Not convinced those are attractive odds.
The campaign polling story so far has been Conservatives going forward, LibDems going backwards. A lot of LibDem longshots are falling ever further out of range. In the SW, they have efffectively given up on winning Torbay; I wonder how long before they give up on Dr. Sarah in Totnes and focus on still in reach North Devon and North Cornwall?
Is it? The LDs dipped 3-4% in the initial aftermath of the election announcement, but every single poll in the last week has had them in 15-17%, so I think they're pretty much stable. (Likewise, Sunil's Elbow had their share up 0.1% in the last week, and the Wikipedia chart shows them as flat.)
I agree the Conservatives have picked up with the decline of the BXP, mind.
I never felt the LDs had much of a chance in the South West. Bollocks to Brexit works in South West London, but is less compelling in Cornwall and Devon.
They need an anti-Brexit slogan that incorporates “alright, my lurver” and “get off my land”.
I expect their local literature will go big on how they defend the Green Belt.
Yet again.
My house was built on the Green Belt. I love how much it annoys people.
Good morning Gallowgate, you are a naughty boy gloating at your destruction of the green belt. All that brown stuff about as well.
But I have wonderful views of rural Northumberland
Nigel who? He should be grateful that it looks like his life’s work is about to be achieved - but instead he’s mad because others are now getting the credit for it.
I can't remember who said it but it's true that "there's no limit to what you can achieve, so long as you don't care who gets the credit for it."
I prefer John Grisham's description of the American Dream:
'Basically the American Dream means benefitting from other people's misfortune.'
Kinda sums up the state of things in the US right now ...
Being personally successful in a capitalist system almost always means that. It's amazing the psychological contortions people go through to persuade themselves otherwise.
With all due respect, that's complete and utter shit.
I'm building a new business (well, not right now, as I'm on a plane) that will hopefully radically change car insurance. It will make insurance more affordable to poorer people and reduce the number of road accidents each year.
If I do it right, I expect I will make a very large amount of money, possibly billions.
I'm pretty sure I'm doing the opposite of benefiting from people's misfortunes.
I mean, it depends on the treatment and remuneration of your staff.
If you (owner, top dog, etc) are paying everyone minimum wage to enact your idea that you can't enact alone, but paying them a wage they can't live on, or putting them in conditions that are bad, the service may be a useful one, but I would argue you are still benefiting from the misfortune of others, just the workers not the customer. (This isn't saying you would do that, just as a point).
In whatever sense the business will depend on the labour of more than just yourself, and I can only assume you plan to make more money that other people despite the fact their labour will be as necessary, which in the Marxist sense is where the class conflict enters. Does "ownership" of the business mean your contribution is more "valuable" than the people who actually do the work.
This is meant to a comment on the nature of capitalism and not a personal attack on what sounds like a potentially good idea in the morally dubious business of legally necessary but only privately accessible insurance.
A question regarding air travel and emissions . . . is there a safety or technological reason why hydrogen [ie like in hydrogen cars, not blimps] isn't or can't be used to fuel jets?
Electric jets seem to be a very long time off but electricity can be used to create hydrogen and the only emission from hydrogen cars is water vapor from memory - could jets be powered that way?
Two reasons off the top of my head:
1. Relatively low energy density. You need a lot of space to store even compressed hydrogen.
2. Jet engines are really good at going at high speeds. Using hydrogen to generate electricity to power a prop would limit achieveable speeds to perhaps 400mph.
2. Why wouldn't you use the hydrogen to power jet turbines, turboprops etc.?
Is it weight or volume or both that matters for aviation? That table appears to show hydrogen has a higher energy density by weight that jet fuel or avgas, but a lower energy density by volume.
Will it fit in a plane and power it half way round the world PS : and not blow up on a regular basis
A Labour member beaten in the race for a plum seat by a close ally of Jeremy Corbyn has hit out at the party's "crooked" candidate selection process.
Sundip Meghani lost out to Claudia Webbethan 22,000 in 2017 - by a selection panel including two NEC members.
In a statement posted on Twitter, Mr Meghani, a lead investigator at the Independent Office for Police Conduct, said: "In my job I challenge abuse of power and corruption - and as a Labour member I fight injustice and unfairness. "So I cannot stay silent on the obvious dodgy practices and nepotism involved in this process, where Labour's ruling executive chose a member of Labour's ruling executive as the candidiate."
He added: "This type of conduct, where a well-connected favourite is nodded through, is no better than the Etonian old boys' network that Labour seeks to condemn."
We will soon be in a position where the London party holds all 591 English & Welsh seats in Westminster.
Isn't Claudia from Leicester?
Edit: And wasn't Vaz the previous MP actually not from Leicester?
I don't know where Vaz was from. Claudia certainly says she was born in Leicester.
Let me put it this way.
How many former Councillors for Islington end up as MPs? And how many former Councillors for Rhondda-Cynon-Taff end up as MPs? Why are those numbers so very different?
TBH I only actually know of Margaret Hodge and Claudia Webbe off the top of my head. Was Corbyn, have I forgotten that. Maybe just my limited knowledge..
Labour seems to have a fair number of candidates who come from the area the want to represent, although that includes Webbe I'm guessing most of the rest of them haven't been Islington councillors previously.
Webbe has been trying and failing to get a Parliamentary seat for years now. Every time Labour members were given the opportunity to select her they said no, but in the end a seat has been found where her candidacy can be imposed. The bizarre thing is that they have worked so hard to find her a seat while not letting Chris Williamson stand in his. I guess the far-left feels it needs to maintain its quota of Jewbaiting, pro-Corbyn MPs within the PLP.
Far too early in the morning for frothing, such a nice day an all. You can regale me with stories about the evil Black woman at a later time...
A question regarding air travel and emissions . . . is there a safety or technological reason why hydrogen [ie like in hydrogen cars, not blimps] isn't or can't be used to fuel jets?
Electric jets seem to be a very long time off but electricity can be used to create hydrogen and the only emission from hydrogen cars is water vapor from memory - could jets be powered that way?
Two reasons off the top of my head:
1. Relatively low energy density. You need a lot of space to store even compressed hydrogen.
2. Jet engines are really good at going at high speeds. Using hydrogen to generate electricity to power a prop would limit achieveable speeds to perhaps 400mph.
A question regarding air travel and emissions . . . is there a safety or technological reason why hydrogen [ie like in hydrogen cars, not blimps] isn't or can't be used to fuel jets?
Electric jets seem to be a very long time off but electricity can be used to create hydrogen and the only emission from hydrogen cars is water vapor from memory - could jets be powered that way?
Two reasons off the top of my head:
1. Relatively low energy density. You need a lot of space to store even compressed hydrogen.
2. Jet engines are really good at going at high speeds. Using hydrogen to generate electricity to power a prop would limit achieveable speeds to perhaps 400mph.
A question regarding air travel and emissions . . . is there a safety or technological reason why hydrogen [ie like in hydrogen cars, not blimps] isn't or can't be used to fuel jets?
Electric jets seem to be a very long time off but electricity can be used to create hydrogen and the only emission from hydrogen cars is water vapor from memory - could jets be powered that way?
Dunno but the attack on air travel is not entirely well placed
And I don't see people changing their eating and buying habits. Easy to attack the Emma Thompson's of this world whilst munching on your own avocado or kiwi fruit.
Much of the stuff you buy doesn't spend 3 months at sea to get here, y'know ...
I'm torn on this.
Asking people to deny themselves something is difficult, particularly when a lot of what we need to do doesn't require it. Travel is in many ways a good thing, particularly for people with distant family, or to share ideas and opportunities.
It's symbolic and symbols are important. I think that the decline in air travel in Sweden sends a signal to politicians there that the public take this seriously, and that therefore they should too.
Mostly then I concentrate on the easier stuff. Deal with that problem once the easier ones are done.
A question regarding air travel and emissions . . . is there a safety or technological reason why hydrogen [ie like in hydrogen cars, not blimps] isn't or can't be used to fuel jets?
Electric jets seem to be a very long time off but electricity can be used to create hydrogen and the only emission from hydrogen cars is water vapor from memory - could jets be powered that way?
Dunno but the attack on air travel is not entirely well placed
And I don't see people changing their eating and buying habits. Easy to attack the Emma Thompson's of this world whilst munching on your own avocado or kiwi fruit.
Much of the stuff you buy doesn't spend 3 months at sea to get here, y'know ...
Sweet Jesus on a bendy-bus that article is dumb.
.
Elaborate or risk the same opprobrium yourself.
Hannah Thomas-Peters is no mug. She's the Sky News Climate Correspondent and was RTS Young Journalist of the Year.
I'm more inclined right now to listen to her than you. Offence intended.
Nigel who? He should be grateful that it looks like his life’s work is about to be achieved - but instead he’s mad because others are now getting the credit for it.
I can't remember who said it but it's true that "there's no limit to what you can achieve, so long as you don't care who gets the credit for it."
I prefer John Grisham's description of the American Dream:
'Basically the American Dream means benefitting from other people's misfortune.'
Kinda sums up the state of things in the US right now ...
Being personally successful in a capitalist system almost always means that. It's amazing the psychological contortions people go through to persuade themselves otherwise.
With all due respect, that's complete and utter shit.
I'm building a new business (well, not right now, as I'm on a plane) that will hopefully radically change car insurance. It will make insurance more affordable to poorer people and reduce the number of road accidents each year.
If I do it right, I expect I will make a very large amount of money, possibly billions.
I'm pretty sure I'm doing the opposite of benefiting from people's misfortunes.
Psychological gymnastics in action. Of course I hope your business succeeds, it sounds like you are working on a great idea that will benefit many people and for which you deserve to be rewarded. But you are misinterpreting what I am saying. Do you think you receive no economic benefit from the exploitation of others in the capitalist system? Do you think that if people were paid properly for their labour or if the full social cost of the resources extracted for your benefit were reflected in the cost passed on to you, you would not be worse off economically? That is the point that Grisham is making, as I see it, and he is undoubtedly correct. I should add, I am not against the capitalist system, I am just not naive about its downsides.
Nigel who? He should be grateful that it looks like his life’s work is about to be achieved - but instead he’s mad because others are now getting the credit for it.
I can't remember who said it but it's true that "there's no limit to what you can achieve, so long as you don't care who gets the credit for it."
I prefer John Grisham's description of the American Dream:
'Basically the American Dream means benefitting from other people's misfortune.'
Kinda sums up the state of things in the US right now ...
Being personally successful in a capitalist system almost always means that. It's amazing the psychological contortions people go through to persuade themselves otherwise.
With all due respect, that's complete and utter shit.
I'm building a new business (well, not right now, as I'm on a plane) that will hopefully radically change car insurance. It will make insurance more affordable to poorer people and reduce the number of road accidents each year.
If I do it right, I expect I will make a very large amount of money, possibly billions.
I'm pretty sure I'm doing the opposite of benefiting from people's misfortunes.
Isn't the whole insurance industry's very existence the result of other people's misfortunes?
Nigel who? He should be grateful that it looks like his life’s work is about to be achieved - but instead he’s mad because others are now getting the credit for it.
I can't remember who said it but it's true that "there's no limit to what you can achieve, so long as you don't care who gets the credit for it."
I prefer John Grisham's description of the American Dream:
'Basically the American Dream means benefitting from other people's misfortune.'
Kinda sums up the state of things in the US right now ...
Being personally successful in a capitalist system almost always means that. It's amazing the psychological contortions people go through to persuade themselves otherwise.
With all due respect, that's complete and utter shit.
I'm building a new business (well, not right now, as I'm on a plane) that will hopefully radically change car insurance. It will make insurance more affordable to poorer people and reduce the number of road accidents each year.
If I do it right, I expect I will make a very large amount of money, possibly billions.
I'm pretty sure I'm doing the opposite of benefiting from people's misfortunes.
Sounds interesting. Although billionaires in the insurance industry are rarer than horses which speak Norwegian.
Keep an eye on your acquisition and back-end costs 😉. Along with having very effective adjustment.
A Labour member beaten in the race for a plum seat by a close ally of Jeremy Corbyn has hit out at the party's "crooked" candidate selection process.
Sundip Meghani lost out to Claudia Webbe in the race to contest Labour-held Leicester East at the general election. Islington councillor Ms Webbe is a member of Labour's ruling national executive committee and had tried unsuccessfully to be chosen as the party's candidate in a number of constituencies. She was chosen as the candidate in Leicester seat - which Keith Vaz held with a majority of more than 22,000 in 2017 - by a selection panel including two NEC members.
In a statement posted on Twitter, Mr Meghani, a lead investigator at the Independent Office for Police Conduct, said: "In my job I challenge abuse of power and corruption - and as a Labour member I fight injustice and unfairness. "So I cannot stay silent on the obvious dodgy practices and nepotism involved in this process, where Labour's ruling executive chose a member of Labour's ruling executive as the candidiate."
He added: "This type of conduct, where a well-connected favourite is nodded through, is no better than the Etonian old boys' network that Labour seeks to condemn."
We will soon be in a position where the London party holds all 591 English & Welsh seats in Westminster.
Isn't Claudia from Leicester?
Edit: And wasn't Vaz the previous MP actually not from Leicester?
I don't know where Vaz was from. Claudia certainly says she was born in Leicester.
Let me put it this way.
How many former Councillors for Islington end up as MPs? And how many former Councillors for Rhondda-Cynon-Taff end up as MPs? Why are those numbers so very different?
Nevertheless they made sure that Camden councillor was barred from Mann's seat; the difference just a few miles makes, or something more political?
Morning all! A busy working day split into two by ITV who are taking all the Stockton South candidates on a boat ride down the Tees to do some filming. Will be a little odd to be there with my former Labour colleagues as the assistant campaign manager for the other side, but c'est la vie.
Nigel who? He should be grateful that it looks like his life’s work is about to be achieved - but instead he’s mad because others are now getting the credit for it.
I can't remember who said it but it's true that "there's no limit to what you can achieve, so long as you don't care who gets the credit for it."
I prefer John Grisham's description of the American Dream:
'Basically the American Dream means benefitting from other people's misfortune.'
Kinda sums up the state of things in the US right now ...
Being personally successful in a capitalist system almost always means that. It's amazing the psychological contortions people go through to persuade themselves otherwise.
With all due respect, that's complete and utter shit.
I'm building a new business (well, not right now, as I'm on a plane) that will hopefully radically change car insurance. It will make insurance more affordable to poorer people and reduce the number of road accidents each year.
If I do it right, I expect I will make a very large amount of money, possibly billions.
I'm pretty sure I'm doing the opposite of benefiting from people's misfortunes.
Isn't the whole insurance industry's very existence the result of other people's misfortunes?
I'm perplexed about the YouGov and wonder if someone can help me out.
I'm an arty-farty type (hence the occasional poetry) and not a mathematician so the fact that something doesn't ring true may be all down to me.
Leaving aside the fact that YouGov starts with polling much more favourable to the blues, here's my perplexity. Okay, so I don't see how a poll can show a higher Cons figure when you take out the non-BXP seats. You cannot remove a region (Cons held seats) and then apply the net loss to the national figure. Either the figures are national polling figures, or they're not. If they are regional breakdowns then we should have the regional breakdowns.
Forgive my ignorance, but this methodology looks totally flawed.
I'm also not factoring in the inevitable small sample size once you begin chopping out a region.
I guess the other way of putting this more simply is that the Conservatives don't hold a 14% lead across all the non-tory held seats. Right? If YouGov are going to try this then they need to poll every constituency, remove all the blue seats, and then release the figures for all the remaining 'regions' (non tory held seats).
Otherwise this looks to me like a crock of sh*t.
I'm cheekily going to bump this ^^^
Although Nemtynakht responded (thank you) no one so far has addressed my point.
Either YouGov conduct a full poll of every constituency and then remove the tory held seats from the figure. Or their new methodology is MASSIVELY flawed.
I'm surprised Mike / Robert haven't yet picked up on this.
I'm even more surprised YouGov are allowed by BPC to get away with it.
Less surprised the Daily Express have headlined it
I think you've misunderstood both the way polling works and the methodology for adjusting BXP. They poll c 2k people, and give each of them, individually, the specific options available in their constituency. Then they combine the results and weight them to be a representative sample. They do not only poll people in non-Tory seats, nor do they have to remove Tory seats afterwards. You are correct insofar as the process probably increases the polling error due to the extra assumption that needs to be made when weighting, but only slightly
More crucially Johnson seems to have ran water straight from a tap into his tea ! There was a kettle across the kitchen which I'd have thought would be redundant with a boiling water tap... ?
I think the tea you are likely to get from a boiling water tap is likely to be poor, because the water is likely to have been held at a higher temperature for longer than for water freshly boiled in a kettle. Might be good enough for coffee.
Nigel who? He should be grateful that it looks like his life’s work is about to be achieved - but instead he’s mad because others are now getting the credit for it.
I can't remember who said it but it's true that "there's no limit to what you can achieve, so long as you don't care who gets the credit for it."
I prefer John Grisham's description of the American Dream:
'Basically the American Dream means benefitting from other people's misfortune.'
Kinda sums up the state of things in the US right now ...
Being personally successful in a capitalist system almost always means that. It's amazing the psychological contortions people go through to persuade themselves otherwise.
With all due respect, that's complete and utter shit.
I'm building a new business (well, not right now, as I'm on a plane) that will hopefully radically change car insurance. It will make insurance more affordable to poorer people and reduce the number of road accidents each year.
If I do it right, I expect I will make a very large amount of money, possibly billions.
I'm pretty sure I'm doing the opposite of benefiting from people's misfortunes.
Isn't the whole insurance industry's very existence the result of other people's misfortunes?
I'm perplexed about the YouGov and wonder if someone can help me out.
I'm an arty-farty type (hence the occasional poetry) and not a mathematician so the fact that something doesn't ring true may be all down to me.
Leaving aside the fact that YouGov starts with polling much more favourable to the blues, here's my perplexity. Okay, so I don't see how a poll can show a higher Cons figure when you take out the non-BXP seats. You cannot remove a region (Cons held seats) and then apply the net loss to the national figure. Either the figures are national polling figures, or they're not. If they are regional breakdowns then we should have the regional breakdowns.
Forgive my ignorance, but this methodology looks totally flawed.
I'm also not factoring in the inevitable small sample size once you begin chopping out a region.
I guess the other way of putting this more simply is that the Conservatives don't hold a 14% lead across all the non-tory held seats. Right? If YouGov are going to try this then they need to poll every constituency, remove all the blue seats, and then release the figures for all the remaining 'regions' (non tory held seats).
Otherwise this looks to me like a crock of sh*t.
Havent they simply narrowed the choice of parties given to those respondents living in those seats? So people who might previously have replied "BXP" now have to choose one of the others.
More crucially Johnson seems to have ran water straight from a tap into his tea ! There was a kettle across the kitchen which I'd have thought would be redundant with a boiling water tap... ?
One person's Non Tariff Barrier is another person's sovereign right to decide on food standards.
This, of course, is where US trade negotiations will fall down. The US will require us to accept GM crops, and will also prevent us from labeling said crops as GM.
Johnson will push hard for it, and it will be really unpopular. (With both his own party and the country at large.)
They can’t stop producers putting “GM Free” stickers on their products.
It was RWA (raised without antibiotics) labels that changed the poultry industry and Arla’s fabulous TV campaign plus “RBST-free” stickers that changed dairy.
More crucially Johnson seems to have ran water straight from a tap into his tea ! There was a kettle across the kitchen which I'd have thought would be redundant with a boiling water tap... ?
I think the tea you are likely to get from a boiling water tap is likely to be poor, because the water is likely to have been held at a higher temperature for longer than for water freshly boiled in a kettle. Might be good enough for coffee.
Does it really make that much difference? It's already ahead of any cup of tea you're likely to get in America.
A Labour member beaten in the race for a plum seat by a close ally of Jeremy Corbyn has hit out at the party's "crooked" candidate selection process.
Sundip Meghani lost out to Claudia Webbethan 22,000 in 2017 - by a selection panel including two NEC members.
In a statement posted on Twitter, Mr Meghani, a lead investigator at the Independent Office for Police Conduct, said: "In my job I challenge abuse of power and corruption - and as a Labour member I fight injustice and unfairness. "So I cannot stay silent on the obvious dodgy practices and nepotism involved in this process, where Labour's ruling executive chose a member of Labour's ruling executive as the candidiate."
He added: "This type of conduct, where a well-connected favourite is nodded through, is no better than the Etonian old boys' network that Labour seeks to condemn."
We will soon be in a position where the London party holds all 591 English & Welsh seats in Westminster.
Isn't Claudia from Leicester?
Edit: And wasn't Vaz the previous MP actually not from Leicester?
I don't know where Vaz was from. Claudia certainly says she was born in Leicester.
Let me put it this way.
How many former Councillors for Islington end up as MPs? And how many former Councillors for Rhondda-Cynon-Taff end up as MPs? Why are those numbers so very different?
TBH I only actually know of Margaret Hodge and Claudia Webbe off the top of my head. Was Corbyn, have I forgotten that. Maybe just my limited knowledge..
Labour seems to have a fair number of candidates who come from the area the want to represent, although that includes Webbe I'm guessing most of the rest of them haven't been Islington councillors previously.
Webbe has been trying and failing to get a Parliamentary seat for years now. Every time Labour members were given the opportunity to select her they said no, but in the end a seat has been found where her candidacy can be imposed. The bizarre thing is that they have worked so hard to find her a seat while not letting Chris Williamson stand in his. I guess the far-left feels it needs to maintain its quota of Jewbaiting, pro-Corbyn MPs within the PLP.
Far too early in the morning for frothing, such a nice day an all. You can regale me with stories about the evil Black woman at a later time...
In whatever sense the business will depend on the labour of more than just yourself, and I can only assume you plan to make more money that other people despite the fact their labour will be as necessary, which in the Marxist sense is where the class conflict enters. Does "ownership" of the business mean your contribution is more "valuable" than the people who actually do the work.
Well, I would dispute that I'm not one of the people doing the work...
But there's another point here. My business may or may not work. Right now there are about 15 people who's mortgages and rent and phone bills and Netflix and suppers are coming out of my savings. If my business doesn't work, they will still have been paid for their work.
The risk is mine, and therefore the rewards should predominantly be mine. (For the record, I pay well, and I'm extremely generous from an ownership perspective.)
Nigel who? He should be grateful that it looks like his life’s work is about to be achieved - but instead he’s mad because others are now getting the credit for it.
I can't remember who said it but it's true that "there's no limit to what you can achieve, so long as you don't care who gets the credit for it."
I prefer John Grisham's description of the American Dream:
'Basically the American Dream means benefitting from other people's misfortune.'
Kinda sums up the state of things in the US right now ...
Being personally successful in a capitalist system almost always means that. It's amazing the psychological contortions people go through to persuade themselves otherwise.
With all due respect, that's complete and utter shit.
I'm building a new business (well, not right now, as I'm on a plane) that will hopefully radically change car insurance. It will make insurance more affordable to poorer people and reduce the number of road accidents each year.
If I do it right, I expect I will make a very large amount of money, possibly billions.
I'm pretty sure I'm doing the opposite of benefiting from people's misfortunes.
Is the plan to bundle up high insurance risks with low insurance risks and then sell them under a wrapper to the investment community?
Nigel who? He should be grateful that it looks like his life’s work is about to be achieved - but instead he’s mad because others are now getting the credit for it.
I can't remember who said it but it's true that "there's no limit to what you can achieve, so long as you don't care who gets the credit for it."
I prefer John Grisham's description of the American Dream:
'Basically the American Dream means benefitting from other people's misfortune.'
Kinda sums up the state of things in the US right now ...
Being personally successful in a capitalist system almost always means that. It's amazing the psychological contortions people go through to persuade themselves otherwise.
If I do it right, I expect I will make a very large amount of money, possibly billions.
Got any coat tails for an aspiring flunkey to grab hold of? Asking for a friend.
I'm perplexed about the YouGov and wonder if someone can help me out.
I'm an arty-farty type (hence the occasional poetry) and not a mathematician so the fact that something doesn't ring true may be all down to me.
Leaving aside the fact that YouGov starts with polling much more favourable to the blues, here's my perplexity. Okay, so I don't see how a poll can show a higher Cons figure when you take out the non-BXP seats. You cannot remove a region (Cons held seats) and then apply the net loss to the national figure. Either the figures are national polling figures, or they're not. If they are regional breakdowns then we should have the regional breakdowns.
Forgive my ignorance, but this methodology looks totally flawed.
I'm also not factoring in the inevitable small sample size once you begin chopping out a region.
I guess the other way of putting this more simply is that the Conservatives don't hold a 14% lead across all the non-tory held seats. Right? If YouGov are going to try this then they need to poll every constituency, remove all the blue seats, and then release the figures for all the remaining 'regions' (non tory held seats).
Otherwise this looks to me like a crock of sh*t.
I'm cheekily going to bump this ^^^
Although Nemtynakht responded (thank you) no one so far has addressed my point.
Either YouGov conduct a full poll of every constituency and then remove the tory held seats from the figure. Or their new methodology is MASSIVELY flawed.
I'm surprised Mike / Robert haven't yet picked up on this.
I'm even more surprised YouGov are allowed by BPC to get away with it.
Less surprised the Daily Express have headlined it
I thought all they were doing was asking about each candidate likely to stand in each constituency. I dont think they are taking Tory seats out in the second number showing a bigger tory lead (14%).
So in Toryshire West they ask, who will you vote for?
A question regarding air travel and emissions . . . is there a safety or technological reason why hydrogen [ie like in hydrogen cars, not blimps] isn't or can't be used to fuel jets?
Electric jets seem to be a very long time off but electricity can be used to create hydrogen and the only emission from hydrogen cars is water vapor from memory - could jets be powered that way?
Dunno but the attack on air travel is not entirely well placed
And I don't see people changing their eating and buying habits. Easy to attack the Emma Thompson's of this world whilst munching on your own avocado or kiwi fruit.
Much of the stuff you buy doesn't spend 3 months at sea to get here, y'know ...
Nigel who? He should be grateful that it looks like his life’s work is about to be achieved - but instead he’s mad because others are now getting the credit for it.
I can't remember who said it but it's true that "there's no limit to what you can achieve, so long as you don't care who gets the credit for it."
I prefer John Grisham's description of the American Dream:
'Basically the American Dream means benefitting from other people's misfortune.'
Kinda sums up the state of things in the US right now ...
Being personally successful in a capitalist system almost always means that. It's amazing the psychological contortions people go through to persuade themselves otherwise.
With all due respect, that's complete and utter shit.
I'm building a new business (well, not right now, as I'm on a plane) that will hopefully radically change car insurance. It will make insurance more affordable to poorer people and reduce the number of road accidents each year.
If I do it right, I expect I will make a very large amount of money, possibly billions.
I'm pretty sure I'm doing the opposite of benefiting from people's misfortunes.
Is the plan to bundle up high insurance risks with low insurance risks and then sell them under a wrapper to the investment community?
In whatever sense the business will depend on the labour of more than just yourself, and I can only assume you plan to make more money that other people despite the fact their labour will be as necessary, which in the Marxist sense is where the class conflict enters. Does "ownership" of the business mean your contribution is more "valuable" than the people who actually do the work.
The risk is mine, and therefore the rewards should predominantly be mine. (For the record, I pay well, and I'm extremely generous from an ownership perspective.)
Straight out of the American self-justification manual.
You're welcome to it Robert. Make your millions. One day though I guarantee you will look back and wonder if all you did to get there was 'right.'
Now then, back to UK politics ... can anyone respond to my query about YouGov flawed methodology? It doesn't look right to me ...
Farage will now take part in the debate with the minor parties leaders along with Swinson, Lucas, Price, Sturgeon, Foster etc buy certainly only Swinson now really has a case to be there alongside Boris and Corbyn in the other debates
I'm perplexed about the YouGov and wonder if someone can help me out.
I'm an arty-farty type (hence the occasional poetry) and not a mathematician so the fact that something doesn't ring true may be all down to me.
Leaving aside the fact that YouGov starts with polling much more favourable to the blues, here's my perplexity. Okay, so I don't see how a poll can show a higher Cons figure when you take out the non-BXP seats. You cannot remove a region (Cons held seats) and then apply the net loss to the national figure. Either the figures are national polling figures, or they're not. If they are regional breakdowns then we should have the regional breakdowns.
Forgive my ignorance, but this methodology looks totally flawed.
I'm also not factoring in the inevitable small sample size once you begin chopping out a region.
I guess the other way of putting this more simply is that the Conservatives don't hold a 14% lead across all the non-tory held seats. Right? If YouGov are going to try this then they need to poll every constituency, remove all the blue seats, and then release the figures for all the remaining 'regions' (non tory held seats).
Otherwise this looks to me like a crock of sh*t.
Havent they simply narrowed the choice of parties given to those respondents living in those seats? So people who might previously have replied "BXP" now have to choose one of the others.
But how can you then strip that out and apply it to a national polling figure? It doesn't make sense.
If you're going to conduct what is effectively a regional poll: 650 seats minus 317 then you have to conduct a regional poll. You can't do a national survey with a standard sample size and remove a regional chunk. The whole thing looks massively flawed to my amateurish eye.
A Labour member beaten in the race for a plum seat by a close ally of Jeremy Corbyn has hit out at the party's "crooked" candidate selection process.
Sundip Meghani lost out to Claudia Webbe in the race to contest Labour-held Leicester East at the general election. Islington councillor Ms Webbe is a member of Labour's ruling national executive committee and had tried unsuccessfully to be chosen as the party's candidate in a number of constituencies. She was chosen as the candidate in Leicester seat - which Keith Vaz held with a majority of more than 22,000 in 2017 - by a selection panel including two NEC members.
In a statement posted on Twitter, Mr Meghani, a lead investigator at the Independent Office for Police Conduct, said: "In my job I challenge abuse of power and corruption - and as a Labour member I fight injustice and unfairness. "So I cannot stay silent on the obvious dodgy practices and nepotism involved in this process, where Labour's ruling executive chose a member of Labour's ruling executive as the candidiate."
He added: "This type of conduct, where a well-connected favourite is nodded through, is no better than the Etonian old boys' network that Labour seeks to condemn."
We will soon be in a position where the London party holds all 591 English & Welsh seats in Westminster.
Isn't Claudia from Leicester?
Edit: And wasn't Vaz the previous MP actually not from Leicester?
I don't know where Vaz was from. Claudia certainly says she was born in Leicester.
Let me put it this way.
How many former Councillors for Islington end up as MPs? And how many former Councillors for Rhondda-Cynon-Taff end up as MPs? Why are those numbers so very different?
Nevertheless they made sure that Camden councillor was barred from Mann's seat; the difference just a few miles makes, or something more political?
They should both be barred. There are far too many former London Councillors in Parliament, representing seats with which they have no connection.
Unsurprisingly, I am completely against more London representation for the North of England, the Midlands and Wales.
In 2017, Brexit died as a campaign issue because there was barely a fag paper between Labour and the Tories. There was literally nothing to talk about. So Labour got the chance to talk about other things.
In 2019, Get Brexit Done remains a potent doorstep message - for both sides of Brexit - and will do all the way to polling day. It will deprive much else of consideration when it comes to voting.
(You can also add in the toxicity of Prime Minister Corbyn in 2019, which was not considered a real threat in 2017. That all changed with the result. Now he is very much seen as a credible threat to people who have something they want to keep safe.)
In whatever sense the business will depend on the labour of more than just yourself, and I can only assume you plan to make more money that other people despite the fact their labour will be as necessary, which in the Marxist sense is where the class conflict enters. Does "ownership" of the business mean your contribution is more "valuable" than the people who actually do the work.
The risk is mine, and therefore the rewards should predominantly be mine. (For the record, I pay well, and I'm extremely generous from an ownership perspective.)
Straight out of the American self-justification manual.
You're welcome to it Robert. Make your millions. One day though I guarantee you will look back and wonder if all you did to get there was 'right.'
That's amazingly presumptuous, maybe he wont need to look back and wonder that because he considered whether his actions were right at the time, in the moment.
It happens. You seem to think certain politicians are not awful sods, and it is possible even as others would say it unlikely. If that's possible why not a business person getting rich without soiling their soul?
A Labour member beaten in the race for a plum seat by a close ally of Jeremy Corbyn has hit out at the party's "crooked" candidate selection process.
Sundip Meghani lost out to Claudia Webbe in the race to contest Labour-held Leicester East at the general election. Islington councillor Ms Webbe is a member of Labour's ruling national executive committee and had tried unsuccessfully to be chosen as the party's candidate in a number of constituencies. She was chosen as the candidate in Leicester seat - which Keith Vaz held with a majority of more than 22,000 in 2017 - by a selection panel including two NEC members.
In a statement posted on Twitter, Mr Meghani, a lead investigator at the Independent Office for Police Conduct, said: "In my job I challenge abuse of power and corruption - and as a Labour member I fight injustice and unfairness. "So I cannot stay silent on the obvious dodgy practices and nepotism involved in this process, where Labour's ruling executive chose a member of Labour's ruling executive as the candidiate."
He added: "This type of conduct, where a well-connected favourite is nodded through, is no better than the Etonian old boys' network that Labour seeks to condemn."
Nigel who? He should be grateful that it looks like his life’s work is about to be achieved - but instead he’s mad because others are now getting the credit for it.
I can't remember who said it but it's true that "there's no limit to what you can achieve, so long as you don't care who gets the credit for it."
I prefer John Grisham's description of the American Dream:
'Basically the American Dream means benefitting from other people's misfortune.'
Kinda sums up the state of things in the US right now ...
Being personally successful in a capitalist system almost always means that. It's amazing the psychological contortions people go through to persuade themselves otherwise.
With all due respect, that's complete and utter shit.
I'm building a new business (well, not right now, as I'm on a plane) that will hopefully radically change car insurance. It will make insurance more affordable to poorer people and reduce the number of road accidents each year.
If I do it right, I expect I will make a very large amount of money, possibly billions.
I'm pretty sure I'm doing the opposite of benefiting from people's misfortunes.
Is the plan to bundle up high insurance risks with low insurance risks and then sell them under a wrapper to the investment community?
Look at the list of links from this very pb! To save time, start with the letter J.
In whatever sense the business will depend on the labour of more than just yourself, and I can only assume you plan to make more money that other people despite the fact their labour will be as necessary, which in the Marxist sense is where the class conflict enters. Does "ownership" of the business mean your contribution is more "valuable" than the people who actually do the work.
The risk is mine, and therefore the rewards should predominantly be mine. (For the record, I pay well, and I'm extremely generous from an ownership perspective.)
Straight out of the American self-justification manual.
You're welcome to it Robert. Make your millions. One day though I guarantee you will look back and wonder if all you did to get there was 'right.'
Now then, back to UK politics ... can anyone respond to my query about YouGov flawed methodology? It doesn't look right to me ...
If I succeed in:
(a) reducing the number of people who die on the roads (b) making car insurance more affordable (and accessible) (c) making good money for the people who work for me
Then I think I can reasonably claim that I've left the world in a better place than I found it.
I'm perplexed about the YouGov and wonder if someone can help me out.
I'm an arty-farty type (hence the occasional poetry) and not a mathematician so the fact that something doesn't ring true may be all down to me.
Leaving aside the fact that YouGov starts with polling much more favourable to the blues, here's my perplexity. Okay, so I don't see how a poll can show a higher Cons figure when you take out the non-BXP seats. You cannot remove a region (Cons held seats) and then apply the net loss to the national figure. Either the figures are national polling figures, or they're not. If they are regional breakdowns then we should have the regional breakdowns.
Forgive my ignorance, but this methodology looks totally flawed.
I'm also not factoring in the inevitable small sample size once you begin chopping out a region.
I guess the other way of putting this more simply is that the Conservatives don't hold a 14% lead across all the non-tory held seats. Right? If YouGov are going to try this then they need to poll every constituency, remove all the blue seats, and then release the figures for all the remaining 'regions' (non tory held seats).
Otherwise this looks to me like a crock of sh*t.
Havent they simply narrowed the choice of parties given to those respondents living in those seats? So people who might previously have replied "BXP" now have to choose one of the others.
But how can you then strip that out and apply it to a national polling figure? It doesn't make sense.
If you're going to conduct what is effectively a regional poll: 650 seats minus 317 then you have to conduct a regional poll. You can't do a national survey with a standard sample size and remove a regional chunk. The whole thing looks massively flawed to my amateurish eye.
I assume they have been managing it very successfully with the SNP for some years now....
I'm perplexed about the YouGov and wonder if someone can help me out.
I'm an arty-farty type (hence the occasional poetry) and not a mathematician so the fact that something doesn't ring true may be all down to me.
Leaving aside the fact that YouGov starts with polling much more favourable to the blues, here's my perplexity. Okay, so I don't see how a poll can show a higher Cons figure when you take out the non-BXP seats. You cannot remove a region (Cons held seats) and then apply the net loss to the national figure. Either the figures are national polling figures, or they're not. If they are regional breakdowns then we should have the regional breakdowns.
Forgive my ignorance, but this methodology looks totally flawed.
I'm also not factoring in the inevitable small sample size once you begin chopping out a region.
I guess the other way of putting this more simply is that the Conservatives don't hold a 14% lead across all the non-tory held seats. Right? If YouGov are going to try this then they need to poll every constituency, remove all the blue seats, and then release the figures for all the remaining 'regions' (non tory held seats).
Otherwise this looks to me like a crock of sh*t.
I'm cheekily going to bump this ^^^
Although Nemtynakht responded (thank you) no one so far has addressed my point.
Either YouGov conduct a full poll of every constituency and then remove the tory held seats from the figure. Or their new methodology is MASSIVELY flawed.
I'm surprised Mike / Robert haven't yet picked up on this.
I'm even more surprised YouGov are allowed by BPC to get away with it.
Less surprised the Daily Express have headlined it
I thought all they were doing was asking about each candidate likely to stand in each constituency. I dont think they are taking Tory seats out in the second number showing a bigger tory lead (14%).
So in Toryshire West they ask, who will you vote for?
Labour candidate,
Libdem Candidate
Tory candidate
Green candidate
But dont ask about Brexit candidate
But that won't produce an accurate national figure.
You could have the tories doing worse in non-tory seats than 2017 (hypothetically) and use this new methodology to produce a tory national lead, even though they would lose the election!
In whatever sense the business will depend on the labour of more than just yourself, and I can only assume you plan to make more money that other people despite the fact their labour will be as necessary, which in the Marxist sense is where the class conflict enters. Does "ownership" of the business mean your contribution is more "valuable" than the people who actually do the work.
The risk is mine, and therefore the rewards should predominantly be mine. (For the record, I pay well, and I'm extremely generous from an ownership perspective.)
Straight out of the American self-justification manual.
You're welcome to it Robert. Make your millions. One day though I guarantee you will look back and wonder if all you did to get there was 'right.'
Now then, back to UK politics ... can anyone respond to my query about YouGov flawed methodology? It doesn't look right to me ...
Then I think I can reasonably claim that I've left the world in a better place than I found it.
Personally I think there's a LOT LOT more to making the world a better place. You're very very Americanised with your attitude there.
But your site looks good and the business model very interesting. Kudos for that.
O/T Recently, my near PB namesake suggested backing the LibDems to win the hitherto Tory-held consitituency of The Cotswolds if near double digit odds could be attained. Well so it has proved with those nice folk at Ladbrokes offering 8/1 or 17/2 including their daily odds boost against such an eventuality. It's definitely not one for me, but don't let me dissuade you from having a small punt.
Hmmm. Not convinced those are attractive odds.
The campaign polling story so far has been Conservatives going forward, LibDems going backwards. A lot of LibDem longshots are falling ever further out of range. In the SW, they have efffectively given up on winning Torbay; I wonder how long before they give up on Dr. Sarah in Totnes and focus on still in reach North Devon and North Cornwall?
The Lib Dems have won Torbay in the past haven't they? If they really are giving up on those kinds of seats then their revival will be very modest indeed.
The LibDems won Torbay in 1997. They held it until 2015. In those 18 years they had majorities as high as 6,700. But Kevin Foster is assiduously working the seat as well as any LibDem would. His majority was 14,200 in 2017. It will now need a mighty yellow wave to wash over him.
The Lib Dems have bet the ranch on being the anti-Brexit party. That will play well in the London Stockbroker Belt, affluent Remain voting constituencies, and university seats, but it will cost them in places like Torbay.
In whatever sense the business will depend on the labour of more than just yourself, and I can only assume you plan to make more money that other people despite the fact their labour will be as necessary, which in the Marxist sense is where the class conflict enters. Does "ownership" of the business mean your contribution is more "valuable" than the people who actually do the work.
The risk is mine, and therefore the rewards should predominantly be mine. (For the record, I pay well, and I'm extremely generous from an ownership perspective.)
Straight out of the American self-justification manual.
You're welcome to it Robert. Make your millions. One day though I guarantee you will look back and wonder if all you did to get there was 'right.'
Now then, back to UK politics ... can anyone respond to my query about YouGov flawed methodology? It doesn't look right to me ...
If I succeed in:
(a) reducing the number of people who die on the roads (b) making car insurance more affordable (and accessible) (c) making good money for the people who work for me
Then I think I can reasonably claim that I've left the world in a better place than I found it.
You're tempting people with a low cost offer to abandon covering their own and other vehicles for theft and damage?
In whatever sense the business will depend on the labour of more than just yourself, and I can only assume you plan to make more money that other people despite the fact their labour will be as necessary, which in the Marxist sense is where the class conflict enters. Does "ownership" of the business mean your contribution is more "valuable" than the people who actually do the work.
Well, I would dispute that I'm not one of the people doing the work...
But there's another point here. My business may or may not work. Right now there are about 15 people who's mortgages and rent and phone bills and Netflix and suppers are coming out of my savings. If my business doesn't work, they will still have been paid for their work.
The risk is mine, and therefore the rewards should predominantly be mine. (For the record, I pay well, and I'm extremely generous from an ownership perspective.)
Apologies for my wording, I didn't mean to insinuate you didn't do any work (although that is the nature of many owners and shareholders in businesses)
I mean, if their livelihoods are tied up in your business idea the risk is not just yours. And once your workers work for you, the risk isn't just yours, it is theirs, and your business isn't dependent on you alone, but on the labour that your workers provide.
And what is the "value" of that initial risk you take? Is it clear that the labour conducted by any staff is not greater in value than the risk? And once you have your profits, when do they pay off the value of the initial risk? For sake of argument, lets agree that the initial risk you made was valued at 3 times what all your labourers produce, value wise, in a year. It may be justifiable for you to make more than the workers to recoup that risk, but once that is done how can you justify unequal distribution of profit?
Again, this is just typical leftist economic theory and not necessarily a personal attack.
Comments
https://news.sky.com/story/sky-views-rising-social-stigma-around-flying-is-misplaced-11841632
And I don't see people changing their eating and buying habits. Easy to attack the Emma Thompson's of this world whilst munching on your own avocado or kiwi fruit.
Much of the stuff you buy doesn't spend 3 months at sea to get here, y'know ...
Just need to fool the plebs once every 5 years.
(Of course, it might be possible to skip the whole fuel cell thing, and create a hydrogen turbine, where the kerosene is swapped for hydrogen. It wouldn't be quite as clean, but it'd probably work. That being said, kerosene is pretty much the perfect fuel. It works at a wide range of temperatures and is happy with the rarified atmosphere at 40,000 feet.)
Labour seems to have a fair number of candidates who come from the area the want to represent, although that includes Webbe I'm guessing most of the rest of them haven't been Islington councillors previously.
The thing with online panels is that they will know your address and therefore be able to pull up the candidates list.
Finally 42% today might not mean many more seats as it may just mean bigger majorities in already held seats, ie only helpful in 50 most marginal seats.
It's already technically feasible - just rather expensive. A lot of money is going into research to change that. Couple of decades, tops.
The Middle East will therefore likely remain dominant in petrochemicals...
Capitalism and free markets seem to me to rely far more on the opportunity to leverage the skills and brains of everyone in a society, rather than direction by people who are only good at winning bureaucratic battles.
Yet again.
Party professionals understand these things. I remember when a resident of Guildford I told a Labour canvasser that I normally voted Labour but would be voting tactically LD, he simply replied 'Well done'.
There's no shame in that kind of thing, as long as we're stuck with FPTP.
I'm building a new business (well, not right now, as I'm on a plane) that will hopefully radically change car insurance. It will make insurance more affordable to poorer people and reduce the number of road accidents each year.
If I do it right, I expect I will make a very large amount of money, possibly billions.
I'm pretty sure I'm doing the opposite of benefiting from people's misfortunes.
I notice the insertion of the word 'personal.' Success can mean personal gain as well as social conscience. Memetically, of course, the likes of Richard Dawkins would state that social conscience is part of personal gain i.e. not altruistic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density#Table_of_energy_content
2. Why wouldn't you use the hydrogen to power jet turbines, turboprops etc.?
Although Nemtynakht responded (thank you) no one so far has addressed my point.
Either YouGov conduct a full poll of every constituency and then remove the tory held seats from the figure. Or their new methodology is MASSIVELY flawed.
I'm surprised Mike / Robert haven't yet picked up on this.
I'm even more surprised YouGov are allowed by BPC to get away with it.
Less surprised the Daily Express have headlined it
One alternative might be to use the Sabatier process to create methane from your hydrogen (and carbon dioxide). I've no idea how useful LPG is for flying jet planes, but it was considered good enough for rockets as part of the Mars Plan.
People will see through that..
The other thing is although the LDs may not canvass they will.still get votes. It's just the way of it.
https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2019/11/13/from-british-tragedy-to-danish-comedy/
Re (2): I agree, that makes more sense. Although I don't know if it how well hydrogen works at different temperatures, pressures, etc.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen-powered_aircraft
I used to spend a lot of time gliding... it occured to me that the Romans had all the technology required to build and fly quite workable sailplanes, but never worked out how to do it and/or never saw the need/benefits.
If you (owner, top dog, etc) are paying everyone minimum wage to enact your idea that you can't enact alone, but paying them a wage they can't live on, or putting them in conditions that are bad, the service may be a useful one, but I would argue you are still benefiting from the misfortune of others, just the workers not the customer. (This isn't saying you would do that, just as a point).
In whatever sense the business will depend on the labour of more than just yourself, and I can only assume you plan to make more money that other people despite the fact their labour will be as necessary, which in the Marxist sense is where the class conflict enters. Does "ownership" of the business mean your contribution is more "valuable" than the people who actually do the work.
This is meant to a comment on the nature of capitalism and not a personal attack on what sounds like a potentially good idea in the morally dubious business of legally necessary but only privately accessible insurance.
PS : and not blow up on a regular basis
This chart from wiki shows the challenges for energy storage for electic planes. Spot where batteries are.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen-powered_aircraft#/media/File:Energy_density.svg
*Assumes no DUP losses.
I'd have thought the biggest issue with hydrogen is the weight of a containment vessel within the wing structure.
Asking people to deny themselves something is difficult, particularly when a lot of what we need to do doesn't require it. Travel is in many ways a good thing, particularly for people with distant family, or to share ideas and opportunities.
It's symbolic and symbols are important. I think that the decline in air travel in Sweden sends a signal to politicians there that the public take this seriously, and that therefore they should too.
Mostly then I concentrate on the easier stuff. Deal with that problem once the easier ones are done.
Hannah Thomas-Peters is no mug. She's the Sky News Climate Correspondent and was RTS Young Journalist of the Year.
I'm more inclined right now to listen to her than you. Offence intended.
Keep an eye on your acquisition and back-end costs 😉. Along with having very effective adjustment.
It was RWA (raised without antibiotics) labels that changed the poultry industry and Arla’s fabulous TV campaign plus “RBST-free” stickers that changed dairy.
But there's another point here. My business may or may not work. Right now there are about 15 people who's mortgages and rent and phone bills and Netflix and suppers are coming out of my savings. If my business doesn't work, they will still have been paid for their work.
The risk is mine, and therefore the rewards should predominantly be mine. (For the record, I pay well, and I'm extremely generous from an ownership perspective.)
I dont think they are taking Tory seats out in the second number showing a bigger tory lead (14%).
So in Toryshire West they ask, who will you vote for?
Labour candidate,
Libdem Candidate
Tory candidate
Green candidate
But dont ask about Brexit candidate
You're welcome to it Robert. Make your millions. One day though I guarantee you will look back and wonder if all you did to get there was 'right.'
Now then, back to UK politics ... can anyone respond to my query about YouGov flawed methodology? It doesn't look right to me ...
If you're going to conduct what is effectively a regional poll: 650 seats minus 317 then you have to conduct a regional poll. You can't do a national survey with a standard sample size and remove a regional chunk. The whole thing looks massively flawed to my amateurish eye.
Unsurprisingly, I am completely against more London representation for the North of England, the Midlands and Wales.
It is one of the problems that caused Brexit.
In 2017, Brexit died as a campaign issue because there was barely a fag paper between Labour and the Tories. There was literally nothing to talk about. So Labour got the chance to talk about other things.
In 2019, Get Brexit Done remains a potent doorstep message - for both sides of Brexit - and will do all the way to polling day. It will deprive much else of consideration when it comes to voting.
(You can also add in the toxicity of Prime Minister Corbyn in 2019, which was not considered a real threat in 2017. That all changed with the result. Now he is very much seen as a credible threat to people who have something they want to keep safe.)
It happens. You seem to think certain politicians are not awful sods, and it is possible even as others would say it unlikely. If that's possible why not a business person getting rich without soiling their soul?
(a) reducing the number of people who die on the roads
(b) making car insurance more affordable (and accessible)
(c) making good money for the people who work for me
Then I think I can reasonably claim that I've left the world in a better place than I found it.
You could have the tories doing worse in non-tory seats than 2017 (hypothetically) and use this new methodology to produce a tory national lead, even though they would lose the election!
But your site looks good and the business model very interesting. Kudos for that.
I mean, if their livelihoods are tied up in your business idea the risk is not just yours. And once your workers work for you, the risk isn't just yours, it is theirs, and your business isn't dependent on you alone, but on the labour that your workers provide.
And what is the "value" of that initial risk you take? Is it clear that the labour conducted by any staff is not greater in value than the risk? And once you have your profits, when do they pay off the value of the initial risk? For sake of argument, lets agree that the initial risk you made was valued at 3 times what all your labourers produce, value wise, in a year. It may be justifiable for you to make more than the workers to recoup that risk, but once that is done how can you justify unequal distribution of profit?
Again, this is just typical leftist economic theory and not necessarily a personal attack.