Cameron was talking about it fifteen years ago, and Thatcher over thirty years ago.
During Cameron’s term of office the amount of wind power capacity trebled and the amount of actual power generated quintupled. Before 2010, how many people thought we would end 2019 having barely used coal generation for electricity for the last eight months of the year? Yes, changing technology played a part but government policy to push green energy in the first four years of the coalition was very important as well.
So it is unfair, whatever you think of Cameron’s government, to say Kurz is ‘ahead of the game’ on green issues.
Much of the 'green-ness', energy-wise, was down to the then Sec of State for Energy, one Ed Davey.
He was good, but he also came only two years into the coalition after Huhne was banged up.
So that's two LibDems in the job. Hmmmm.
LDs and Conservatives both cannot claim credit or disavow responsibility as they like for achievements of the Coalition. LD ministers though they were they served under Cameron's leadership so he and others can claim credit, but likewise they cannot claim sole credit if LDs had a larger hand in shaping the shared policy.
I'd also give Ed Miliband some credit for his work as energy minister in the government before that, I think. His approach bumped up energy pruces, unpopularly, but also startes to lead us to where we are now.
I wonder if we will see Australia suddenly moving to wind, solar and tide?
If any country could make solar work, you'd think it would be Australia.
Solar in Australia already needs ni subsidy to be significantly cheaper than coal.
The problem is, once you have a coal power station, it's such a major investment that it gets used until the end of its life. So if you decide to do something now, you don't stop using coal for twenty to thirty years.
"Keir Starmer does detail and forensic analysis".. really????. Then why was his time at the DPP such a fecking disaster. All he was interested in was these public TV announcements, to get his face into the media and get his name known to further his political career post being a civil servant. These ceased after he left, and a bloody good thing too.
It's not clear to me that the CPS has been a more effective organisation since Starmer left in 2013 - indeed, it's struggled a bit. It's a tough and controversial position, and overall he did quite a good job. To the "forensic analysis" point, I'd also note he was a very well regarded lawyer prior to taking that role.
I also think that part of the role of the DPP, alongside running an agency responsible for the best part of a million prosecutions a year and several thousand staff, is precisely to communicate the reasons for high profile decisions. Justice should not just be done, but also be seen to be done. Where a controversial decision is made to prosecute - and even more when the decision is taken NOT to prosecute when the public mood is that someone needs to be held criminally responsible but there is no realistic chance of a conviction - it's important someone fronts it up and explains why.
I wonder if we will see Australia suddenly moving to wind, solar and tide?
If any country could make solar work, you'd think it would be Australia.
Solar in Australia already needs ni subsidy to be significantly cheaper than coal.
That's true and not true.
Utility scale solar is not economic in Australia.
But residential solar is economic without subsidies in most of Australia. It's a real nightmare for utilities because all they see is that domestic demand is falling. Likewise, most new commercial builds in Australia include solar, because it's a minimal cost to add at construction, and it dramatically reduces air conditioning costs.
In political terms I suggest Silvio Berlusconi is the closest foreign prototype for Johnson. Both promote optimism as an actual policy direction; they have very similar foreign policy positions; both are populists with little respect for institutions, some liberal (not to say libertine) instincts mixed in with many more conservative ones; a tendency to issue flamboyant pledges that never materialise.
They both also have dodgy personal ethics. However, Johnson hasn't had Berlusconi's business success, nor is he guilty of that man's grotesque levels of corruption.
Yes have actually thought of that comparison myself - seemed to be more apt than the various comparisons to the Lega Nord.
I wonder if we will see Australia suddenly moving to wind, solar and tide?
If any country could make solar work, you'd think it would be Australia.
Solar in Australia already needs ni subsidy to be significantly cheaper than coal.
That's true and not true.
Utility scale solar is not economic in Australia.
But residential solar is economic without subsidies in most of Australia. It's a real nightmare for utilities because all they see is that domestic demand is falling. Likewise, most new commercial builds in Australia include solar, because it's a minimal cost to add at construction, and it dramatically reduces air conditioning costs.
Why isn't utility scale solar not economic in Australia, when it is elsewhere? I can understand transmission costs are higher in Australia, but if anything that should favour smaller, local power generation ?
I wonder if we will see Australia suddenly moving to wind, solar and tide?
If any country could make solar work, you'd think it would be Australia.
Solar in Australia already needs ni subsidy to be significantly cheaper than coal.
That's true and not true.
Utility scale solar is not economic in Australia.
But residential solar is economic without subsidies in most of Australia. It's a real nightmare for utilities because all they see is that domestic demand is falling. Likewise, most new commercial builds in Australia include solar, because it's a minimal cost to add at construction, and it dramatically reduces air conditioning costs.
If it's not too time consuming, why is that? And if a country with millions of acres of sun-soaked plains cannot make large scale solar an economical way of generating power, why are we even trying to do it with small subsidised schemes the UK?
Cooper not going to stand? Boris might be relieved.
Not sure why she was even contemplating it - she's popped up for some remainy parliamentary shenanigans from time to time, but otherwise been all but invisible for years. As an outsider it doesn't look like she has put much effort into supporting or opposing Corbyn but has been content to sit quietly and hope things work out, without even the excuse of shadow cabinet responsibilties.
Cooper not going to stand? Boris might be relieved.
Not sure why she was even contemplating it - she's popped up for some remainy parliamentary shenanigans from time to time, but otherwise been all but invisible for years. As an outsider it doesn't look like she has put much effort into supporting or opposing Corbyn but has been content to sit quietly and hope things work out, without even the excuse of shadow cabinet responsibilties.
Also she shadowed May when she was HS and did not land a blow or even expose what May was getting up to.
Wait til Momentum discover Keir Starmer went to a direct grant grammar school.
I suspect Starmer would rather welcome a backlash from Momentum, particularly if they pick those sort of grounds to object to him. The YouGov says he's got a margin of error here - it isn't obvious that a bit of aggro directed at him wouldn't strengthen him with the public without doing much harm to his standing in the leadership race.
Momentum are overrated as a vote-getting operation. Look at the cases where they triggered re-selection votes but the MPs survived those votes very easily. Look at the individual seats they went after, and largely solidified the Tory vote.
If you're a hard left Labour-cum-SWP activist who buys all the "we won the argument" and "thanks, Jeremy, for another fantastic election result" hogwash, you're not voting Starmer anyway.
That just isn't where most Labour members are. A lot of them voted Corbyn against lacklustre opposition in 2015 and 2016 - he was offering clear red water after a very limp period with Miliband which ended with a bad defeat in 2015. There was an argument (not one I agree with but still) that it was worth sharpening the Labour message at that time, and ditching some 1997-2010 baggage. A lot of them flat-out liked pre-antisemitism scandal Corbyn for his opposition to the Iraq War and so on. That doesn't make them Marxists (Charles Kennedy and Ken Clarke shared Corbyn's broad position on Iraq for example). They are plainly further left than the public as a whole, but that's not surprising - Tory members are further right than the public as a whole.
Where do those members stand now? They've got a hunger to get back to winning, in my view. There's no escaping that the Corbyn gamble failed badly, and the result is that we're looking at five years of a big Tory majority. So simply selling yourself as a "continuity Corbynista" candidate won't work. But equally, cognitive dissonance being as it is, you're not going to make headway saying "Liz Kendall was right - let's go full-on Blairite". Starmer's positioning is good on this - he's been loyal but has avoided drinking the Kool Aid, so he's very credible in terms of having been on the same journey as most Labour members over the past four years (as well as being the sole option for the 30% or so who NEVER bought into Corbyn's project).
"Keir Starmer does detail and forensic analysis".. really????. Then why was his time at the DPP such a fecking disaster. All he was interested in was these public TV announcements, to get his face into the media and get his name known to further his political career post being a civil servant. These ceased after he left, and a bloody good thing too.
It's not clear to me that the CPS has been a more effective organisation since Starmer left in 2013 - indeed, it's struggled a bit. It's a tough and controversial position, and overall he did quite a good job. To the "forensic analysis" point, I'd also note he was a very well regarded lawyer prior to taking that role.
I also think that part of the role of the DPP, alongside running an agency responsible for the best part of a million prosecutions a year and several thousand staff, is precisely to communicate the reasons for high profile decisions. Justice should not just be done, but also be seen to be done. Where a controversial decision is made to prosecute - and even more when the decision is taken NOT to prosecute when the public mood is that someone needs to be held criminally responsible but there is no realistic chance of a conviction - it's important someone fronts it up and explains why.
If running an agency responsible for the best part of a million prosecutions a year and several thousand staff exposed issues, what chance his running a country of 67 million?
I wonder if we will see Australia suddenly moving to wind, solar and tide?
If any country could make solar work, you'd think it would be Australia.
Solar in Australia already needs ni subsidy to be significantly cheaper than coal.
That's true and not true.
Utility scale solar is not economic in Australia.
But residential solar is economic without subsidies in most of Australia. It's a real nightmare for utilities because all they see is that domestic demand is falling. Likewise, most new commercial builds in Australia include solar, because it's a minimal cost to add at construction, and it dramatically reduces air conditioning costs.
If it's not too time consuming, why is that? And if a country with millions of acres of sun-soaked plains cannot make large scale solar an economical way of generating power, why are we even trying to do it with small subsidised schemes the UK?
There are two different costs of electricity: wholesale and retail. (And wholesale itself falls into two different categories - peaking and baseload.)
Wholesale is what a utility pays to a power plant for its energy. This might be around 3c-4c per KwH.
Retail is what the customer pays the utility for its power. This is probably around three times this amount: so (say) 12 cents per KwH.
The difference is the cost of running the electrical system, the cost of dealing with customers, maintenance, transmission losses, and the necessity for the power company to pay its interest bill.
It can make perfect sense for you as a homeowner to put panels on your roof, because you might cut your bill 75%. You - as a homeowner - might be reducing your power bill from $2,000/year to $500. If you've spend $6,000 on your roof panels, that's an absolute bargain.You're effectively getting a 25% annual tax free return.
But it would make no sense to put those panels up in the desert and sell to the grid, because then you are competing with wholesale electricity prices.
Cooper not going to stand? Boris might be relieved.
Not sure why she was even contemplating it - she's popped up for some remainy parliamentary shenanigans from time to time, but otherwise been all but invisible for years. As an outsider it doesn't look like she has put much effort into supporting or opposing Corbyn but has been content to sit quietly and hope things work out, without even the excuse of shadow cabinet responsibilties.
Won't be surprised if she doesn't stand again in 2024. Tiny majority, no chance of the top jobs, hubby going from strength to strength as a TV personality. Why?
"Keir Starmer does detail and forensic analysis".. really????. Then why was his time at the DPP such a fecking disaster. All he was interested in was these public TV announcements, to get his face into the media and get his name known to further his political career post being a civil servant. These ceased after he left, and a bloody good thing too.
It's not clear to me that the CPS has been a more effective organisation since Starmer left in 2013 - indeed, it's struggled a bit. It's a tough and controversial position, and overall he did quite a good job. To the "forensic analysis" point, I'd also note he was a very well regarded lawyer prior to taking that role.
I also think that part of the role of the DPP, alongside running an agency responsible for the best part of a million prosecutions a year and several thousand staff, is precisely to communicate the reasons for high profile decisions. Justice should not just be done, but also be seen to be done. Where a controversial decision is made to prosecute - and even more when the decision is taken NOT to prosecute when the public mood is that someone needs to be held criminally responsible but there is no realistic chance of a conviction - it's important someone fronts it up and explains why.
If running an agency responsible for the best part of a million prosecutions a year and several thousand staff exposed issues, what chance his running a country of 67 million?
I would suggest that as a manager he hardly excelled. Amongst barristers and solicitors he’s hardly alone in that failing. Promoted because of his excellence as a lawyer/fee earning ability but that does not automatically translate to a wholly different skillset. What is the evidence to show that he’s a manager (aka leader) and not a lone wolf?
I wonder if we will see Australia suddenly moving to wind, solar and tide?
If any country could make solar work, you'd think it would be Australia.
Solar in Australia already needs ni subsidy to be significantly cheaper than coal.
That's true and not true.
Utility scale solar is not economic in Australia.
But residential solar is economic without subsidies in most of Australia. It's a real nightmare for utilities because all they see is that domestic demand is falling. Likewise, most new commercial builds in Australia include solar, because it's a minimal cost to add at construction, and it dramatically reduces air conditioning costs.
Why isn't utility scale solar not economic in Australia, when it is elsewhere? I can understand transmission costs are higher in Australia, but if anything that should favour smaller, local power generation ?
Well that's easy.
Firstly, Australia doesn't have to import coal because it has massive reserves.
Secondly, and perhaps more importantly right now, when the big offshore gas projects in the Northwest Shelf were discovered, operators were legally obliged to sell a portion of output into the local system. This has meant that some parts of Australia have been flooded with natural gas*. Essentially, most of the gas is sold to Korea or Japan for $10-12/mcf, but some has to be sold locally, and they only get $1-2/mcf for that. It's really hard to compete with natural gas generation when its sold for 80% less than the world market price.
* Ironically, other parts of Australia have ended up being starved of gas, because of a lack of long-distance pipelines and how the contracts were written.
Happy New Year. There has been a bit market reaction to the early YouGov poll which has created value elsewhere. At this stage of a leadership contest you have to weigh up the chances of a candidate getting officially nominated and passing the threshold. There were several listed in the poll who I am sure will not stand or get enough qualifying nominations. To cut a long story short Lisa Nandy is now good value at 12/1 because she will likely get nominated (through MPs and affiliates) when others will not.
A lot can happen in the next couple of months. When the chips are down I am not convinced Labour members will want their party to have its second leader named ‘Keir’ before its first female leader. From the point of a valuable trading bet Lisa Nandy would be the one to back if you don’t fancy backing Starmer odds on.
Some on here might still be sitting on next leader betting slips from back in 2016 when I picked out Lisa Nandy and Dan Jarvis to succeed Corbyn. Owen Smith’s failed challenge later that year means the bets are both still runners if you backed them.
I wonder if we will see Australia suddenly moving to wind, solar and tide?
If any country could make solar work, you'd think it would be Australia.
Solar in Australia already needs ni subsidy to be significantly cheaper than coal.
That's true and not true.
Utility scale solar is not economic in Australia.
But residential solar is economic without subsidies in most of Australia. It's a real nightmare for utilities because all they see is that domestic demand is falling. Likewise, most new commercial builds in Australia include solar, because it's a minimal cost to add at construction, and it dramatically reduces air conditioning costs.
Why isn't utility scale solar not economic in Australia, when it is elsewhere? I can understand transmission costs are higher in Australia, but if anything that should favour smaller, local power generation ?
Once storage becomes sufficiently cheap (likely within around five years), utility scale solar will become economically attractive again. (There is also the genuine possibility of exporting power via long distance HVDC undersea cable...)
Happy New Year. There has been a bit market reaction to the early YouGov poll which has created value elsewhere. At this stage of a leadership contest you have to weigh up the chances of a candidate getting officially nominated and passing the threshold. There were several listed in the poll who I am sure will not stand or get enough qualifying nominations. To cut a long story short Lisa Nandy is now good value at 12/1 because she will likely get nominated (through MPs and affiliates) when others will not.
A lot can happen in the next couple of months. When the chips are down I am not convinced Labour members will want their party to have its second leader named ‘Keir’ before its first female leader. From the point of a valuable trading bet Lisa Nandy would be the one to back if you don’t fancy backing Starmer odds on.
Some on here might still be sitting on next leader betting slips from back in 2016 when I picked out Lisa Nandy and Dan Jarvis to succeed Corbyn. Owen Smith’s failed challenge later that year means the bets are both still runners if you backed them.
Cooper not going to stand? Boris might be relieved.
Not sure why she was even contemplating it - she's popped up for some remainy parliamentary shenanigans from time to time, but otherwise been all but invisible for years. As an outsider it doesn't look like she has put much effort into supporting or opposing Corbyn but has been content to sit quietly and hope things work out, without even the excuse of shadow cabinet responsibilties.
I suspect the brutal truth is there just isn't a route to victory for "Never Corbyn" types.
In 2016, Corbyn beat Smith 62:38. Even if you lock down the 38% (and you'll always get leakage) you meed a slice of the 62%. I don't see how Cooper could possibly do that.
A lot of anti-Corbyn MPs will have realised that and will have told Cooper that they are backing Starmer (who, let's not forget, nominated Owen Smith) and she can forget it.
Starmer isn't going to win over the whole of the 62% but doesn't need to. He needs to say to them, "I see why you tried Corbyn, and I did all I reasonably could to make it work, particularly in fighting a damaging Tory Brexit". That's not going to work with all of the 62% by any means, but it's a lot more credible than "I always told you that you were wrong and never even tried to make it work".
Cooper also potentially has a last shot at the Labour leadership. She's only 50. Starmer is 57. May was 59 when she became Tory leader and PM. Could Starmer get it back on track and Cooper reap the benefit? It's not that likely but isn't ludicrous.
Cooper not going to stand? Boris might be relieved.
Not sure why she was even contemplating it - she's popped up for some remainy parliamentary shenanigans from time to time, but otherwise been all but invisible for years. As an outsider it doesn't look like she has put much effort into supporting or opposing Corbyn but has been content to sit quietly and hope things work out, without even the excuse of shadow cabinet responsibilties.
I suspect the brutal truth is there just isn't a route to victory for "Never Corbyn" types.
Maybe, but some of them have been notable in their never Corbyn attitude (not that they were really never Corbyn, they mostly backed him loyally, they just moaned consistently to pretend they did not), but she has not.
I wonder if we will see Australia suddenly moving to wind, solar and tide?
If any country could make solar work, you'd think it would be Australia.
Solar in Australia already needs ni subsidy to be significantly cheaper than coal.
That's true and not true.
Utility scale solar is not economic in Australia.
But residential solar is economic without subsidies in most of Australia. It's a real nightmare for utilities because all they see is that domestic demand is falling. Likewise, most new commercial builds in Australia include solar, because it's a minimal cost to add at construction, and it dramatically reduces air conditioning costs.
If it's not too time consuming, why is that? And if a country with millions of acres of sun-soaked plains cannot make large scale solar an economical way of generating power, why are we even trying to do it with small subsidised schemes the UK?
There are two different costs of electricity: wholesale and retail. (And wholesale itself falls into two different categories - peaking and baseload.)
Wholesale is what a utility pays to a power plant for its energy. This might be around 3c-4c per KwH.
Retail is what the customer pays the utility for its power. This is probably around three times this amount: so (say) 12 cents per KwH.
The difference is the cost of running the electrical system, the cost of dealing with customers, maintenance, transmission losses, and the necessity for the power company to pay its interest bill.
It can make perfect sense for you as a homeowner to put panels on your roof, because you might cut your bill 75%. You - as a homeowner - might be reducing your power bill from $2,000/year to $500. If you've spend $6,000 on your roof panels, that's an absolute bargain.You're effectively getting a 25% annual tax free return.
But it would make no sense to put those panels up in the desert and sell to the grid, because then you are competing with wholesale electricity prices.
Cooper not going to stand? Boris might be relieved.
Not sure why she was even contemplating it - she's popped up for some remainy parliamentary shenanigans from time to time, but otherwise been all but invisible for years. As an outsider it doesn't look like she has put much effort into supporting or opposing Corbyn but has been content to sit quietly and hope things work out, without even the excuse of shadow cabinet responsibilties.
I suspect the brutal truth is there just isn't a route to victory for "Never Corbyn" types.
In 2016, Corbyn beat Smith 62:38. Even if you lock down the 38% (and you'll always get leakage) you meed a slice of the 62%. I don't see how Cooper could possibly do that.
A lot of anti-Corbyn MPs will have realised that and will have told Cooper that they are backing Starmer (who, let's not forget, nominated Owen Smith) and she can forget it.
Starmer isn't going to win over the whole of the 62% but doesn't need to. He needs to say to them, "I see why you tried Corbyn, and I did all I reasonably could to make it work, particularly in fighting a damaging Tory Brexit". That's not going to work with all of the 62% by any means, but it's a lot more credible than "I always told you that you were wrong and never even tried to make it work".
Cooper also potentially has a last shot at the Labour leadership. She's only 50. Starmer is 57. May was 59 when she became Tory leader and PM. Could Starmer get it back on track and Cooper reap the benefit? It's not that likely but isn't ludicrous.
If Starmer becomes leader, Cooper will surely be recalled to the front bench for one of the big three jobs - probably the Shadow Chancellor. She is one of the decreasing number of Labour MPs with actual cabinet experience. Ed Miliband might be offered a lower key role for the same reason, possibly a return to the environment.
I can’t see recalls for Byrne, Bradshaw or Benn, while Harman and Beckett are getting on a bit.
I would suggest that as a manager he hardly excelled. Amongst barristers and solicitors he’s hardly alone in that failing. Promoted because of his excellence as a lawyer/fee earning ability but that does not automatically translate to a wholly different skillset. What is the evidence to show that he’s a manager (aka leader) and not a lone wolf?
Why do you suggest he "hardly excelled" as DPP? He was at the DPP at a pretty difficult time - navigating a change of Government halfway through, and seeing through some major cuts when the Coalition came in. Seems to me he handled that period quite well - if the service was cracking under the strain, it wasn't obvious during his tenure.
Further evidence that he's a "leader and not a lone wolf" comes from the last few years. This is a guy who got the DPP nod under the Brown Government, secured his seat in the Miliband years, supported Burnham, and nominated Owen Smith. But he's come into the Shadow Cabinet, and has broadly managed to be respected by both sides of the Labour Party in his role. That's frankly quite impressive in people management terms - you don't need to look far for examples of people whose careers perished trying to navigate that one.
I wonder if we will see Australia suddenly moving to wind, solar and tide?
If any country could make solar work, you'd think it would be Australia.
Solar in Australia already needs ni subsidy to be significantly cheaper than coal.
That's true and not true.
Utility scale solar is not economic in Australia.
But residential solar is economic without subsidies in most of Australia. It's a real nightmare for utilities because all they see is that domestic demand is falling. Likewise, most new commercial builds in Australia include solar, because it's a minimal cost to add at construction, and it dramatically reduces air conditioning costs.
Why isn't utility scale solar not economic in Australia, when it is elsewhere? I can understand transmission costs are higher in Australia, but if anything that should favour smaller, local power generation ?
Well that's easy.
Firstly, Australia doesn't have to import coal because it has massive reserves.
Secondly, and perhaps more importantly right now, when the big offshore gas projects in the Northwest Shelf were discovered, operators were legally obliged to sell a portion of output into the local system. This has meant that some parts of Australia have been flooded with natural gas*. Essentially, most of the gas is sold to Korea or Japan for $10-12/mcf, but some has to be sold locally, and they only get $1-2/mcf for that. It's really hard to compete with natural gas generation when its sold for 80% less than the world market price.
* Ironically, other parts of Australia have ended up being starved of gas, because of a lack of long-distance pipelines and how the contracts were written.
Thanks RCS and NigelB for your responses. It does look like power generation in Australia is both expensive and mismanaged at the system level. I am guessing also coal is prioritised because of its export value, but I am not sure how that factor feeds into coal's oversized share of the energy mix, if indeed it does.
Cooper not going to stand? Boris might be relieved.
Not sure why she was even contemplating it - she's popped up for some remainy parliamentary shenanigans from time to time, but otherwise been all but invisible for years. As an outsider it doesn't look like she has put much effort into supporting or opposing Corbyn but has been content to sit quietly and hope things work out, without even the excuse of shadow cabinet responsibilties.
I suspect the brutal truth is there just isn't a route to victory for "Never Corbyn" types.
Maybe, but some of them have been notable in their never Corbyn attitude (not that they were really never Corbyn, they mostly backed him loyally, they just moaned consistently to pretend they did not), but she has not.
She's never suggested, to my knowledge, that she was available for selection for Corbyn's front bench. She's also fairly clearly pursued a backbench strategy on Brexit independently from the Party leader and without formal blessing.
Okay, like almost all her colleagues (including Watson etc) she's parroted the "we had a leadership contest and Jeremy won" line, but she's essentially sat on the sidelines waiting for him to fail.
Cooper not going to stand? Boris might be relieved.
Not sure why she was even contemplating it - she's popped up for some remainy parliamentary shenanigans from time to time, but otherwise been all but invisible for years. As an outsider it doesn't look like she has put much effort into supporting or opposing Corbyn but has been content to sit quietly and hope things work out, without even the excuse of shadow cabinet responsibilties.
I suspect the brutal truth is there just isn't a route to victory for "Never Corbyn" types.
Maybe, but some of them have been notable in their never Corbyn attitude (not that they were really never Corbyn, they mostly backed him loyally, they just moaned consistently to pretend they did not), but she has not.
She's never suggested, to my knowledge, that she was available for selection for Corbyn's front bench. She's also fairly clearly pursued a backbench strategy on Brexit independently from the Party leader and without formal blessing.
Okay, like almost all her colleagues (including Watson etc) she's parroted the "we had a leadership contest and Jeremy won" line, but she's essentially sat on the sidelines waiting for him to fail.
Perhaps her slogan should be, ‘I told you so?’
Says somebody who would vote for the Liberal Democrats...
Cooper not going to stand? Boris might be relieved.
Not sure why she was even contemplating it - she's popped up for some remainy parliamentary shenanigans from time to time, but otherwise been all but invisible for years. As an outsider it doesn't look like she has put much effort into supporting or opposing Corbyn but has been content to sit quietly and hope things work out, without even the excuse of shadow cabinet responsibilties.
I suspect the brutal truth is there just isn't a route to victory for "Never Corbyn" types.
In 2016, Corbyn beat Smith 62:38. Even if you lock down the 38% (and you'll always get leakage) you meed a slice of the 62%. I don't see how Cooper could possibly do that.
A lot of anti-Corbyn MPs will have realised that and will have told Cooper that they are backing Starmer (who, let's not forget, nominated Owen Smith) and she can forget it.
Starmer isn't going to win over the whole of the 62% but doesn't need to. He needs to say to them, "I see why you tried Corbyn, and I did all I reasonably could to make it work, particularly in fighting a damaging Tory Brexit". That's not going to work with all of the 62% by any means, but it's a lot more credible than "I always told you that you were wrong and never even tried to make it work".
Cooper also potentially has a last shot at the Labour leadership. She's only 50. Starmer is 57. May was 59 when she became Tory leader and PM. Could Starmer get it back on track and Cooper reap the benefit? It's not that likely but isn't ludicrous.
If Starmer becomes leader, Cooper will surely be recalled to the front bench for one of the big three jobs - probably the Shadow Chancellor. She is one of the decreasing number of Labour MPs with actual cabinet experience. Ed Miliband might be offered a lower key role for the same reason, possibly a return to the environment.
I can’t see recalls for Byrne, Bradshaw or Benn, while Harman and Beckett are getting on a bit.
I think that’s the lot in the House of Commons?
I'm sure it's not "the lot" if you include all those who resigned from the frontbench in 2016, who supported Smith and so on. She's the biggest name set for a comeback, but he'll surely draw on those in internal exile as well as moderate Corbyn supporters.
AMEND: I've checked and Smith got 172 nominations from MPs/MEPs (Starmer included). Not checked how many of these (a) didn't serve under Corbyn subsequently; and (b) are still in Parliament. But I suspect it's a decent number and that he'll bring some of them in.
Cooper not going to stand? Boris might be relieved.
Not sure why she was even contemplating it - she's popped up for some remainy parliamentary shenanigans from time to time, but otherwise been all but invisible for years. As an outsider it doesn't look like she has put much effort into supporting or opposing Corbyn but has been content to sit quietly and hope things work out, without even the excuse of shadow cabinet responsibilties.
I suspect the brutal truth is there just isn't a route to victory for "Never Corbyn" types.
In 2016, Corbyn beat Smith 62:38. Even if you lock down the 38% (and you'll always get leakage) you meed a slice of the 62%. I don't see how Cooper could possibly do that.
A lot of anti-Corbyn MPs will have realised that and will have told Cooper that they are backing Starmer (who, let's not forget, nominated Owen Smith) and she can forget it.
Starmer isn't going to win over the whole of the 62% but doesn't need to. He needs to say to them, "I see why you tried Corbyn, and I did all I reasonably could to make it work, particularly in fighting a damaging Tory Brexit". That's not going to work with all of the 62% by any means, but it's a lot more credible than "I always told you that you were wrong and never even tried to make it work".
Cooper also potentially has a last shot at the Labour leadership. She's only 50. Starmer is 57. May was 59 when she became Tory leader and PM. Could Starmer get it back on track and Cooper reap the benefit? It's not that likely but isn't ludicrous.
If Starmer becomes leader, Cooper will surely be recalled to the front bench for one of the big three jobs - probably the Shadow Chancellor. She is one of the decreasing number of Labour MPs with actual cabinet experience. Ed Miliband might be offered a lower key role for the same reason, possibly a return to the environment.
I can’t see recalls for Byrne, Bradshaw or Benn, while Harman and Beckett are getting on a bit.
I think that’s the lot in the House of Commons?
I'm sure it's not "the lot" if you include all those who resigned from the frontbench in 2016, who supported Smith and so on. She's the biggest name set for a comeback, but he'll surely draw on those in internal exile as well as moderate Corbyn supporters.
‘The lot’ of people who have served in an ACTUAL cabinet. Led by a PM.
Cooper not going to stand? Boris might be relieved.
Not really, she never polled that well with the public and her majority was slashed last month
I do think she would be a good frontbench appointment though, if she can be persuaded to serve. If Starmer gets it, shadow chancellor might be an interesting shout.
I wonder if we will see Australia suddenly moving to wind, solar and tide?
If any country could make solar work, you'd think it would be Australia.
Solar in Australia already needs ni subsidy to be significantly cheaper than coal.
That's true and not true.
Utility scale solar is not economic in Australia.
But residential solar is economic without subsidies in most of Australia. It's a real nightmare for utilities because all they see is that domestic demand is falling. Likewise, most new commercial builds in Australia include solar, because it's a minimal cost to add at construction, and it dramatically reduces air conditioning costs.
Why isn't utility scale solar not economic in Australia, when it is elsewhere? I can understand transmission costs are higher in Australia, but if anything that should favour smaller, local power generation ?
Well that's easy.
Firstly, Australia doesn't have to import coal because it has massive reserves.
Secondly, and perhaps more importantly right now, when the big offshore gas projects in the Northwest Shelf were discovered, operators were legally obliged to sell a portion of output into the local system. This has meant that some parts of Australia have been flooded with natural gas*. Essentially, most of the gas is sold to Korea or Japan for $10-12/mcf, but some has to be sold locally, and they only get $1-2/mcf for that. It's really hard to compete with natural gas generation when its sold for 80% less than the world market price.
* Ironically, other parts of Australia have ended up being starved of gas, because of a lack of long-distance pipelines and how the contracts were written.
Thanks RCS and NigelB for your responses. It does look like power generation in Australia is both expensive and mismanaged at the system level. I am guessing also coal is prioritised because of its export value, but I am not sure how that factor feeds into coal's oversized share of the energy mix, if indeed it does.
To be fair, it’s not any easy problem. Power plants are (or used to be) planned for decades ahead, and the current energy market is undergoing a much more rapid change. Which is going to wipe out whole industries... That Australia’s economy largely depends on mining and fossil fuel exporting, and the government has been in denial, doesn’t help, of course.
‘The lot’ of people who have served in an ACTUAL cabinet. Led by a PM.
Oh, I see. But I struggle to see whether it's all that much of an issue. We're ten years on from the last Labour Government. Who from the last Major cabinet was in Cameron's shadow cabinet in 2007? Not sure there were any.
Cabinet ministers tend anyway to be relatively old and at the peak of their careers. It's not surprising that a lot simply call it a day when the Government changes.
Not really, she never polled that well with the public and her majority was slashed last month
Who ARE you scared of?
Not allowed to do a Vin Diesel and say nobody.
Jess Phillips would be the greatest threat I think but Starmer would certainly be an improvement on Corbyn, though Labour are unlikely to get a majority, there best bet is to do a Cameron and get enough seats for a Deal with the LDs (plus the SNP at least)
Cooper not going to stand? Boris might be relieved.
Not really, she never polled that well with the public and her majority was slashed last month
I do think she would be a good frontbench appointment though, if she can be persuaded to serve. If Starmer gets it, shadow chancellor might be an interesting shout.
Cooper not going to stand? Boris might be relieved.
Not sure why she was even contemplating it - she's popped up for some remainy parliamentary shenanigans from time to time, but otherwise been all but invisible for years. As an outsider it doesn't look like she has put much effort into supporting or opposing Corbyn but has been content to sit quietly and hope things work out, without even the excuse of shadow cabinet responsibilties.
I suspect the brutal truth is there just isn't a route to victory for "Never Corbyn" types.
In 2016, Corbyn beat Smith 62:38. Even if you lock down the 38% (and you'll always get leakage) you meed a slice of the 62%. I don't see how Cooper could possibly do that.
A lot of anti-Corbyn MPs will have realised that and will have told Cooper that they are backing Starmer (who, let's not forget, nominated Owen Smith) and she can forget it.
Starmer isn't going to win over the whole of the 62% but doesn't need to. He needs to say to them, "I see why you tried Corbyn, and I did all I reasonably could to make it work, particularly in fighting a damaging Tory Brexit". That's not going to work with all of the 62% by any means, but it's a lot more credible than "I always told you that you were wrong and never even tried to make it work".
Cooper also potentially has a last shot at the Labour leadership. She's only 50. Starmer is 57. May was 59 when she became Tory leader and PM. Could Starmer get it back on track and Cooper reap the benefit? It's not that likely but isn't ludicrous.
If Starmer becomes leader, Cooper will surely be recalled to the front bench for one of the big three jobs - probably the Shadow Chancellor. She is one of the decreasing number of Labour MPs with actual cabinet experience. Ed Miliband might be offered a lower key role for the same reason, possibly a return to the environment.
I can’t see recalls for Byrne, Bradshaw or Benn, while Harman and Beckett are getting on a bit.
‘The lot’ of people who have served in an ACTUAL cabinet. Led by a PM.
Oh, I see. But I struggle to see whether it's all that much of an issue. We're ten years on from the last Labour Government. Who from the last Major cabinet was in Cameron's shadow cabinet in 2007? Not sure there were any.
Cabinet ministers tend anyway to be relatively old and at the peak of their careers. It's not surprising that a lot simply call it a day when the Government changes.
Hague and from 2008, Clarke.
Plus Willetts, Letwin, Davis, Fox, Lansley, Young, Mitchell and Maude were all Ministers of State under Major.
Not really, Labor already won 2 more seats than Morrison's Coalition in New South Wales at the last Australian general election last year anyway, it was coal dependent Queensland, where the Coalition won 17 more seats than Labour, which ensured Morrison's re election
Wouldn't be surprised if it involved a message in a bottle.
Well, calling the police will do nothing to scotch such allegations.
Though no doubt a spirited defence is possible.
I hope he got a good lawyer, although at this time of year that may be a struggle. He may have to do with the local solicitor. Still, any port in a storm.
Cooper not going to stand? Boris might be relieved.
Not sure why she was even contemplating it - she's popped up for some remainy parliamentary shenanigans from time to time, but otherwise been all but invisible for years. As an outsider it doesn't look like she has put much effort into supporting or opposing Corbyn but has been content to sit quietly and hope things work out, without even the excuse of shadow cabinet responsibilties.
I suspect the brutal truth is there just isn't a route to victory for "Never Corbyn" types.
In 2016, Corbyn beat Smith 62:38. Even if you lock down the 38% (and you'll always get leakage) you meed a slice of the 62%. I don't see how Cooper could possibly do that.
A lot of anti-Corbyn MPs will have realised that and will have told Cooper that they are backing Starmer (who, let's not forget, nominated Owen Smith) and she can forget it.
Starmer isn't going to win over the whole of the 62% but doesn't need to. He needs to say to them, "I see why you tried Corbyn, and I did all I reasonably could to make it work, particularly in fighting a damaging Tory Brexit". That's not going to work with all of the 62% by any means, but it's a lot more credible than "I always told you that you were wrong and never even tried to make it work".
Cooper also potentially has a last shot at the Labour leadership. She's only 50. Starmer is 57. May was 59 when she became Tory leader and PM. Could Starmer get it back on track and Cooper reap the benefit? It's not that likely but isn't ludicrous.
If Starmer becomes leader, Cooper will surely be recalled to the front bench for one of the big three jobs - probably the Shadow Chancellor. She is one of the decreasing number of Labour MPs with actual cabinet experience. Ed Miliband might be offered a lower key role for the same reason, possibly a return to the environment.
I can’t see recalls for Byrne, Bradshaw or Benn, while Harman and Beckett are getting on a bit.
I think that’s the lot in the House of Commons?
The Eagles might be persuaded to come back.
They're already booked for touring to the end of next year
Cooper not going to stand? Boris might be relieved.
Not really, she never polled that well with the public and her majority was slashed last month
But but but.. Ed Balls!
Lets be fair - Yvette is a bit ghastly. She's thrown her hat in the ring before and had it firmly thrown back. However she is, by a country mile, the most coherent politician Labour have had for a while.
One day a Labour politician will talk economic sense. This hasn't happened since Darling left. And in fact I think he's the only example I can think of. (Woy? maybe)
Who knows. However it's Labour and they have twice wished Corbyn on us.
Cooper not going to stand? Boris might be relieved.
Not really, she never polled that well with the public and her majority was slashed last month
But but but.. Ed Balls!
Lets be fair - Yvette is a bit ghastly. She's thrown her hat in the ring before and had it firmly thrown back. However she is, by a country mile, the most coherent politician Labour have had for a while.
One day a Labour politician will talk economic sense. This hasn't happened since Darling left. And in fact I think he's the only example I can think of. (Woy? maybe)
Who knows. However it's Labour and they have twice wished Corbyn on us.
I always had a soft spot for Alistair Darling, even when he did things I disagreed with (like raising fuel duty when I was unemployed and living in a rural area). I’m not sure whether it’s his disarming frankness, his wonderfully wry sense of humour or his willingness to stand up to Gordon Brown that particularly made him particularly endearing. Who could forget the time Brown proposed a three Fs slogan (Family, Fairness and the Future) as the title for Labour’s 2010 manifesto, and Darling piped up that they ought to stand for Fucked, Futile and Finished given nobody would believe the policies in it? Or the time he refused to sign off on some fiddled figures and Brown threw a hole punch at him? His wonderfully laconic report, when asked if he got hit, was simply, ‘No. I ducked.’
Cooper not going to stand? Boris might be relieved.
Not sure why she was even contemplating it - she's popped up for some remainy parliamentary shenanigans from time to time, but otherwise been all but invisible for years. As an outsider it doesn't look like she has put much effort into supporting or opposing Corbyn but has been content to sit quietly and hope things work out, without even the excuse of shadow cabinet responsibilties.
I suspect the brutal truth is there just isn't a route to victory for "Never Corbyn" types.
In 2016, Corbyn beat Smith 62:38. Even if you lock down the 38% (and you'll always get leakage) you meed a slice of the 62%. I don't see how Cooper could possibly do that.
A lot of anti-Corbyn MPs will have realised that and will have told Cooper that they are backing Starmer (who, let's not forget, nominated Owen Smith) and she can forget it.
Starmer isn't going to win over the whole of the 62% but doesn't need to. He needs to say to them, "I see why you tried Corbyn, and I did all I reasonably could to make it work, particularly in fighting a damaging Tory Brexit". That's not going to work with all of the 62% by any means, but it's a lot more credible than "I always told you that you were wrong and never even tried to make it work".
Cooper also potentially has a last shot at the Labour leadership. She's only 50. Starmer is 57. May was 59 when she became Tory leader and PM. Could Starmer get it back on track and Cooper reap the benefit? It's not that likely but isn't ludicrous.
If Starmer becomes leader, Cooper will surely be recalled to the front bench for one of the big three jobs - probably the Shadow Chancellor. She is one of the decreasing number of Labour MPs with actual cabinet experience. Ed Miliband might be offered a lower key role for the same reason, possibly a return to the environment.
I can’t see recalls for Byrne, Bradshaw or Benn, while Harman and Beckett are getting on a bit.
I think that’s the lot in the House of Commons?
The Eagles might be persuaded to come back.
They're already booked for touring to the end of next year
‘The lot’ of people who have served in an ACTUAL cabinet. Led by a PM.
Oh, I see. But I struggle to see whether it's all that much of an issue. We're ten years on from the last Labour Government. Who from the last Major cabinet was in Cameron's shadow cabinet in 2007? Not sure there were any.
Cabinet ministers tend anyway to be relatively old and at the peak of their careers. It's not surprising that a lot simply call it a day when the Government changes.
Hague and from 2008, Clarke.
Plus Willetts, Letwin, Davis, Fox, Lansley, Young, Mitchell and Maude were all Ministers of State under Major.
Cooper not going to stand? Boris might be relieved.
Not really, she never polled that well with the public and her majority was slashed last month
But but but.. Ed Balls!
Lets be fair - Yvette is a bit ghastly. She's thrown her hat in the ring before and had it firmly thrown back. However she is, by a country mile, the most coherent politician Labour have had for a while.
One day a Labour politician will talk economic sense. This hasn't happened since Darling left. And in fact I think he's the only example I can think of. (Woy? maybe)
Who knows. However it's Labour and they have twice wished Corbyn on us.
I always had a soft spot for Alistair Darling, even when he did things I disagreed with (like raising fuel duty when I was unemployed and living in a rural area). I’m not sure whether it’s his disarming frankness, his wonderfully wry sense of humour or his willingness to stand up to Gordon Brown that particularly made him particularly endearing. Who could forget the time Brown proposed a three Fs slogan (Family, Fairness and the Future) as the title for Labour’s 2010 manifesto, and Darling piped up that they ought to stand for Fucked, Futile and Finished given nobody would believe the policies in it? Or the time he refused to sign off on some fiddled figures and Brown threw a hole punch at him? His wonderfully laconic report, when asked if he got hit, was simply, ‘No. I ducked.’
I’d forgotten just how much of an erm... charming individual Mr Brown was.
Jess Phillips would be the greatest threat I think but Starmer would certainly be an improvement on Corbyn, though Labour are unlikely to get a majority, there best bet is to do a Cameron and get enough seats for a Deal with the LDs (plus the SNP at least)
Phillips? Interesting. Not for me - but maybe my radar is off on this because you are far from the only person to say that to me. I do like Starmer, I must say. He's clearly a man of substance and I do not find him even slightly boring. Or if he is, it's in a good way. He bores people (although not me) in a sense that is wholly benign, i.e. well constructed and elegant sentences making a strong point in a pleasant and nicely modulated voice. Such a contrast to - well OK I won't say because I know what he means to you.
‘The lot’ of people who have served in an ACTUAL cabinet. Led by a PM.
Oh, I see. But I struggle to see whether it's all that much of an issue. We're ten years on from the last Labour Government. Who from the last Major cabinet was in Cameron's shadow cabinet in 2007? Not sure there were any.
Cabinet ministers tend anyway to be relatively old and at the peak of their careers. It's not surprising that a lot simply call it a day when the Government changes.
Hague and from 2008, Clarke.
Plus Willetts, Letwin, Davis, Fox, Lansley, Young, Mitchell and Maude were all Ministers of State under Major.
Not Lansley - he only became an MP in 1997.
My mistake, he was in the CRD. I thought he had been in Parliament at the time he was working on health policy.
Cooper not going to stand? Boris might be relieved.
Not really, she never polled that well with the public and her majority was slashed last month
But but but.. Ed Balls!
Lets be fair - Yvette is a bit ghastly. She's thrown her hat in the ring before and had it firmly thrown back. However she is, by a country mile, the most coherent politician Labour have had for a while.
One day a Labour politician will talk economic sense. This hasn't happened since Darling left. And in fact I think he's the only example I can think of. (Woy? maybe)
Who knows. However it's Labour and they have twice wished Corbyn on us.
I always had a soft spot for Alistair Darling, even when he did things I disagreed with (like raising fuel duty when I was unemployed and living in a rural area). I’m not sure whether it’s his disarming frankness, his wonderfully wry sense of humour or his willingness to stand up to Gordon Brown that particularly made him particularly endearing. Who could forget the time Brown proposed a three Fs slogan (Family, Fairness and the Future) as the title for Labour’s 2010 manifesto, and Darling piped up that they ought to stand for Fucked, Futile and Finished given nobody would believe the policies in it? Or the time he refused to sign off on some fiddled figures and Brown threw a hole punch at him? His wonderfully laconic report, when asked if he got hit, was simply, ‘No. I ducked.’
He's a good guy.
He didn't though say what was obvious and I have some feint reason to suppose was what he thought. And that was that Brown and the rest of them should be shot.
Jess Phillips would be the greatest threat I think but Starmer would certainly be an improvement on Corbyn, though Labour are unlikely to get a majority, there best bet is to do a Cameron and get enough seats for a Deal with the LDs (plus the SNP at least)
Phillips? Interesting. Not for me - but maybe my radar is off on this because you are far from the only person to say that to me. I do like Starmer, I must say. He's clearly a man of substance and I do not find him even slightly boring. Or if he is, it's in a good way. He bores people (although not me) in a sense that is wholly benign, i.e. well constructed and elegant sentences making a strong point in a pleasant and nicely modulated voice. Such a contrast to - well OK I won't say because I know what he means to you.
You’re very wise. Let’s move on from him and look to the future. Nobody wants to talk about Corbyn now...
I wonder if we will see Australia suddenly moving to wind, solar and tide?
If any country could make solar work, you'd think it would be Australia.
Solar in Australia already needs ni subsidy to be significantly cheaper than coal.
That's true and not true.
Utility scale solar is not economic in Australia.
But residential solar is economic without subsidies in most of Australia. It's a real nightmare for utilities because all they see is that domestic demand is falling. Likewise, most new commercial builds in Australia include solar, because it's a minimal cost to add at construction, and it dramatically reduces air conditioning costs.
Why isn't utility scale solar not economic in Australia, when it is elsewhere? I can understand transmission costs are higher in Australia, but if anything that should favour smaller, local power generation ?
Well that's easy.
Firstly, Australia doesn't have to import coal because it has massive reserves.
Secondly, and perhaps more importantly right now, when the big offshore gas projects in the Northwest Shelf were discovered, operators were legally obliged to sell a portion of output into the local system. This has meant that some parts of Australia have been flooded with natural gas*. Essentially, most of the gas is sold to Korea or Japan for $10-12/mcf, but some has to be sold locally, and they only get $1-2/mcf for that. It's really hard to compete with natural gas generation when its sold for 80% less than the world market price.
* Ironically, other parts of Australia have ended up being starved of gas, because of a lack of long-distance pipelines and how the contracts were written.
‘The lot’ of people who have served in an ACTUAL cabinet. Led by a PM.
Oh, I see. But I struggle to see whether it's all that much of an issue. We're ten years on from the last Labour Government. Who from the last Major cabinet was in Cameron's shadow cabinet in 2007? Not sure there were any.
Cabinet ministers tend anyway to be relatively old and at the peak of their careers. It's not surprising that a lot simply call it a day when the Government changes.
Hague and from 2008, Clarke.
Plus Willetts, Letwin, Davis, Fox, Lansley, Young, Mitchell and Maude were all Ministers of State under Major.
Does Welsh Secretary even really count? (Actually, I guess it was a bit more of a real job pre-devolution).
And I'm sure if you extend to ex-ministers of state, there are a fair few still knocking about.
‘The lot’ of people who have served in an ACTUAL cabinet. Led by a PM.
Oh, I see. But I struggle to see whether it's all that much of an issue. We're ten years on from the last Labour Government. Who from the last Major cabinet was in Cameron's shadow cabinet in 2007? Not sure there were any.
Cabinet ministers tend anyway to be relatively old and at the peak of their careers. It's not surprising that a lot simply call it a day when the Government changes.
Hague and from 2008, Clarke.
Plus Willetts, Letwin, Davis, Fox, Lansley, Young, Mitchell and Maude were all Ministers of State under Major.
Does Welsh Secretary even really count? (Actually, I guess it was a bit more of a real job pre-devolution).
And I'm sure if you extend to ex-ministers of state, there are a fair few still knocking about.
Yes.
How many ex ministers of state are there on Corbyn’s front bench? Dawn Butler. John Healey. Tom Watson (until recently).
‘The lot’ of people who have served in an ACTUAL cabinet. Led by a PM.
Oh, I see. But I struggle to see whether it's all that much of an issue. We're ten years on from the last Labour Government. Who from the last Major cabinet was in Cameron's shadow cabinet in 2007? Not sure there were any.
Cabinet ministers tend anyway to be relatively old and at the peak of their careers. It's not surprising that a lot simply call it a day when the Government changes.
Hague and from 2008, Clarke.
Plus Willetts, Letwin, Davis, Fox, Lansley, Young, Mitchell and Maude were all Ministers of State under Major.
Does Welsh Secretary even really count? (Actually, I guess it was a bit more of a real job pre-devolution).
And I'm sure if you extend to ex-ministers of state, there are a fair few still knocking about.
Yes.
How many ex ministers of state are there on Corbyn’s front bench? Dawn Butler. John Healey. Tom Watson (until recently).
I can’t think of any others.
When Dawn Butler counts as important there's little point in the rest of it.
Cooper not going to stand? Boris might be relieved.
Not really, she never polled that well with the public and her majority was slashed last month
But but but.. Ed Balls!
Lets be fair - Yvette is a bit ghastly. She's thrown her hat in the ring before and had it firmly thrown back. However she is, by a country mile, the most coherent politician Labour have had for a while.
One day a Labour politician will talk economic sense. This hasn't happened since Darling left. And in fact I think he's the only example I can think of. (Woy? maybe)
Who knows. However it's Labour and they have twice wished Corbyn on us.
I think she would be an excellent leader. For what it is worth.
‘The lot’ of people who have served in an ACTUAL cabinet. Led by a PM.
Oh, I see. But I struggle to see whether it's all that much of an issue. We're ten years on from the last Labour Government. Who from the last Major cabinet was in Cameron's shadow cabinet in 2007? Not sure there were any.
Cabinet ministers tend anyway to be relatively old and at the peak of their careers. It's not surprising that a lot simply call it a day when the Government changes.
Hague and from 2008, Clarke.
Plus Willetts, Letwin, Davis, Fox, Lansley, Young, Mitchell and Maude were all Ministers of State under Major.
Does Welsh Secretary even really count? (Actually, I guess it was a bit more of a real job pre-devolution).
And I'm sure if you extend to ex-ministers of state, there are a fair few still knocking about.
Yes.
How many ex ministers of state are there on Corbyn’s front bench? Dawn Butler. John Healey. Tom Watson (until recently).
I can’t think of any others.
When Dawn Butler counts as important there's little point in the rest of it.
I was thinking more of previous experience of government. She had about twelve months of it, Healey a bit more.
It’s comparable to the Blair cabinet where only Cunningham (who was as dim as a three watt bulb and about as useful as SeanT’s chastity belt) and Margaret Beckett had been in government before. Which perhaps goes some way towards explaining the duff legislation they drew up in their first couple of years and their inability to deal with major issues from the off.
However, you look at the Blair cabinet of 1997 and at least it did contain people of obvious talent. That, with the exception of Macdonnell and possibly Starmer and to a still lesser degree Ashworth, is something I would hesitate to say of the current Shadow Cabinet.
Cooper not going to stand? Boris might be relieved.
Not really, she never polled that well with the public and her majority was slashed last month
But but but.. Ed Balls!
Lets be fair - Yvette is a bit ghastly. She's thrown her hat in the ring before and had it firmly thrown back. However she is, by a country mile, the most coherent politician Labour have had for a while.
One day a Labour politician will talk economic sense. This hasn't happened since Darling left. And in fact I think he's the only example I can think of. (Woy? maybe)
Who knows. However it's Labour and they have twice wished Corbyn on us.
I always had a soft spot for Alistair Darling, even when he did things I disagreed with (like raising fuel duty when I was unemployed and living in a rural area). I’m not sure whether it’s his disarming frankness, his wonderfully wry sense of humour or his willingness to stand up to Gordon Brown that particularly made him particularly endearing. Who could forget the time Brown proposed a three Fs slogan (Family, Fairness and the Future) as the title for Labour’s 2010 manifesto, and Darling piped up that they ought to stand for Fucked, Futile and Finished given nobody would believe the policies in it? Or the time he refused to sign off on some fiddled figures and Brown threw a hole punch at him? His wonderfully laconic report, when asked if he got hit, was simply, ‘No. I ducked.’
Seem to remember he was one of the very few politicians erstwhile PB favourite, Tim, had any time for.
You’re very wise. Let’s move on from him and look to the future. Nobody wants to talk about Corbyn now...
Edit - AAAAAARGH! I HATE FUCKING AUTOCORRECT.
Yes, OK, I make a deal with you. In any exchange that we have from this point on (with the single exception of this one here) there will be no mention of yesterday's man Jeremy Corbyn. Not by me - and most particularly not by YOU. He's gone. He's no more. He has ceased to be. He is an EX Labour Leader.
Cooper not going to stand? Boris might be relieved.
Not really, she never polled that well with the public and her majority was slashed last month
But but but.. Ed Balls!
Lets be fair - Yvette is a bit ghastly. She's thrown her hat in the ring before and had it firmly thrown back. However she is, by a country mile, the most coherent politician Labour have had for a while.
One day a Labour politician will talk economic sense. This hasn't happened since Darling left. And in fact I think he's the only example I can think of. (Woy? maybe)
Who knows. However it's Labour and they have twice wished Corbyn on us.
I always had a soft spot for Alistair Darling, even when he did things I disagreed with (like raising fuel duty when I was unemployed and living in a rural area). I’m not sure whether it’s his disarming frankness, his wonderfully wry sense of humour or his willingness to stand up to Gordon Brown that particularly made him particularly endearing. Who could forget the time Brown proposed a three Fs slogan (Family, Fairness and the Future) as the title for Labour’s 2010 manifesto, and Darling piped up that they ought to stand for Fucked, Futile and Finished given nobody would believe the policies in it? Or the time he refused to sign off on some fiddled figures and Brown threw a hole punch at him? His wonderfully laconic report, when asked if he got hit, was simply, ‘No. I ducked.’
Seem to remember he was one of the very few politicians erstwhile PB favourite, Tim, had any time for.
Philips is good at telling people to eff off, which is exactly what Labour need, but the last thing that the sensible people in Labour - the soft left who she would need the support of - will be able to stomach. It's a shame though. Starmer would need to toughen up for PMQ's!
EDIT: Softened the language in case any soft-left Labour people read it, who's support it requires.
You’re very wise. Let’s move on from him and look to the future. Nobody wants to talk about Corbyn now...
Edit - AAAAAARGH! I HATE FUCKING AUTOCORRECT.
Yes, OK, I make a deal with you. In any exchange that we have from this point on (with the single exception of this one here) there will be no mention of yesterday's man Jeremy Corbyn. Not by me - and most particularly not by YOU. He's gone. He's no more. He has ceased to be. He is an EX Labour Leader.
No he’s not, he’s just pining for the fjords. He’s tired and shagged out after winning all those arguments a long squawk.
More seriously, I would accept your deal, but I fear until Labour has a new leader I will be unable to keep to it. This is because I will be comparing every potential leader to him.
Edit - or did you mean, when replying to you directly and I can mention him in other posts? That might be managed.
‘The lot’ of people who have served in an ACTUAL cabinet. Led by a PM.
Oh, I see. But I struggle to see whether it's all that much of an issue. We're ten years on from the last Labour Government. Who from the last Major cabinet was in Cameron's shadow cabinet in 2007? Not sure there were any.
Cabinet ministers tend anyway to be relatively old and at the peak of their careers. It's not surprising that a lot simply call it a day when the Government changes.
Hague and from 2008, Clarke.
Plus Willetts, Letwin, Davis, Fox, Lansley, Young, Mitchell and Maude were all Ministers of State under Major.
Does Welsh Secretary even really count? (Actually, I guess it was a bit more of a real job pre-devolution).
And I'm sure if you extend to ex-ministers of state, there are a fair few still knocking about.
Yes.
How many ex ministers of state are there on Corbyn’s front bench? Dawn Butler. John Healey. Tom Watson (until recently).
I can’t think of any others.
When Dawn Butler counts as important there's little point in the rest of it.
I was thinking more of previous experience of government. She had about twelve months of it, Healey a bit more.
It’s comparable to the Blair cabinet where only Cunningham (who was as dim as a three watt bulb and about as useful as SeanT’s chastity belt) and Margaret Beckett had been in government before. Which perhaps goes some way towards explaining the duff legislation they drew up in their first couple of years and their inability to deal with major issues from the off.
However, you look at the Blair cabinet of 1997 and at least it did contain people of obvious talent. That, with the exception of Macdonnell and possibly Starmer and to a still lesser degree Ashworth, is something I would hesitate to say of the current Shadow Cabinet.
There were a few people of some talent in the Blair cabinet. The economic talent was non-existent though. Gordo was a very bad man persuing very bad policies. Somehow even Ed Balls spouted crap for the period, and yet he's actually not that bad.
McDonnell is both the stupidest man and the most dangerous man in the UK. He's dangerous because people like you somehow believe in him. Baffling!
I am certain Keir Starmer would make a better PM than Boris Johnson. I also thought Hilary Clinton would make a better US President than Donald Trump, for somewhat similar reasons.
‘The lot’ of people who have served in an ACTUAL cabinet. Led by a PM.
Oh, I see. But I struggle to see whether it's all that much of an issue. We're ten years on from the last Labour Government. Who from the last Major cabinet was in Cameron's shadow cabinet in 2007? Not sure there were any.
Cabinet ministers tend anyway to be relatively old and at the peak of their careers. It's not surprising that a lot simply call it a day when the Government changes.
Hague and from 2008, Clarke.
Plus Willetts, Letwin, Davis, Fox, Lansley, Young, Mitchell and Maude were all Ministers of State under Major.
Does Welsh Secretary even really count? (Actually, I guess it was a bit more of a real job pre-devolution).
And I'm sure if you extend to ex-ministers of state, there are a fair few still knocking about.
Yes.
How many ex ministers of state are there on Corbyn’s front bench? Dawn Butler. John Healey. Tom Watson (until recently).
I can’t think of any others.
When Dawn Butler counts as important there's little point in the rest of it.
I was thinking more of previous experience of government. She had about twelve months of it, Healey a bit more.
It’s comparable to the Blair cabinet where only Cunningham (who was as dim as a three watt bulb and about as useful as SeanT’s chastity belt) and Margaret Beckett had been in government before. Which perhaps goes some way towards explaining the duff legislation they drew up in their first couple of years and their inability to deal with major issues from the off.
However, you look at the Blair cabinet of 1997 and at least it did contain people of obvious talent. That, with the exception of Macdonnell and possibly Starmer and to a still lesser degree Ashworth, is something I would hesitate to say of the current Shadow Cabinet.
There were a few people of some talent in the Blair cabinet. The economic talent was non-existent though. Gordo was a very bad man persuing very bad policies. Somehow even Ed Balls spouted crap for the period, and yet he's actually not that bad.
McDonnell is both the stupidest man and the most dangerous man in the UK. He's dangerous because people like you somehow believe in him. Baffling!
Me? Believe in him? You clearly haven’t studied my posts over the last five years.
But there is no doubt (contrary to your view) that he is extremely bright and articulate. That is, in fact, one of the reasons why he is a far more dangerous opponent than say, Corbyn or Lavery who are neither.
I am certain Keir Starmer would make a better PM than Boris Johnson. I also thought Hilary Clinton would make a better US President than Donald Trump, for somewhat similar reasons.
So there you go...
Bet three years of the Donald has given you pause for thought.
Is this an official public sector job advert? God alone knows.
But I am seriously concerned that the most senior advisor in Downing Street seems to be planning to spend his time managing a bunch of software engineers and data scientists.
I am certain Keir Starmer would make a better PM than Boris Johnson. I also thought Hilary Clinton would make a better US President than Donald Trump, for somewhat similar reasons.
So there you go...
Hilary Clinton would have been a better President than Trump.
She would still have been the worst president since Harding.
No he’s not, he’s just pining for the fjords. He’s tired and shagged out after winning all those arguments a long squawk.
More seriously, I would accept your deal, but I fear until Labour has a new leader I will be unable to keep to it. This is because I will be comparing every potential leader to him.
Edit - or did you mean, when replying to you directly and I can mention him in other posts? That might be managed.
No it's fine - I mean when talking to me. I am not a control freak. What you say to other people is purely your business. Free speech within the law, this would be my mantra if I was the type to have a mantra.
Plus Willetts, Letwin, Davis, Fox, Lansley, Young, Mitchell and Maude were all Ministers of State under Major.
Does Welsh Secretary even really count? (Actually, I guess it was a bit more of a real job pre-devolution).
And I'm sure if you extend to ex-ministers of state, there are a fair few still knocking about.
Yes.
How many ex ministers of state are there on Corbyn’s front bench? Dawn Butler. John Healey. Tom Watson (until recently).
I can’t think of any others.
When Dawn Butler counts as important there's little point in the rest of it.
I was thinking more of previous experience of government. She had about twelve months of it, Healey a bit more.
It’s comparable to the Blair cabinet where only Cunningham (who was as dim as a three watt bulb and about as useful as SeanT’s chastity belt) and Margaret Beckett had been in government before. Which perhaps goes some way towards explaining the duff legislation they drew up in their first couple of years and their inability to deal with major issues from the off.
However, you look at the Blair cabinet of 1997 and at least it did contain people of obvious talent. That, with the exception of Macdonnell and possibly Starmer and to a still lesser degree Ashworth, is something I would hesitate to say of the current Shadow Cabinet.
There were a few people of some talent in the Blair cabinet. The economic talent was non-existent though. Gordo was a very bad man persuing very bad policies. Somehow even Ed Balls spouted crap for the period, and yet he's actually not that bad.
McDonnell is both the stupidest man and the most dangerous man in the UK. He's dangerous because people like you somehow believe in him. Baffling!
Me? Believe in him? You clearly haven’t studied my posts over the last five years.
But there is no doubt (contrary to your view) that he is extremely bright and articulate. That is, in fact, one of the reasons why he is a far more dangerous opponent than say, Corbyn or Lavery who are neither.
If McDonnel is 'bright' I'm just going to hand in the towel. I would agree that the fear of Corbyn was much more about the fear of McDonnell.
Labour are thick. All of them. Planks.
Labour want to peruse an agenda unchanged from a hundred years ago. It wasn't right then, and I can't see it now.
Being stupid because your're Labour isn't a vote-winner.
Is this an official public sector job advert? God alone knows.
But I am seriously concerned that the most senior advisor in Downing Street seems to be planning to spend his time managing a bunch of software engineers and data scientists.
Having read Cummings blog I'm fairly certain he's read the first third of a lot of books.
Wouldn't like to hazard a guess at how many he's finished though.
Is this an official public sector job advert? God alone knows.
But I am seriously concerned that the most senior advisor in Downing Street seems to be planning to spend his time managing a bunch of software engineers and data scientists.
He has an excessive interest in consequentialist blogger men and the men who pay them. It leads to problems like, being interested in innovation one month, conservatism next month, obsessive specialism this month, general ability next month, depending on basically which man Peter Thiel is giving out money to today. Essentially I think working for Cummings unbound would be interesting until you tell him something you think is true and he doesn't.
Comments
I also think that part of the role of the DPP, alongside running an agency responsible for the best part of a million prosecutions a year and several thousand staff, is precisely to communicate the reasons for high profile decisions. Justice should not just be done, but also be seen to be done. Where a controversial decision is made to prosecute - and even more when the decision is taken NOT to prosecute when the public mood is that someone needs to be held criminally responsible but there is no realistic chance of a conviction - it's important someone fronts it up and explains why.
Utility scale solar is not economic in Australia.
But residential solar is economic without subsidies in most of Australia. It's a real nightmare for utilities because all they see is that domestic demand is falling. Likewise, most new commercial builds in Australia include solar, because it's a minimal cost to add at construction, and it dramatically reduces air conditioning costs.
Cooper not going to stand? Boris might be relieved.
Momentum are overrated as a vote-getting operation. Look at the cases where they triggered re-selection votes but the MPs survived those votes very easily. Look at the individual seats they went after, and largely solidified the Tory vote.
If you're a hard left Labour-cum-SWP activist who buys all the "we won the argument" and "thanks, Jeremy, for another fantastic election result" hogwash, you're not voting Starmer anyway.
That just isn't where most Labour members are. A lot of them voted Corbyn against lacklustre opposition in 2015 and 2016 - he was offering clear red water after a very limp period with Miliband which ended with a bad defeat in 2015. There was an argument (not one I agree with but still) that it was worth sharpening the Labour message at that time, and ditching some 1997-2010 baggage. A lot of them flat-out liked pre-antisemitism scandal Corbyn for his opposition to the Iraq War and so on. That doesn't make them Marxists (Charles Kennedy and Ken Clarke shared Corbyn's broad position on Iraq for example). They are plainly further left than the public as a whole, but that's not surprising - Tory members are further right than the public as a whole.
Where do those members stand now? They've got a hunger to get back to winning, in my view. There's no escaping that the Corbyn gamble failed badly, and the result is that we're looking at five years of a big Tory majority. So simply selling yourself as a "continuity Corbynista" candidate won't work. But equally, cognitive dissonance being as it is, you're not going to make headway saying "Liz Kendall was right - let's go full-on Blairite". Starmer's positioning is good on this - he's been loyal but has avoided drinking the Kool Aid, so he's very credible in terms of having been on the same journey as most Labour members over the past four years (as well as being the sole option for the 30% or so who NEVER bought into Corbyn's project).
Wholesale is what a utility pays to a power plant for its energy. This might be around 3c-4c per KwH.
Retail is what the customer pays the utility for its power. This is probably around three times this amount: so (say) 12 cents per KwH.
The difference is the cost of running the electrical system, the cost of dealing with customers, maintenance, transmission losses, and the necessity for the power company to pay its interest bill.
It can make perfect sense for you as a homeowner to put panels on your roof, because you might cut your bill 75%. You - as a homeowner - might be reducing your power bill from $2,000/year to $500. If you've spend $6,000 on your roof panels, that's an absolute bargain.You're effectively getting a 25% annual tax free return.
But it would make no sense to put those panels up in the desert and sell to the grid, because then you are competing with wholesale electricity prices.
Firstly, Australia doesn't have to import coal because it has massive reserves.
Secondly, and perhaps more importantly right now, when the big offshore gas projects in the Northwest Shelf were discovered, operators were legally obliged to sell a portion of output into the local system. This has meant that some parts of Australia have been flooded with natural gas*. Essentially, most of the gas is sold to Korea or Japan for $10-12/mcf, but some has to be sold locally, and they only get $1-2/mcf for that. It's really hard to compete with natural gas generation when its sold for 80% less than the world market price.
* Ironically, other parts of Australia have ended up being starved of gas, because of a lack of long-distance pipelines and how the contracts were written.
A lot can happen in the next couple of months. When the chips are down I am not convinced Labour members will want their party to have its second leader named ‘Keir’ before its first female leader. From the point of a valuable trading bet Lisa Nandy would be the one to back if you don’t fancy backing Starmer odds on.
Some on here might still be sitting on next leader betting slips from back in 2016 when I picked out Lisa Nandy and Dan Jarvis to succeed Corbyn. Owen Smith’s failed challenge later that year means the bets are both still runners if you backed them.
https://www7.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2016/01/22/pbs-labour-insider-henry-g-manson-marks-your-card-for-the-next-leadership-contest/
https://www.renewableenergyworld.com/2019/12/16/solar-vs-solar-in-australia-rooftop-pv-is-pushing-down-prices-for-large-scale-pv/#gref
Once storage becomes sufficiently cheap (likely within around five years), utility scale solar will become economically attractive again. (There is also the genuine possibility of exporting power via long distance HVDC undersea cable...)
In 2016, Corbyn beat Smith 62:38. Even if you lock down the 38% (and you'll always get leakage) you meed a slice of the 62%. I don't see how Cooper could possibly do that.
A lot of anti-Corbyn MPs will have realised that and will have told Cooper that they are backing Starmer (who, let's not forget, nominated Owen Smith) and she can forget it.
Starmer isn't going to win over the whole of the 62% but doesn't need to. He needs to say to them, "I see why you tried Corbyn, and I did all I reasonably could to make it work, particularly in fighting a damaging Tory Brexit". That's not going to work with all of the 62% by any means, but it's a lot more credible than "I always told you that you were wrong and never even tried to make it work".
Cooper also potentially has a last shot at the Labour leadership. She's only 50. Starmer is 57. May was 59 when she became Tory leader and PM. Could Starmer get it back on track and Cooper reap the benefit? It's not that likely but isn't ludicrous.
I can’t see recalls for Byrne, Bradshaw or Benn, while Harman and Beckett are getting on a bit.
I think that’s the lot in the House of Commons?
Welsh Tory Nick Ramsay suspended after 'police incident'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-50975500
Anyone know what’s going on?
Further evidence that he's a "leader and not a lone wolf" comes from the last few years. This is a guy who got the DPP nod under the Brown Government, secured his seat in the Miliband years, supported Burnham, and nominated Owen Smith. But he's come into the Shadow Cabinet, and has broadly managed to be respected by both sides of the Labour Party in his role. That's frankly quite impressive in people management terms - you don't need to look far for examples of people whose careers perished trying to navigate that one.
Okay, like almost all her colleagues (including Watson etc) she's parroted the "we had a leadership contest and Jeremy won" line, but she's essentially sat on the sidelines waiting for him to fail.
You spell it R O R Y B U R N S.
England in South Africa: Rory Burns out of tour with football injury
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/50973920
Says somebody who would vote for the Liberal Democrats...
and
VOTE STARMER!
AMEND: I've checked and Smith got 172 nominations from MPs/MEPs (Starmer included). Not checked how many of these (a) didn't serve under Corbyn subsequently; and (b) are still in Parliament. But I suspect it's a decent number and that he'll bring some of them in.
Not allowed to do a Vin Diesel and say nobody.
That Australia’s economy largely depends on mining and fossil fuel exporting, and the government has been in denial, doesn’t help, of course.
Cabinet ministers tend anyway to be relatively old and at the peak of their careers. It's not surprising that a lot simply call it a day when the Government changes.
Plus Willetts, Letwin, Davis, Fox, Lansley, Young, Mitchell and Maude were all Ministers of State under Major.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of_the_2019_Australian_federal_election_(House_of_Representatives)
Lets be fair - Yvette is a bit ghastly. She's thrown her hat in the ring before and had it firmly thrown back. However she is, by a country mile, the most coherent politician Labour have had for a while.
One day a Labour politician will talk economic sense. This hasn't happened since Darling left. And in fact I think he's the only example I can think of. (Woy? maybe)
Who knows. However it's Labour and they have twice wished Corbyn on us.
https://twitter.com/RoryStewartUK/status/1212805542441373702?s=20
He didn't though say what was obvious and I have some feint reason to suppose was what he thought. And that was that Brown and the rest of them should be shot.
Edit - AAAAAARGH! I HATE FUCKING AUTOCORRECT.
And I'm sure if you extend to ex-ministers of state, there are a fair few still knocking about.
How many ex ministers of state are there on Corbyn’s front bench? Dawn Butler. John Healey. Tom Watson (until recently).
I can’t think of any others.
It’s comparable to the Blair cabinet where only Cunningham (who was as dim as a three watt bulb and about as useful as SeanT’s chastity belt) and Margaret Beckett had been in government before. Which perhaps goes some way towards explaining the duff legislation they drew up in their first couple of years and their inability to deal with major issues from the off.
However, you look at the Blair cabinet of 1997 and at least it did contain people of obvious talent. That, with the exception of Macdonnell and possibly Starmer and to a still lesser degree Ashworth, is something I would hesitate to say of the current Shadow Cabinet.
Was he perhaps not being entirely serious?
EDIT: Softened the language in case any soft-left Labour people read it, who's support it requires.
winning all those argumentsa long squawk.More seriously, I would accept your deal, but I fear until Labour has a new leader I will be unable to keep to it. This is because I will be comparing every potential leader to him.
Edit - or did you mean, when replying to you directly and I can mention him in other posts? That might be managed.
McDonnell is both the stupidest man and the most dangerous man in the UK. He's dangerous because people like you somehow believe in him. Baffling!
So there you go...
But there is no doubt (contrary to your view) that he is extremely bright and articulate. That is, in fact, one of the reasons why he is a far more dangerous opponent than say, Corbyn or Lavery who are neither.
Is this an official public sector job advert? God alone knows.
But I am seriously concerned that the most senior advisor in Downing Street seems to be planning to spend his time managing a bunch of software engineers and data scientists.
She would still have been the worst president since Harding.
Labour are thick. All of them. Planks.
Labour want to peruse an agenda unchanged from a hundred years ago. It wasn't right then, and I can't see it now.
Being stupid because your're Labour isn't a vote-winner.
This thread has failed Cumming's annual civil service data science test
Wouldn't like to hazard a guess at how many he's finished though.
A bit more and people will be paid to turn things on...