Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

New polling finds 44% prepared to pay more tax to cover costs of COVID19 – politicalbetting.com

123578

Comments

  • RobDRobD Posts: 59,824
    Scott_xP said:
    Things are certainly better than they were in March, aren't they?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,274
    Boris tells Scottish Nationalists to 'pull back together and build a better Britain in every part of our United Kingdom'
  • Has he promised the million man loft lagger army? That normally gets pulled out the hat when a politician wants to push the green agenda.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 38,528

    MaxPB said:

    This offshore wind stuff is just such a load of rubbish.

    Why? It is a good and increasingly cheap natural resource the UK has.

    The UK leading the world in cheap, clean and reliable power generation will enable the UK private sector to have a competitive advantage in anything that uses electricity, which in the 21st century is everything.

    The disastrous idea of XR and the Blair/Brown Labour government was to simply tax and cut demand on electricity. Having bountiful cheap clean energy enables our manufacturers and every other consumer of it to compete.
    Wind isn't reliable, though, it's an intermittent power generation system. Which is fine in a diversified grid which has power storage capacity for when the wind is blowing and no one has the lights on to be used when the lights are on and the wind isn't blowing. It's not fine here though, it's a very poor idea. Tidal barrages make much more sense here, we're an island nation. It inherently solves the storage issue.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 41,947
    edited October 2020
    Stocky said:

    Stocky said:

    Stocky said:

    Perhaps the Conservatives should come up with a new tax, one that this is a fixed annual sum levied on every individual?

    Taxes are things that lots of people (particularly on the left) think should be increased but only for other people. I always think there should be a "voluntary tax" to see how many people genuinely want to pay more. It would be the ultimate in virtue signalling, with those that are paying more voluntarily publishing their extra funding that they are paying over so doctors and public "servants" can have even bigger pensions.
    Can be turned on its head somewhat. The warm glow one feels through donating to charity actually detracts from the tax-take as these days each donation can be offset against income tax (Gift Aid). Blair policy I think. I`d like to see this practice ended.
    If you recall, the coalition government tried to restrict it. There was a tsunami of indignation from the luvvies and Guardian-reading classes generally, and they had to give up the idea:

    https://www.libdemvoice.org/time-for-nick-clegg-and-the-coalition-to-see-sense-and-stop-the-charity-tax-27944.html
    Wow is there nothing that isn't blamed on (a) Tony Blair or (b) "Luvvies"/Guardian readers in PB Tory Land?
    Gift Aid was actually introduced by the Tories in 1990, but rather characteristically they thought it should only be available to those rich enough to be giving away £600 or more. Labour simply made it available to all taxpayers by abolishing the lower limit, perhaps that is what irks people on here.
    Personally I think charity is something that should be encouraged.
    I think it should be encouraged too, but not at the expense of the exchequer.
    If not abolished how about have the tax relief apply only to small donations? An incentive to give (over and above the warm feeling in the cockles) but not for HNW individuals to abuse with the sort of devious "schemes" that are often thought up and which are not really charitable.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,427
    HYUFD said:

    Boris tells Scottish Nationalists to 'pull back together and build a better Britain in every part of our United Kingdom'

    I'm sure they'll definitely listen to him.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 59,824
    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    This offshore wind stuff is just such a load of rubbish.

    Why? It is a good and increasingly cheap natural resource the UK has.

    The UK leading the world in cheap, clean and reliable power generation will enable the UK private sector to have a competitive advantage in anything that uses electricity, which in the 21st century is everything.

    The disastrous idea of XR and the Blair/Brown Labour government was to simply tax and cut demand on electricity. Having bountiful cheap clean energy enables our manufacturers and every other consumer of it to compete.
    Wind isn't reliable, though, it's an intermittent power generation system. Which is fine in a diversified grid which has power storage capacity for when the wind is blowing and no one has the lights on to be used when the lights are on and the wind isn't blowing. It's not fine here though, it's a very poor idea. Tidal barrages make much more sense here, we're an island nation. It inherently solves the storage issue.
    Plenty of gas power stations that can be powered up/down if necessary, and there will still be some baseline load from nuclear. No doubt we'll always need more energy though.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,274
    Boris finishes his great speech...and then walks off down the corridoor
  • MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    This offshore wind stuff is just such a load of rubbish.

    Why? It is a good and increasingly cheap natural resource the UK has.

    The UK leading the world in cheap, clean and reliable power generation will enable the UK private sector to have a competitive advantage in anything that uses electricity, which in the 21st century is everything.

    The disastrous idea of XR and the Blair/Brown Labour government was to simply tax and cut demand on electricity. Having bountiful cheap clean energy enables our manufacturers and every other consumer of it to compete.
    Wind isn't reliable, though, it's an intermittent power generation system. Which is fine in a diversified grid which has power storage capacity for when the wind is blowing and no one has the lights on to be used when the lights are on and the wind isn't blowing. It's not fine here though, it's a very poor idea. Tidal barrages make much more sense here, we're an island nation. It inherently solves the storage issue.
    Offshore wind actually is very reliable, onshore wind less so but that's why much more emphasis and investment is going to offshore now.

    Tidal barrages make a lot of sense too but they are complementary not competitive. Tidal barrages can be used as storage and as a backup to wind can't they?

    Both should be part of the solution. It isn't all or nothing.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,427
    HYUFD said:

    Boris finishes his great speech...and then walks off down the corridoor

    Thanks for the update.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 49,586

    kjh said:

    nichomar said:

    kjh said:

    algarkirk said:


    Wealth is a tricky subject. What is the real wealth of a couple aged 66 both entitled to £9,000+ per annum state pension (inflation proofed) and no other income or assets. They would pay no income tax or NI. Their 'wealth' on one basis is nil. But to buy a guaranteed income of £18000 per annum would cost several hundred thousand pounds. Which is their real wealth. You would have a difficult task taxing it.

    Far easier to tax those who have the same wealth saved up in a visible non tax- payer funded form. But could it truly be fair?

    Yes, I bet a couple of teachers retiring on an indexed-linked pension of £30,000 each at 65 wouldn't regard themselves as 'rich' - but between them they have an asset worth around £2.2m.

    (Best buy annuity rates for an index-linked pension at 65 are around 2.5% to 3% depending on the exact terms).
    Agree, assuming you missed the 'not' out eg 'not regard themselves as rich'.

    A combined income of £60K in retirement I think is very well off indeed, yet they they could have minimal assets that would attract any wealth tax at all, yet someone living on half that income from assets would be paying a wealth tax!
    60k with no mortgage etc is extremely comfortable, ours is over £50 k and can’t spend it unless it went oh holidays etc, not an option so it goes to the grandchildren with increasingly generous presents. I don’t need or want anything physical but I’m lucky in the extreme.
    As you can see this is close to my heart. I have an income of only £3K or £4K and I am retired. I live off of my assets which I accumulated for this purpose. I fail to see why my assets should be treated differently to a DB pension pot for wealth purposes, but if you include the value of a DB pot in a wealth calculation you will be bring into a wealth category many fairly lowish income people (as per Pagan's post - these pots are very valuable).

    I have no issue with paying higher council tax on my property (as suggested in HYUFDs post) or in fact paying CGT on my residential property when I sell it, which I will do for the cash and downsize, but the wealth tax for people who have made their own provision for retirement is a can of worms.
    I think people are missing the point that with an unfunded defined benefit scheme, there is no "pot", only a promise.
    Yet, in finance, it is a standard practise to convert different assets to a common valuation system, for comparison.

    Saying that the unfunded defined benefit scheme has a value equivalent to a pension pot with value "x" is quite fair.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 59,824

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    This offshore wind stuff is just such a load of rubbish.

    Why? It is a good and increasingly cheap natural resource the UK has.

    The UK leading the world in cheap, clean and reliable power generation will enable the UK private sector to have a competitive advantage in anything that uses electricity, which in the 21st century is everything.

    The disastrous idea of XR and the Blair/Brown Labour government was to simply tax and cut demand on electricity. Having bountiful cheap clean energy enables our manufacturers and every other consumer of it to compete.
    Wind isn't reliable, though, it's an intermittent power generation system. Which is fine in a diversified grid which has power storage capacity for when the wind is blowing and no one has the lights on to be used when the lights are on and the wind isn't blowing. It's not fine here though, it's a very poor idea. Tidal barrages make much more sense here, we're an island nation. It inherently solves the storage issue.
    Offshore wind actually is very reliable, onshore wind less so but that's why much more emphasis and investment is going to offshore now.

    Tidal barrages make a lot of sense too but they are complementary not competitive. Tidal barrages can be used as storage and as a backup to wind can't they?

    Both should be part of the solution. It isn't all or nothing.
    Yeah, stick it all in the mix and sell the surplus.
  • OnboardG1OnboardG1 Posts: 1,589

    HYUFD said:

    Boris tells Scottish Nationalists to 'pull back together and build a better Britain in every part of our United Kingdom'

    I'm sure they'll definitely listen to him.
    I don't think anyone in Scotland is listening to him right now.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,274
    edited October 2020
    CNN even has Biden winning white voters, if true would be the first time the Democratic candidate has won the white vote since LBJ in 1964. That is a big if however

    https://twitter.com/AllisonLHedges/status/1313425343173275649?s=20
  • RobDRobD Posts: 59,824
    HYUFD said:

    Boris finishes his great speech...and then walks off down the corridoor

    "Please clap" :D
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,344
    Scott_xP said:
    Oh I DO hope that's how it turns out.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 29,342
    HYUFD said:

    Boris finishes his great speech...and then walks off down the corridoor

    Which great speech was that?
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 18,080
    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    This offshore wind stuff is just such a load of rubbish.

    Why? It is a good and increasingly cheap natural resource the UK has.

    The UK leading the world in cheap, clean and reliable power generation will enable the UK private sector to have a competitive advantage in anything that uses electricity, which in the 21st century is everything.

    The disastrous idea of XR and the Blair/Brown Labour government was to simply tax and cut demand on electricity. Having bountiful cheap clean energy enables our manufacturers and every other consumer of it to compete.
    Wind isn't reliable, though, it's an intermittent power generation system. Which is fine in a diversified grid which has power storage capacity for when the wind is blowing and no one has the lights on to be used when the lights are on and the wind isn't blowing. It's not fine here though, it's a very poor idea. Tidal barrages make much more sense here, we're an island nation. It inherently solves the storage issue.
    The Hydrogen part of his plan, as trailed, would be intended to deal with the storage issue (and a few others). There's some hopeful stuff about this in an alternative plan punished in the Guardian (the areas of overlap and difference are interesting).

    Sadly both plans ignore tidal, which we should certainly exploit as well.

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/oct/06/a-nine-point-plan-for-the-uk-to-achieve-net-zero-carbon-emissions
  • welshowlwelshowl Posts: 4,464

    kjh said:

    nichomar said:

    kjh said:

    algarkirk said:


    Wealth is a tricky subject. What is the real wealth of a couple aged 66 both entitled to £9,000+ per annum state pension (inflation proofed) and no other income or assets. They would pay no income tax or NI. Their 'wealth' on one basis is nil. But to buy a guaranteed income of £18000 per annum would cost several hundred thousand pounds. Which is their real wealth. You would have a difficult task taxing it.

    Far easier to tax those who have the same wealth saved up in a visible non tax- payer funded form. But could it truly be fair?

    Yes, I bet a couple of teachers retiring on an indexed-linked pension of £30,000 each at 65 wouldn't regard themselves as 'rich' - but between them they have an asset worth around £2.2m.

    (Best buy annuity rates for an index-linked pension at 65 are around 2.5% to 3% depending on the exact terms).
    Agree, assuming you missed the 'not' out eg 'not regard themselves as rich'.

    A combined income of £60K in retirement I think is very well off indeed, yet they they could have minimal assets that would attract any wealth tax at all, yet someone living on half that income from assets would be paying a wealth tax!
    60k with no mortgage etc is extremely comfortable, ours is over £50 k and can’t spend it unless it went oh holidays etc, not an option so it goes to the grandchildren with increasingly generous presents. I don’t need or want anything physical but I’m lucky in the extreme.
    As you can see this is close to my heart. I have an income of only £3K or £4K and I am retired. I live off of my assets which I accumulated for this purpose. I fail to see why my assets should be treated differently to a DB pension pot for wealth purposes, but if you include the value of a DB pot in a wealth calculation you will be bring into a wealth category many fairly lowish income people (as per Pagan's post - these pots are very valuable).

    I have no issue with paying higher council tax on my property (as suggested in HYUFDs post) or in fact paying CGT on my residential property when I sell it, which I will do for the cash and downsize, but the wealth tax for people who have made their own provision for retirement is a can of worms.
    I think people are missing the point that with an unfunded defined benefit scheme, there is no "pot", only a promise.
    Yes but that’s not the recipient’s issue (who will be protected by the Pension Protrction Fund or the taxpayer anyway) that’s the pension provider’s problem.

    The teacher ( to use them as examples) getting their inflation proof pension of 30k at 65 still has something tangible in the shape of an income that would cost well over a £million to buy on the open market. They are far wealthier, notwithstanding the state of the collective pension pot they are drawing from, than someone who has a four or five properties worth say 900k and nothing else. It’s just one is more visible than the other, and people don’t understand pensions generally, but do know what a house looks like.
  • RobD said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    This offshore wind stuff is just such a load of rubbish.

    Why? It is a good and increasingly cheap natural resource the UK has.

    The UK leading the world in cheap, clean and reliable power generation will enable the UK private sector to have a competitive advantage in anything that uses electricity, which in the 21st century is everything.

    The disastrous idea of XR and the Blair/Brown Labour government was to simply tax and cut demand on electricity. Having bountiful cheap clean energy enables our manufacturers and every other consumer of it to compete.
    Wind isn't reliable, though, it's an intermittent power generation system. Which is fine in a diversified grid which has power storage capacity for when the wind is blowing and no one has the lights on to be used when the lights are on and the wind isn't blowing. It's not fine here though, it's a very poor idea. Tidal barrages make much more sense here, we're an island nation. It inherently solves the storage issue.
    Offshore wind actually is very reliable, onshore wind less so but that's why much more emphasis and investment is going to offshore now.

    Tidal barrages make a lot of sense too but they are complementary not competitive. Tidal barrages can be used as storage and as a backup to wind can't they?

    Both should be part of the solution. It isn't all or nothing.
    Yeah, stick it all in the mix and sell the surplus.
    Precisely!

    Offshore Wind now is increasingly cheap and cheaper as far as I understand than coal or any other alternative. If we end up having too much clean energy then we can sell it on, or incentivise businesses to be able to operate when there is an energy surplus to be able to phase in and off consuming the energy surplus with very cheap electricity. I am sure there are some smart business ideas out there that could find clever ways to manufacture on that basis.

    We should be getting and using as much cheap energy as we can. We should turn our back on the idea that consuming energy is a bad thing, it is a good thing when used cleanly and smartly and would give our manufacturers an advantage.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,707

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    This offshore wind stuff is just such a load of rubbish.

    Why? It is a good and increasingly cheap natural resource the UK has.

    The UK leading the world in cheap, clean and reliable power generation will enable the UK private sector to have a competitive advantage in anything that uses electricity, which in the 21st century is everything.

    The disastrous idea of XR and the Blair/Brown Labour government was to simply tax and cut demand on electricity. Having bountiful cheap clean energy enables our manufacturers and every other consumer of it to compete.
    Wind isn't reliable, though, it's an intermittent power generation system. Which is fine in a diversified grid which has power storage capacity for when the wind is blowing and no one has the lights on to be used when the lights are on and the wind isn't blowing. It's not fine here though, it's a very poor idea. Tidal barrages make much more sense here, we're an island nation. It inherently solves the storage issue.
    The Hydrogen part of his plan, as trailed, would be intended to deal with the storage issue (and a few others). There's some hopeful stuff about this in an alternative plan punished in the Guardian (the areas of overlap and difference are interesting).

    Sadly both plans ignore tidal, which we should certainly exploit as well.

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/oct/06/a-nine-point-plan-for-the-uk-to-achieve-net-zero-carbon-emissions
    Tidal would be great but the RSBP is a monster, no politician with a sense of self-preservation will fuck with it
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 70,513
    edited October 2020
    .

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    This offshore wind stuff is just such a load of rubbish.

    Why? It is a good and increasingly cheap natural resource the UK has.

    The UK leading the world in cheap, clean and reliable power generation will enable the UK private sector to have a competitive advantage in anything that uses electricity, which in the 21st century is everything.

    The disastrous idea of XR and the Blair/Brown Labour government was to simply tax and cut demand on electricity. Having bountiful cheap clean energy enables our manufacturers and every other consumer of it to compete.
    Wind isn't reliable, though, it's an intermittent power generation system. Which is fine in a diversified grid which has power storage capacity for when the wind is blowing and no one has the lights on to be used when the lights are on and the wind isn't blowing. It's not fine here though, it's a very poor idea. Tidal barrages make much more sense here, we're an island nation. It inherently solves the storage issue.
    The Hydrogen part of his plan, as trailed, would be intended to deal with the storage issue (and a few others). There's some hopeful stuff about this in an alternative plan punished in the Guardian (the areas of overlap and difference are interesting).

    Sadly both plans ignore tidal, which we should certainly exploit as well.

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/oct/06/a-nine-point-plan-for-the-uk-to-achieve-net-zero-carbon-emissions
    Scrap the CCS, and build tidal barrages/lagoons.

    And while we're about it, get rid of the size restrictions on onshore wind, which are getting more absurd as the technology advances.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 62,401
    https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1313432776083795968

    We will be stuck in this lockdown loop for years unless ministers change their attitude to risk.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 70,513
    I see Penrose got the Nobel.

    Along with some German fellows...
    https://twitter.com/maxplanckpress/status/1313422722333118465
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,767
    The more Trump looks like losing, the more desperate he'll get.

    The most dangerous animal is a wounded one.
  • Stocky said:

    algarkirk said:


    Wealth is a tricky subject. What is the real wealth of a couple aged 66 both entitled to £9,000+ per annum state pension (inflation proofed) and no other income or assets. They would pay no income tax or NI. Their 'wealth' on one basis is nil. But to buy a guaranteed income of £18000 per annum would cost several hundred thousand pounds. Which is their real wealth. You would have a difficult task taxing it.

    Far easier to tax those who have the same wealth saved up in a visible non tax- payer funded form. But could it truly be fair?

    Yes, I bet a couple of teachers retiring on an indexed-linked pension of £30,000 each at 65 wouldn't regard themselves as 'rich' - but between them they have an asset worth around £2.2m.

    (Best buy annuity rates for an index-linked pension at 65 are around 2.5% to 3% depending on the exact terms).
    The richest person I know is my missus' aunt, who was a deputy head teacher for 1 year before taking early retirement at the age of 52. She freely admits that despite eating out every day and taking around 6-7 expensive holidays a year she literally can't spend all the money she gets from her pension.

    She is in her 70s now, but if her mum who is still alive at 101 is anything to go by then she could be getting this pension for 50 years.

    The average worker who gets nothing like this back from the government is going to be taxed even harder to pay for this stuff and it's completely unfair.

    Teachers can't take early retirement at 52 and haven't been able to for quite a while - if they ever were able to. However, putting that to one side, retiring at 52 would mean she was a teacher for a maximum of 30 years, including just one year as a deputy. On that basis, it is hard to imagine she would be getting a pension of more than £30,000 per annum. That is potentially very comfortable, but it is taxable and it is not going to allow you eat out every day and take 6-7 expensive holidays a year.

    £30,000 at 52 (or 55, or 60 for that matter) index-linked, and with a spouse`s pension if you die first is equivalent to £1m plus of capital in the real world. Are you serious?

    It would not have been £30,000 when that person retired. As I say, it is potentially very comfortable, it is not going to allow you to eat out every day and take six or seven expensive holidays a year.

  • StockyStocky Posts: 10,113
    edited October 2020
    kinabalu said:

    Stocky said:

    Stocky said:

    Stocky said:

    Perhaps the Conservatives should come up with a new tax, one that this is a fixed annual sum levied on every individual?

    Taxes are things that lots of people (particularly on the left) think should be increased but only for other people. I always think there should be a "voluntary tax" to see how many people genuinely want to pay more. It would be the ultimate in virtue signalling, with those that are paying more voluntarily publishing their extra funding that they are paying over so doctors and public "servants" can have even bigger pensions.
    Can be turned on its head somewhat. The warm glow one feels through donating to charity actually detracts from the tax-take as these days each donation can be offset against income tax (Gift Aid). Blair policy I think. I`d like to see this practice ended.
    If you recall, the coalition government tried to restrict it. There was a tsunami of indignation from the luvvies and Guardian-reading classes generally, and they had to give up the idea:

    https://www.libdemvoice.org/time-for-nick-clegg-and-the-coalition-to-see-sense-and-stop-the-charity-tax-27944.html
    Wow is there nothing that isn't blamed on (a) Tony Blair or (b) "Luvvies"/Guardian readers in PB Tory Land?
    Gift Aid was actually introduced by the Tories in 1990, but rather characteristically they thought it should only be available to those rich enough to be giving away £600 or more. Labour simply made it available to all taxpayers by abolishing the lower limit, perhaps that is what irks people on here.
    Personally I think charity is something that should be encouraged.
    I think it should be encouraged too, but not at the expense of the exchequer.
    If not abolished how about have the tax relief apply only to small donations? An incentive to give (over and above the warm feeling in the cockles) but not for HNW individuals to abuse with the sort of devious "schemes" that are often thought up and which are not really charitable.
    That would be an improvement, though in addition to HNW individuals who undoubtedly do the abusing you need to add dubious practices of some charities whose role seems to me to be more about raising money for the people that work within the organisation above raising money on behalf of the good cause that underlies it.

    Being a lefty, I guess you are are generally not in favour of charity - that needs should be met by the state? If so, in that we agree.
  • OnboardG1OnboardG1 Posts: 1,589

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    This offshore wind stuff is just such a load of rubbish.

    Why? It is a good and increasingly cheap natural resource the UK has.

    The UK leading the world in cheap, clean and reliable power generation will enable the UK private sector to have a competitive advantage in anything that uses electricity, which in the 21st century is everything.

    The disastrous idea of XR and the Blair/Brown Labour government was to simply tax and cut demand on electricity. Having bountiful cheap clean energy enables our manufacturers and every other consumer of it to compete.
    Wind isn't reliable, though, it's an intermittent power generation system. Which is fine in a diversified grid which has power storage capacity for when the wind is blowing and no one has the lights on to be used when the lights are on and the wind isn't blowing. It's not fine here though, it's a very poor idea. Tidal barrages make much more sense here, we're an island nation. It inherently solves the storage issue.
    Offshore wind actually is very reliable, onshore wind less so but that's why much more emphasis and investment is going to offshore now.

    Tidal barrages make a lot of sense too but they are complementary not competitive. Tidal barrages can be used as storage and as a backup to wind can't they?

    Both should be part of the solution. It isn't all or nothing.
    I think the idea for smaller scale nuclear reactors is a pretty decent one. I know a couple of <100MW units have regulatory approval. They're faster to deploy but have less economy of scale than the big reactors so they're probably a good stopgap while the bigger ones get built (which we should be doing with state money frankly, this buggering around with private finance and having people pull out is just a mess).
  • kle4 said:

    Long way to go. But he has a lot to overcome, and a lot that needs to go right for him.
    Do you think there is still a chance he could win?

    I think there's a lot of shy Trump voters, but not enough to overcome these polling numbers. And don't forget the Democrat postal vote dividend.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 38,528

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    This offshore wind stuff is just such a load of rubbish.

    Why? It is a good and increasingly cheap natural resource the UK has.

    The UK leading the world in cheap, clean and reliable power generation will enable the UK private sector to have a competitive advantage in anything that uses electricity, which in the 21st century is everything.

    The disastrous idea of XR and the Blair/Brown Labour government was to simply tax and cut demand on electricity. Having bountiful cheap clean energy enables our manufacturers and every other consumer of it to compete.
    Wind isn't reliable, though, it's an intermittent power generation system. Which is fine in a diversified grid which has power storage capacity for when the wind is blowing and no one has the lights on to be used when the lights are on and the wind isn't blowing. It's not fine here though, it's a very poor idea. Tidal barrages make much more sense here, we're an island nation. It inherently solves the storage issue.
    Offshore wind actually is very reliable, onshore wind less so but that's why much more emphasis and investment is going to offshore now.

    Tidal barrages make a lot of sense too but they are complementary not competitive. Tidal barrages can be used as storage and as a backup to wind can't they?

    Both should be part of the solution. It isn't all or nothing.
    Offshore wind needs a huge amount of backup capacity because it doesn't have a power storage mechanism. Tidal barrages are inherently better because they come with a power storage solution. I guess you could conceivably use a tidal reservoir as power storage for offshore wind, put the pumps into reverse with excess energy but I'm not sure how feasible it is.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 62,401
    Alistair said:
    Still not enough for me. Still very worried.
  • FlatlanderFlatlander Posts: 4,598
    edited October 2020

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    Hold on, who gets a training course in engineering? Pretty sure that's a degree.

    Duh! BTECs?
    Not sure you can do a BTEC in chemical engineering!
    "Engineer" not being a protected title like in other countries means that the word is meaningless.

    When I was doing my mechanical engineering undergraduate degree, I had people ask me that they didn't realise you had to do a degree to do MOTs... :|
    Ouch. That's definitely worth a rant. I'd expect the person designing the MOT test has a degree.

    My course included both mixing concrete in a bucket and solving Schrödinger's equation, so I suppose Engineering does cover quite a large range. Mostly a lot of partial differential equations though...
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 41,947
    Pulpstar said:

    Biden is already banking his votes whilst swings against Trump will probably be magnified come polling day.
    Trump being shorter than 2-1 for the contest is nuts right now anyway.

    I think the price will collapse soon as the penny drops.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 59,824
    Nigelb said:

    I see Penrose got the Nobel.

    Along with some German fellows...
    https://twitter.com/maxplanckpress/status/1313422722333118465

    For discovering the densest thing in the galaxy. Not on Earth, either!
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 62,401
    Actually it is just plain deluded.

    He is increasingly out of touch with reality.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 38,528
    Nigelb said:

    I see Penrose got the Nobel.

    Along with some German fellows...
    https://twitter.com/maxplanckpress/status/1313422722333118465

    Wonderful news!
  • kjhkjh Posts: 11,695
    edited October 2020
    welshowl said:

    kjh said:

    nichomar said:

    kjh said:

    algarkirk said:


    Wealth is a tricky subject. What is the real wealth of a couple aged 66 both entitled to £9,000+ per annum state pension (inflation proofed) and no other income or assets. They would pay no income tax or NI. Their 'wealth' on one basis is nil. But to buy a guaranteed income of £18000 per annum would cost several hundred thousand pounds. Which is their real wealth. You would have a difficult task taxing it.

    Far easier to tax those who have the same wealth saved up in a visible non tax- payer funded form. But could it truly be fair?

    Yes, I bet a couple of teachers retiring on an indexed-linked pension of £30,000 each at 65 wouldn't regard themselves as 'rich' - but between them they have an asset worth around £2.2m.

    (Best buy annuity rates for an index-linked pension at 65 are around 2.5% to 3% depending on the exact terms).
    Agree, assuming you missed the 'not' out eg 'not regard themselves as rich'.

    A combined income of £60K in retirement I think is very well off indeed, yet they they could have minimal assets that would attract any wealth tax at all, yet someone living on half that income from assets would be paying a wealth tax!
    60k with no mortgage etc is extremely comfortable, ours is over £50 k and can’t spend it unless it went oh holidays etc, not an option so it goes to the grandchildren with increasingly generous presents. I don’t need or want anything physical but I’m lucky in the extreme.
    As you can see this is close to my heart. I have an income of only £3K or £4K and I am retired. I live off of my assets which I accumulated for this purpose. I fail to see why my assets should be treated differently to a DB pension pot for wealth purposes, but if you include the value of a DB pot in a wealth calculation you will be bring into a wealth category many fairly lowish income people (aser Pagan's post - these pots are very valuable).

    I have no issue with paying higher council tax on my property (as suggested in HYUFDs post) or in fact paying CGT on my residential property when I sell it, which I will do for the cash and downsize, but the wealth tax for people who have made their own provision for retirement is a can of worms.
    I think people are missing the point that with an unfunded defined benefit scheme, there is no "pot", only a promise.
    Yes but that’s not the recipient’s issue (who will be protected by the Pension Protrction Fund or the taxpayer anyway) that’s the pension provider’s problem.

    The teacher ( to use them as examples) getting their inflation proof pension of 30k at 65 still has something tangible in the shape of an income that would cost well over a £million to buy on the open market. They are far wealthier, notwithstanding the state of the collective pension pot they are drawing from, than someone who has a four or five properties worth say 900k and nothing else. It’s just one is more visible than the other, and people don’t understand pensions generally, but do know what a house looks like.
    Agree 100%. In particular not understanding the pension which is why when Gordon Brown removed the dividend tax credit for pension funds very few saw they were in effect having a tax added. Everyone would have seen a 1p on income tax. The impact of what he did was also disastrous and contributed to some funds entering the FAS and PPF.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,274
    Alistair said:
    Would not go that far, CNN's final 2016 poll was Clinton 51% Trump 45%.

    So clearly overestimated Clinton's popular vote lead though even on the same margin of error Biden would win this time

    http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2016/images/10/24/cnn.poll.pdf
  • kinabalu said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Biden is already banking his votes whilst swings against Trump will probably be magnified come polling day.
    Trump being shorter than 2-1 for the contest is nuts right now anyway.

    I think the price will collapse soon as the penny drops.
    Agreed.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 95,872
    Cyclefree said:

    kle4 said:

    Cyclefree said:

    That would exclude them from a job in the media though.....
    For the love of God! Are we expected to have no cultural life at all? No social life? No leisure activities? No tourism?

    Are the entire arts, culture, leisure, tourism sectors simply to be killed?

    According to this government, apparently so.

    Give me strength.
    Not that things should be trivialised at all, but we seem so unprepared mentally as a society that we forget life went on for people during far worse pandemics. In a different way, sure, and in the worst society almost collapsed, but life and, yes, culture went on.

    We could cut down on a lot of deaths by being this way forever but no-one would think that ok, I hope .
    A point I have been making ad nauseam both below the line and on thread headers.

    Well you know at least one person read them then ;)
  • https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1313432776083795968

    We will be stuck in this lockdown loop for years unless ministers change their attitude to risk.

    If Boris on March had kept saying its going to be 2 years at least, the lockdown wouldn't have lasted 2 mins. I firmly believe this shifting the goalposts is on the advice of behavioural insight people.
  • contrariancontrarian Posts: 5,818
    I tell you now.

    Do not get a smart meter. Do not. The energy companies will use it to black you out when the inevitable gargantuan shortages of energy, any energy, cheap expensive, any, come. As they surely will.

    Make no mistake, these policies are brave new world Maoism, and the results will be the same.

  • algarkirk said:


    Wealth is a tricky subject. What is the real wealth of a couple aged 66 both entitled to £9,000+ per annum state pension (inflation proofed) and no other income or assets. They would pay no income tax or NI. Their 'wealth' on one basis is nil. But to buy a guaranteed income of £18000 per annum would cost several hundred thousand pounds. Which is their real wealth. You would have a difficult task taxing it.

    Far easier to tax those who have the same wealth saved up in a visible non tax- payer funded form. But could it truly be fair?

    Yes, I bet a couple of teachers retiring on an indexed-linked pension of £30,000 each at 65 wouldn't regard themselves as 'rich' - but between them they have an asset worth around £2.2m.

    (Best buy annuity rates for an index-linked pension at 65 are around 2.5% to 3% depending on the exact terms).
    The richest person I know is my missus' aunt, who was a deputy head teacher for 1 year before taking early retirement at the age of 52. She freely admits that despite eating out every day and taking around 6-7 expensive holidays a year she literally can't spend all the money she gets from her pension.

    She is in her 70s now, but if her mum who is still alive at 101 is anything to go by then she could be getting this pension for 50 years.

    The average worker who gets nothing like this back from the government is going to be taxed even harder to pay for this stuff and it's completely unfair.

    Teachers can't take early retirement at 52 and haven't been able to for quite a while - if they ever were able to. However, putting that to one side, retiring at 52 would mean she was a teacher for a maximum of 30 years, including just one year as a deputy. On that basis, it is hard to imagine she would be getting a pension of more than £30,000 per annum. That is potentially very comfortable, but it is taxable and it is not going to allow you eat out every day and take 6-7 expensive holidays a year.

    She retired about 25 years ago, so maybe the rules have changed. I am pretty sure younger teachers won't be getting anything like the same pension when they retire.

    That makes a bit more sense. My 56 year-old wife can't take her teacher pension until she is 66. She was a teacher for around 20 years and ended as a deputy, and will not be hitting close to even £15,000 a year.

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 95,872
    Sigh. That's just plain lazy in its attempts to stoke the Brexit fires.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    edited October 2020
    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    This offshore wind stuff is just such a load of rubbish.

    Why? It is a good and increasingly cheap natural resource the UK has.

    The UK leading the world in cheap, clean and reliable power generation will enable the UK private sector to have a competitive advantage in anything that uses electricity, which in the 21st century is everything.

    The disastrous idea of XR and the Blair/Brown Labour government was to simply tax and cut demand on electricity. Having bountiful cheap clean energy enables our manufacturers and every other consumer of it to compete.
    Wind isn't reliable, though, it's an intermittent power generation system. Which is fine in a diversified grid which has power storage capacity for when the wind is blowing and no one has the lights on to be used when the lights are on and the wind isn't blowing. It's not fine here though, it's a very poor idea. Tidal barrages make much more sense here, we're an island nation. It inherently solves the storage issue.
    Offshore wind actually is very reliable, onshore wind less so but that's why much more emphasis and investment is going to offshore now.

    Tidal barrages make a lot of sense too but they are complementary not competitive. Tidal barrages can be used as storage and as a backup to wind can't they?

    Both should be part of the solution. It isn't all or nothing.
    Offshore wind needs a huge amount of backup capacity because it doesn't have a power storage mechanism. Tidal barrages are inherently better because they come with a power storage solution. I guess you could conceivably use a tidal reservoir as power storage for offshore wind, put the pumps into reverse with excess energy but I'm not sure how feasible it is.
    Indeed but backup technology is improving and offshore wind now is coming in at below £40/MWh and still falling, can tidal or nuclear do that?

    Given how increasingly cheap offshore wind is I see no reason we shouldn't be maximising our generation of it.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 62,401
    That's odd. Because my recollection is the discussions of his health were driven by leaks to people like Tim Shipman from the heart of government and from 'friends' of Johnson.

  • OnboardG1OnboardG1 Posts: 1,589

    Actually it is just plain deluded.

    He is increasingly out of touch with reality.
    The gentleman doth protest too much. A house divided cannot stand, and you don't fill in divisions by pretending they don't exist.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 70,513

    RobD said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    This offshore wind stuff is just such a load of rubbish.

    Why? It is a good and increasingly cheap natural resource the UK has.

    The UK leading the world in cheap, clean and reliable power generation will enable the UK private sector to have a competitive advantage in anything that uses electricity, which in the 21st century is everything.

    The disastrous idea of XR and the Blair/Brown Labour government was to simply tax and cut demand on electricity. Having bountiful cheap clean energy enables our manufacturers and every other consumer of it to compete.
    Wind isn't reliable, though, it's an intermittent power generation system. Which is fine in a diversified grid which has power storage capacity for when the wind is blowing and no one has the lights on to be used when the lights are on and the wind isn't blowing. It's not fine here though, it's a very poor idea. Tidal barrages make much more sense here, we're an island nation. It inherently solves the storage issue.
    Offshore wind actually is very reliable, onshore wind less so but that's why much more emphasis and investment is going to offshore now.

    Tidal barrages make a lot of sense too but they are complementary not competitive. Tidal barrages can be used as storage and as a backup to wind can't they?

    Both should be part of the solution. It isn't all or nothing.
    Yeah, stick it all in the mix and sell the surplus.
    Precisely!

    Offshore Wind now is increasingly cheap and cheaper as far as I understand than coal or any other alternative...
    Rather more expensive than onshore wind. :smile:
    And solar from N Africa might be significantly cheaper in time.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    Boris finishes his great speech...and then walks off down the corridoor

    Which great speech was that?
    At least after all that blather and blether he wasn't out of puff......
  • welshowlwelshowl Posts: 4,464

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    This offshore wind stuff is just such a load of rubbish.

    Why? It is a good and increasingly cheap natural resource the UK has.

    The UK leading the world in cheap, clean and reliable power generation will enable the UK private sector to have a competitive advantage in anything that uses electricity, which in the 21st century is everything.

    The disastrous idea of XR and the Blair/Brown Labour government was to simply tax and cut demand on electricity. Having bountiful cheap clean energy enables our manufacturers and every other consumer of it to compete.
    Wind isn't reliable, though, it's an intermittent power generation system. Which is fine in a diversified grid which has power storage capacity for when the wind is blowing and no one has the lights on to be used when the lights are on and the wind isn't blowing. It's not fine here though, it's a very poor idea. Tidal barrages make much more sense here, we're an island nation. It inherently solves the storage issue.
    The Hydrogen part of his plan, as trailed, would be intended to deal with the storage issue (and a few others). There's some hopeful stuff about this in an alternative plan punished in the Guardian (the areas of overlap and difference are interesting).

    Sadly both plans ignore tidal, which we should certainly exploit as well.

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/oct/06/a-nine-point-plan-for-the-uk-to-achieve-net-zero-carbon-emissions
    Tidal would be great but the RSBP is a monster, no politician with a sense of self-preservation will fuck with it
    Well eggs and omelettes.

    I’m sure our feathered friends would thank us for providing a cleaner environment through carbon free power from tides in the long run.

    Really it beggars belief we haven’t done more on tidal. We are an island surrounded by some of the biggest tides in the world. It’s totally predictable, reliable, clean, and secure. It’s an area ideal for govt to step in with a few billion as seed corn to take the hits as stuff is ironed out in pilot projects. It’s also hugely exportable technology once you’ve built up your know how.

    Even Greta bloody Thunberg would probably not object.

    We should get on with it!
  • contrariancontrarian Posts: 5,818

    https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1313432776083795968

    We will be stuck in this lockdown loop for years unless ministers change their attitude to risk.

    If Boris on March had kept saying its going to be 2 years at least, the lockdown wouldn't have lasted 2 mins. I firmly believe this shifting the goalposts is on the advice of behavioural insight people.
    Many people don't seem to care.

  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 41,947

    kinabalu said:

    Stocky said:

    Stocky said:

    Perhaps the Conservatives should come up with a new tax, one that this is a fixed annual sum levied on every individual?

    Taxes are things that lots of people (particularly on the left) think should be increased but only for other people. I always think there should be a "voluntary tax" to see how many people genuinely want to pay more. It would be the ultimate in virtue signalling, with those that are paying more voluntarily publishing their extra funding that they are paying over so doctors and public "servants" can have even bigger pensions.
    Can be turned on its head somewhat. The warm glow one feels through donating to charity actually detracts from the tax-take as these days each donation can be offset against income tax (Gift Aid). Blair policy I think. I`d like to see this practice ended.
    If you recall, the coalition government tried to restrict it. There was a tsunami of indignation from the luvvies and Guardian-reading classes generally, and they had to give up the idea:

    https://www.libdemvoice.org/time-for-nick-clegg-and-the-coalition-to-see-sense-and-stop-the-charity-tax-27944.html
    Wow is there nothing that isn't blamed on (a) Tony Blair or (b) "Luvvies"/Guardian readers in PB Tory Land?
    Gift Aid was actually introduced by the Tories in 1990, but rather characteristically they thought it should only be available to those rich enough to be giving away £600 or more. Labour simply made it available to all taxpayers by abolishing the lower limit, perhaps that is what irks people on here.
    Personally I think charity is something that should be encouraged.
    My favourite is the financial crash was Bill Clinton's fault for encouraging home ownership amongst the impecunious.
    Bill Clinton de-regulated parts of the financial markets - in exactly the way that Bush I refused to do. This enabled the banks to play Monopoly with even more money. What could possibly go wrong?
    Sure. A factor. There were so many factors. But hardly the prime culprit for the abdication of the noble art of risk management by almost the entire financial sector.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,427

    I tell you now.

    Do not get a smart meter. Do not. The energy companies will use it to black you out when the inevitable gargantuan shortages of energy, any energy, cheap expensive, any, come. As they surely will.

    Make no mistake, these policies are brave new world Maoism, and the results will be the same.

    Conspiracy theory rubbish.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 21,965
    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    Hold on, who gets a training course in engineering? Pretty sure that's a degree.

    Duh! BTECs?
    Not sure you can do a BTEC in chemical engineering!
    It's the Chemical Engineers with PPE degrees that you need to watch out for!
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,427
  • welshowl said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    This offshore wind stuff is just such a load of rubbish.

    Why? It is a good and increasingly cheap natural resource the UK has.

    The UK leading the world in cheap, clean and reliable power generation will enable the UK private sector to have a competitive advantage in anything that uses electricity, which in the 21st century is everything.

    The disastrous idea of XR and the Blair/Brown Labour government was to simply tax and cut demand on electricity. Having bountiful cheap clean energy enables our manufacturers and every other consumer of it to compete.
    Wind isn't reliable, though, it's an intermittent power generation system. Which is fine in a diversified grid which has power storage capacity for when the wind is blowing and no one has the lights on to be used when the lights are on and the wind isn't blowing. It's not fine here though, it's a very poor idea. Tidal barrages make much more sense here, we're an island nation. It inherently solves the storage issue.
    The Hydrogen part of his plan, as trailed, would be intended to deal with the storage issue (and a few others). There's some hopeful stuff about this in an alternative plan punished in the Guardian (the areas of overlap and difference are interesting).

    Sadly both plans ignore tidal, which we should certainly exploit as well.

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/oct/06/a-nine-point-plan-for-the-uk-to-achieve-net-zero-carbon-emissions
    Tidal would be great but the RSBP is a monster, no politician with a sense of self-preservation will fuck with it
    Well eggs and omelettes.

    I’m sure our feathered friends would thank us for providing a cleaner environment through carbon free power from tides in the long run.

    Really it beggars belief we haven’t done more on tidal. We are an island surrounded by some of the biggest tides in the world. It’s totally predictable, reliable, clean, and secure. It’s an area ideal for govt to step in with a few billion as seed corn to take the hits as stuff is ironed out in pilot projects. It’s also hugely exportable technology once you’ve built up your know how.

    Even Greta bloody Thunberg would probably not object.

    We should get on with it!
    Too many greenies object to any development. A lot of them really are socialists masking as greens.

    The RSPB has in the past objected to both tidal and wind.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    edited October 2020
    HYUFD said:

    Alistair said:
    Would not go that far, CNN's final 2016 poll was Clinton 51% Trump 45%.

    So clearly overestimated Clinton's popular vote lead though even on the same margin of error Biden would win this time

    http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2016/images/10/24/cnn.poll.pdf
    That was ORC as the polling company. This is SRSS.

    you can tell it's better because it sounds like Serious
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 62,401

    Scott_xP said:
    He feels the best he has felt for 20yrs

    So apparently the cycle with the drugs they're giving him goes
    1) Exuberance
    2) Anxiety
    3) Depression

    The problem for Biden is if he gets to stage (3) and throws the thing over to Pence, but hopefully he'll take some other drugs to compensate, and whatever he takes won't prove lethal.
    He'll only be taking the drugs if he really has the virus. I'm sceptical to say the least.
  • Nigelb said:

    RobD said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    This offshore wind stuff is just such a load of rubbish.

    Why? It is a good and increasingly cheap natural resource the UK has.

    The UK leading the world in cheap, clean and reliable power generation will enable the UK private sector to have a competitive advantage in anything that uses electricity, which in the 21st century is everything.

    The disastrous idea of XR and the Blair/Brown Labour government was to simply tax and cut demand on electricity. Having bountiful cheap clean energy enables our manufacturers and every other consumer of it to compete.
    Wind isn't reliable, though, it's an intermittent power generation system. Which is fine in a diversified grid which has power storage capacity for when the wind is blowing and no one has the lights on to be used when the lights are on and the wind isn't blowing. It's not fine here though, it's a very poor idea. Tidal barrages make much more sense here, we're an island nation. It inherently solves the storage issue.
    Offshore wind actually is very reliable, onshore wind less so but that's why much more emphasis and investment is going to offshore now.

    Tidal barrages make a lot of sense too but they are complementary not competitive. Tidal barrages can be used as storage and as a backup to wind can't they?

    Both should be part of the solution. It isn't all or nothing.
    Yeah, stick it all in the mix and sell the surplus.
    Precisely!

    Offshore Wind now is increasingly cheap and cheaper as far as I understand than coal or any other alternative...
    Rather more expensive than onshore wind. :smile:
    And solar from N Africa might be significantly cheaper in time.
    Not anymore its not. The price difference has been eliminated thanks to increasingly massive and powerful turbines that can't work on land.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 38,528
    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Stocky said:

    Stocky said:

    Perhaps the Conservatives should come up with a new tax, one that this is a fixed annual sum levied on every individual?

    Taxes are things that lots of people (particularly on the left) think should be increased but only for other people. I always think there should be a "voluntary tax" to see how many people genuinely want to pay more. It would be the ultimate in virtue signalling, with those that are paying more voluntarily publishing their extra funding that they are paying over so doctors and public "servants" can have even bigger pensions.
    Can be turned on its head somewhat. The warm glow one feels through donating to charity actually detracts from the tax-take as these days each donation can be offset against income tax (Gift Aid). Blair policy I think. I`d like to see this practice ended.
    If you recall, the coalition government tried to restrict it. There was a tsunami of indignation from the luvvies and Guardian-reading classes generally, and they had to give up the idea:

    https://www.libdemvoice.org/time-for-nick-clegg-and-the-coalition-to-see-sense-and-stop-the-charity-tax-27944.html
    Wow is there nothing that isn't blamed on (a) Tony Blair or (b) "Luvvies"/Guardian readers in PB Tory Land?
    Gift Aid was actually introduced by the Tories in 1990, but rather characteristically they thought it should only be available to those rich enough to be giving away £600 or more. Labour simply made it available to all taxpayers by abolishing the lower limit, perhaps that is what irks people on here.
    Personally I think charity is something that should be encouraged.
    My favourite is the financial crash was Bill Clinton's fault for encouraging home ownership amongst the impecunious.
    Bill Clinton de-regulated parts of the financial markets - in exactly the way that Bush I refused to do. This enabled the banks to play Monopoly with even more money. What could possibly go wrong?
    Sure. A factor. There were so many factors. But hardly the prime culprit for the abdication of the noble art of risk management by almost the entire financial sector.
    A law that forced banks to give loans to unsuitable people was always going to end in banks doing whatever they could to get that dirt quality asset off their books. That's exactly what we saw happen with a whole bunch of dodgy asset classes created to help hide the dirt.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 95,872

    kle4 said:

    Long way to go. But he has a lot to overcome, and a lot that needs to go right for him.
    Do you think there is still a chance he could win?

    I think there's a lot of shy Trump voters, but not enough to overcome these polling numbers. And don't forget the Democrat postal vote dividend.
    Never say never. 2016 was a rare occasion i never really thought an outcome had a shot even though I said so (not a matter of dishonesty, just the shock of it showed I hadn't really believed myself) and anything close will be tied up in legalities. So I overcompensate.

    But its hard to see a wide path for him now.
  • Boris needs to stick to his word.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 41,947

    Shagger making a speech about he wants to hang our national energy strategy on something that won't pull the skin off a rice pudding.

    Like I said - tilting at windmills
    We are going to be "beating the world" at something or other again, I gather.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 62,401
    This week:

    https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1313433875398512641

    In six months, when unemployment is 4 or 5 million:

    "Get on your bikes and look for work away from where you live"
  • FlatlanderFlatlander Posts: 4,598
    edited October 2020
    welshowl said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    This offshore wind stuff is just such a load of rubbish.

    Why? It is a good and increasingly cheap natural resource the UK has.

    The UK leading the world in cheap, clean and reliable power generation will enable the UK private sector to have a competitive advantage in anything that uses electricity, which in the 21st century is everything.

    The disastrous idea of XR and the Blair/Brown Labour government was to simply tax and cut demand on electricity. Having bountiful cheap clean energy enables our manufacturers and every other consumer of it to compete.
    Wind isn't reliable, though, it's an intermittent power generation system. Which is fine in a diversified grid which has power storage capacity for when the wind is blowing and no one has the lights on to be used when the lights are on and the wind isn't blowing. It's not fine here though, it's a very poor idea. Tidal barrages make much more sense here, we're an island nation. It inherently solves the storage issue.
    The Hydrogen part of his plan, as trailed, would be intended to deal with the storage issue (and a few others). There's some hopeful stuff about this in an alternative plan punished in the Guardian (the areas of overlap and difference are interesting).

    Sadly both plans ignore tidal, which we should certainly exploit as well.

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/oct/06/a-nine-point-plan-for-the-uk-to-achieve-net-zero-carbon-emissions
    Tidal would be great but the RSBP is a monster, no politician with a sense of self-preservation will fuck with it
    Well eggs and omelettes.

    I’m sure our feathered friends would thank us for providing a cleaner environment through carbon free power from tides in the long run.

    Really it beggars belief we haven’t done more on tidal. We are an island surrounded by some of the biggest tides in the world. It’s totally predictable, reliable, clean, and secure. It’s an area ideal for govt to step in with a few billion as seed corn to take the hits as stuff is ironed out in pilot projects. It’s also hugely exportable technology once you’ve built up your know how.

    Even Greta bloody Thunberg would probably not object.

    We should get on with it!
    Turbines on the sea bed shouldn't annoy the RSPB too much. If we can get them to work reliably.

    There was a project to test one off Pembrokeshire but I'm not sure it has gone very well so far.

    If you stand on Duncansby Head looking at the Pentland Firth the sheer amount of power in the tidal stream is immediately obvious.

    It doesn't have to be a reservoir in the Severn Estuary.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    Hilary had polls with double digits leads much like this one at about this point
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 95,872
    I love hearing what I'd love to hear as much as the next man, but sometimes trying to sell too outrageous a dream just causes people to snap awake.
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 8,314
    edited October 2020

    algarkirk said:


    Wealth is a tricky subject. What is the real wealth of a couple aged 66 both entitled to £9,000+ per annum state pension (inflation proofed) and no other income or assets. They would pay no income tax or NI. Their 'wealth' on one basis is nil. But to buy a guaranteed income of £18000 per annum would cost several hundred thousand pounds. Which is their real wealth. You would have a difficult task taxing it.

    Far easier to tax those who have the same wealth saved up in a visible non tax- payer funded form. But could it truly be fair?

    Yes, I bet a couple of teachers retiring on an indexed-linked pension of £30,000 each at 65 wouldn't regard themselves as 'rich' - but between them they have an asset worth around £2.2m.

    (Best buy annuity rates for an index-linked pension at 65 are around 2.5% to 3% depending on the exact terms).
    The richest person I know is my missus' aunt, who was a deputy head teacher for 1 year before taking early retirement at the age of 52. She freely admits that despite eating out every day and taking around 6-7 expensive holidays a year she literally can't spend all the money she gets from her pension.

    She is in her 70s now, but if her mum who is still alive at 101 is anything to go by then she could be getting this pension for 50 years.

    The average worker who gets nothing like this back from the government is going to be taxed even harder to pay for this stuff and it's completely unfair.

    Teachers can't take early retirement at 52 and haven't been able to for quite a while - if they ever were able to. However, putting that to one side, retiring at 52 would mean she was a teacher for a maximum of 30 years, including just one year as a deputy. On that basis, it is hard to imagine she would be getting a pension of more than £30,000 per annum. That is potentially very comfortable, but it is taxable and it is not going to allow you eat out every day and take 6-7 expensive holidays a year.

    Yes, there's a lot of myths on here about teachers' pensions. If anybody wants to look at the reality, they can have a play around on here:

    https://www.teacherspensions.co.uk/members/calculators/

    This shows, for example, that a teacher who retires at 65 with 40 years service on £35K (at the high end for a main scale teacher) at the time of retirement will get a pension of £17.5K and a lump sum of £52.5K. Retiring at 60 reduces the pension to £13.5K. Only senior staff will have a salary high enough to get anywhere near the £30K pension many cite on here. It's also worth noting that teachers (and civil servants) pay a lot more of their salary into their pension than they did 10 years ago.
  • Meanwhile in restaurant land. From a weekly market insight email:

    "Meanwhile the latest reading from the Huq Index shows footfall in restaurants and pubs now back to pre-EOtHO levels - and falling. It seems to me that this is due to new restrictions arising from the second wave of covid which was totally predictable months ago. "

    No help to the industry beyond the immediate cash injection. Well worth the cash then...
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 38,528

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    Hold on, who gets a training course in engineering? Pretty sure that's a degree.

    Duh! BTECs?
    Not sure you can do a BTEC in chemical engineering!
    It's the Chemical Engineers with PPE degrees that you need to watch out for!
    His comment really drives home how little our current crop of politicans understand higher education.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,344

    HYUFD said:

    Boris tells Scottish Nationalists to 'pull back together and build a better Britain in every part of our United Kingdom'

    I'm sure they'll definitely listen to him.
    Where's Malc when he's needed.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    edited October 2020

    I tell you now.

    Do not get a smart meter. Do not. The energy companies will use it to black you out when the inevitable gargantuan shortages of energy, any energy, cheap expensive, any, come. As they surely will.

    Make no mistake, these policies are brave new world Maoism, and the results will be the same.

    Have you got any evidence for this conspiracy theory nonsense?

    And are you aware that blackouts and brownouts can occur without smart meters?
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 49,586
    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    This offshore wind stuff is just such a load of rubbish.

    Why? It is a good and increasingly cheap natural resource the UK has.

    The UK leading the world in cheap, clean and reliable power generation will enable the UK private sector to have a competitive advantage in anything that uses electricity, which in the 21st century is everything.

    The disastrous idea of XR and the Blair/Brown Labour government was to simply tax and cut demand on electricity. Having bountiful cheap clean energy enables our manufacturers and every other consumer of it to compete.
    Wind isn't reliable, though, it's an intermittent power generation system. Which is fine in a diversified grid which has power storage capacity for when the wind is blowing and no one has the lights on to be used when the lights are on and the wind isn't blowing. It's not fine here though, it's a very poor idea. Tidal barrages make much more sense here, we're an island nation. It inherently solves the storage issue.
    Offshore wind actually is very reliable, onshore wind less so but that's why much more emphasis and investment is going to offshore now.

    Tidal barrages make a lot of sense too but they are complementary not competitive. Tidal barrages can be used as storage and as a backup to wind can't they?

    Both should be part of the solution. It isn't all or nothing.
    Offshore wind needs a huge amount of backup capacity because it doesn't have a power storage mechanism. Tidal barrages are inherently better because they come with a power storage solution. I guess you could conceivably use a tidal reservoir as power storage for offshore wind, put the pumps into reverse with excess energy but I'm not sure how feasible it is.
    I thought that nearly all the schemes presented, for tidal ponds/barrages, have suggested storing "spare" grid power at suitable phases of the cycle (of the tidal system). Even if you wanted a different profile for the impellers etc, the cost of a set a pumps vs the cost of the tidal barrage in the first place.

    Mind you, I personally think that tidal ponds/barrages will not happen, due to the planning issues. More like is the tidal turbine idea - i.e. wind turbines under water (pretty much). This is because you don't have the massive infrastructure to cost (and push through planning) and it scales from 1 to 1000.
  • The big takeaways from the Johnson speech are that he still hasn't worked out Jeremy Corbyn is no longer leading the Labour party and that the Tories have been running the country for the last 10 years.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 95,872
    RobD said:

    Nigelb said:

    I see Penrose got the Nobel.

    Along with some German fellows...
    https://twitter.com/maxplanckpress/status/1313422722333118465

    For discovering the densest thing in the galaxy. Not on Earth, either!
    Densest thing on earth? Insert Gavin Williamson comment here.
  • The big takeaways from the Johnson speech are that he still hasn't worked out Jeremy Corbyn is no longer leading the Labour party and that the Tories have been running the country for the last 10 years.

    Since he's not been running the country for the last 10 years why shouldn't he seek to rejuvenate and reset the Government for his period in office? That is smart politics. Once parties rest on their laurels of the past that is when they get out of touch and lose, smart parties that want to keep winning need to keep rejuvenating themselves and moving on.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 95,872

    The big takeaways from the Johnson speech are that he still hasn't worked out Jeremy Corbyn is no longer leading the Labour party and that the Tories have been running the country for the last 10 years.

    ignoring the latter worked 10 months ago. He cannot adapt to governing mode.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670

    This week:

    https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1313433875398512641

    In six months, when unemployment is 4 or 5 million:

    "Get on your bikes and look for work away from where you live"

    It is the absolute contradiction at the heart of current Conservatism
    Family should the the primary givers of care
    You should be personally mobile and be able to travel anywhere in the country for work.
  • welshowlwelshowl Posts: 4,464
    kjh said:

    welshowl said:

    kjh said:

    nichomar said:

    kjh said:

    algarkirk said:


    Wealth is a tricky subject. What is the real wealth of a couple aged 66 both entitled to £9,000+ per annum state pension (inflation proofed) and no other income or assets. They would pay no income tax or NI. Their 'wealth' on one basis is nil. But to buy a guaranteed income of £18000 per annum would cost several hundred thousand pounds. Which is their real wealth. You would have a difficult task taxing it.

    Far easier to tax those who have the same wealth saved up in a visible non tax- payer funded form. But could it truly be fair?

    Yes, I bet a couple of teachers retiring on an indexed-linked pension of £30,000 each at 65 wouldn't regard themselves as 'rich' - but between them they have an asset worth around £2.2m.

    (Best buy annuity rates for an index-linked pension at 65 are around 2.5% to 3% depending on the exact terms).
    Agree, assuming you missed the 'not' out eg 'not regard themselves as rich'.

    A combined income of £60K in retirement I think is very well off indeed, yet they they could have minimal assets that would attract any wealth tax at all, yet someone living on half that income from assets would be paying a wealth tax!
    60k with no mortgage etc is extremely comfortable, ours is over £50 k and can’t spend it unless it went oh holidays etc, not an option so it goes to the grandchildren with increasingly generous presents. I don’t need or want anything physical but I’m lucky in the extreme.
    As you can see this is close to my heart. I have an income of only £3K or £4K and I am retired. I live off of my assets which I accumulated for this purpose. I fail to see why my assets should be treated differently to a DB pension pot for wealth purposes, but if you include the value of a DB pot in a wealth calculation you will be bring into a wealth category many fairly lowish income people (aser Pagan's post - these pots are very valuable).

    I have no issue with paying higher council tax on my property (as suggested in HYUFDs post) or in fact paying CGT on my residential property when I sell it, which I will do for the cash and downsize, but the wealth tax for people who have made their own provision for retirement is a can of worms.
    I think people are missing the point that with an unfunded defined benefit scheme, there is no "pot", only a promise.
    Yes but that’s not the recipient’s issue (who will be protected by the Pension Protrction Fund or the taxpayer anyway) that’s the pension provider’s problem.

    The teacher ( to use them as examples) getting their inflation proof pension of 30k at 65 still has something tangible in the shape of an income that would cost well over a £million to buy on the open market. They are far wealthier, notwithstanding the state of the collective pension pot they are drawing from, than someone who has a four or five properties worth say 900k and nothing else. It’s just one is more visible than the other, and people don’t understand pensions generally, but do know what a house looks like.
    Agree 100%. In particular not understanding the pension which is why when Gordon Brown removed the dividend tax credit for pension funds very few saw they were in effect having a tax added. Everyone would have seen a 1p on income tax. The impact of what he did was also disastrous and contributed to some funds entering the FAS and PPF.
    Oh totally. Brown’s introduction of that was utterly mad. Insane. Looney tunes. Taxing people saving for old age, with more therefore forced to rely on more state provision.

    A tax on virtue. Utterly brain dead. Still there of course ( yes that’s you Tories who’ve done nothing about it) precisely because it’s the ultimate stealth tax. You only get the bill decades later, it’s fiendishly difficult if not impossible to work out what you lost, and it’s way way beyond most people’s understanding.

    I still hold that bloody tax against Gordon Brown every time I check my pension savings. Grrr.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 29,342
    edited October 2020

    Scott_xP said:
    He feels the best he has felt for 20yrs

    So apparently the cycle with the drugs they're giving him goes
    1) Exuberance
    2) Anxiety
    3) Depression

    The problem for Biden is if he gets to stage (3) and throws the thing over to Pence, but hopefully he'll take some other drugs to compensate, and whatever he takes won't prove lethal.
    He'll only be taking the drugs if he really has the virus. I'm sceptical to say the least.
    Lie all the time.
    Dont get the benefit of the doubt.
    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    Hold on, who gets a training course in engineering? Pretty sure that's a degree.

    Duh! BTECs?
    Not sure you can do a BTEC in chemical engineering!
    It's the Chemical Engineers with PPE degrees that you need to watch out for!
    His comment really drives home how little our current crop of politicans understand higher education.
    If you think that's bad see their knowledge of further education.
  • contrariancontrarian Posts: 5,818

    I tell you now.

    Do not get a smart meter. Do not. The energy companies will use it to black you out when the inevitable gargantuan shortages of energy, any energy, cheap expensive, any, come. As they surely will.

    Make no mistake, these policies are brave new world Maoism, and the results will be the same.

    Have you got any evidence for this conspiracy theory nonsense?

    And are you aware that blackouts and brownouts can occur without smart meters?
    What happens when the wind stops blowing?

  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 38,528

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    This offshore wind stuff is just such a load of rubbish.

    Why? It is a good and increasingly cheap natural resource the UK has.

    The UK leading the world in cheap, clean and reliable power generation will enable the UK private sector to have a competitive advantage in anything that uses electricity, which in the 21st century is everything.

    The disastrous idea of XR and the Blair/Brown Labour government was to simply tax and cut demand on electricity. Having bountiful cheap clean energy enables our manufacturers and every other consumer of it to compete.
    Wind isn't reliable, though, it's an intermittent power generation system. Which is fine in a diversified grid which has power storage capacity for when the wind is blowing and no one has the lights on to be used when the lights are on and the wind isn't blowing. It's not fine here though, it's a very poor idea. Tidal barrages make much more sense here, we're an island nation. It inherently solves the storage issue.
    Offshore wind actually is very reliable, onshore wind less so but that's why much more emphasis and investment is going to offshore now.

    Tidal barrages make a lot of sense too but they are complementary not competitive. Tidal barrages can be used as storage and as a backup to wind can't they?

    Both should be part of the solution. It isn't all or nothing.
    Offshore wind needs a huge amount of backup capacity because it doesn't have a power storage mechanism. Tidal barrages are inherently better because they come with a power storage solution. I guess you could conceivably use a tidal reservoir as power storage for offshore wind, put the pumps into reverse with excess energy but I'm not sure how feasible it is.
    Indeed but backup technology is improving and offshore wind now is coming in at below £40/MWh and still falling, can tidal or nuclear do that?

    Given how increasingly cheap offshore wind is I see no reason we shouldn't be maximising our generation of it.
    Tidal can absolutely do that, nuclear won't but I'm not suggesting nuclear as a technology worth pursuing. Offshore wind just strikes me as our version of the German solar disaster. We will end up spending billions on it and we'll have to deal with all of the downsides of not having reliable power generation.

    It should be part of the mix, no doubt, but the idea that we should be reliant on it to provide 100% of consumer electricity is just ridiculous. It can't cycle up or cycle down.
  • contrariancontrarian Posts: 5,818
    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    This offshore wind stuff is just such a load of rubbish.

    Why? It is a good and increasingly cheap natural resource the UK has.

    The UK leading the world in cheap, clean and reliable power generation will enable the UK private sector to have a competitive advantage in anything that uses electricity, which in the 21st century is everything.

    The disastrous idea of XR and the Blair/Brown Labour government was to simply tax and cut demand on electricity. Having bountiful cheap clean energy enables our manufacturers and every other consumer of it to compete.
    Wind isn't reliable, though, it's an intermittent power generation system. Which is fine in a diversified grid which has power storage capacity for when the wind is blowing and no one has the lights on to be used when the lights are on and the wind isn't blowing. It's not fine here though, it's a very poor idea. Tidal barrages make much more sense here, we're an island nation. It inherently solves the storage issue.
    Offshore wind actually is very reliable, onshore wind less so but that's why much more emphasis and investment is going to offshore now.

    Tidal barrages make a lot of sense too but they are complementary not competitive. Tidal barrages can be used as storage and as a backup to wind can't they?

    Both should be part of the solution. It isn't all or nothing.
    Offshore wind needs a huge amount of backup capacity because it doesn't have a power storage mechanism. Tidal barrages are inherently better because they come with a power storage solution. I guess you could conceivably use a tidal reservoir as power storage for offshore wind, put the pumps into reverse with excess energy but I'm not sure how feasible it is.
    Indeed but backup technology is improving and offshore wind now is coming in at below £40/MWh and still falling, can tidal or nuclear do that?

    Given how increasingly cheap offshore wind is I see no reason we shouldn't be maximising our generation of it.
    Tidal can absolutely do that, nuclear won't but I'm not suggesting nuclear as a technology worth pursuing. Offshore wind just strikes me as our version of the German solar disaster. We will end up spending billions on it and we'll have to deal with all of the downsides of not having reliable power generation.

    It should be part of the mix, no doubt, but the idea that we should be reliant on it to provide 100% of consumer electricity is just ridiculous. It can't cycle up or cycle down.
    Stop pointing out realities to Thompson. He isn;t listening.
  • I tell you now.

    Do not get a smart meter. Do not. The energy companies will use it to black you out when the inevitable gargantuan shortages of energy, any energy, cheap expensive, any, come. As they surely will.

    Make no mistake, these policies are brave new world Maoism, and the results will be the same.

    Have you got any evidence for this conspiracy theory nonsense?

    And are you aware that blackouts and brownouts can occur without smart meters?
    What happens when the wind stops blowing?

    You rely upon backups or storage or interconnectors.
  • Alistair said:
    Still not enough for me. Still very worried.
    CNN are ballsachingly pro-Biden and SSRS who did the legwork are not the greatest of pollsters, but I still think you can put the worry beads away.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,707
    If Biden's winning old white people like this it gets quite complicated working out who to disfranchize.
  • CiceroCicero Posts: 3,062
    HYUFD said:

    CNN even has Biden winning white voters, if true would be the first time the Democratic candidate has won the white vote since LBJ in 1964. That is a big if however

    https://twitter.com/AllisonLHedges/status/1313425343173275649?s=20

    So the only people left supporting Trump are...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHJbSvidohg&ab_channel=099tuber1
  • MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    This offshore wind stuff is just such a load of rubbish.

    Why? It is a good and increasingly cheap natural resource the UK has.

    The UK leading the world in cheap, clean and reliable power generation will enable the UK private sector to have a competitive advantage in anything that uses electricity, which in the 21st century is everything.

    The disastrous idea of XR and the Blair/Brown Labour government was to simply tax and cut demand on electricity. Having bountiful cheap clean energy enables our manufacturers and every other consumer of it to compete.
    Wind isn't reliable, though, it's an intermittent power generation system. Which is fine in a diversified grid which has power storage capacity for when the wind is blowing and no one has the lights on to be used when the lights are on and the wind isn't blowing. It's not fine here though, it's a very poor idea. Tidal barrages make much more sense here, we're an island nation. It inherently solves the storage issue.
    Offshore wind actually is very reliable, onshore wind less so but that's why much more emphasis and investment is going to offshore now.

    Tidal barrages make a lot of sense too but they are complementary not competitive. Tidal barrages can be used as storage and as a backup to wind can't they?

    Both should be part of the solution. It isn't all or nothing.
    Offshore wind needs a huge amount of backup capacity because it doesn't have a power storage mechanism. Tidal barrages are inherently better because they come with a power storage solution. I guess you could conceivably use a tidal reservoir as power storage for offshore wind, put the pumps into reverse with excess energy but I'm not sure how feasible it is.
    Indeed but backup technology is improving and offshore wind now is coming in at below £40/MWh and still falling, can tidal or nuclear do that?

    Given how increasingly cheap offshore wind is I see no reason we shouldn't be maximising our generation of it.
    Tidal can absolutely do that, nuclear won't but I'm not suggesting nuclear as a technology worth pursuing. Offshore wind just strikes me as our version of the German solar disaster. We will end up spending billions on it and we'll have to deal with all of the downsides of not having reliable power generation.

    It should be part of the mix, no doubt, but the idea that we should be reliant on it to provide 100% of consumer electricity is just ridiculous. It can't cycle up or cycle down.
    Agreed, I'm not suggesting (and I don't think anyone is) that it should be 100% of our electricity alone. It should be a major element though.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 18,080
    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    This offshore wind stuff is just such a load of rubbish.

    Why? It is a good and increasingly cheap natural resource the UK has.

    The UK leading the world in cheap, clean and reliable power generation will enable the UK private sector to have a competitive advantage in anything that uses electricity, which in the 21st century is everything.

    The disastrous idea of XR and the Blair/Brown Labour government was to simply tax and cut demand on electricity. Having bountiful cheap clean energy enables our manufacturers and every other consumer of it to compete.
    Wind isn't reliable, though, it's an intermittent power generation system. Which is fine in a diversified grid which has power storage capacity for when the wind is blowing and no one has the lights on to be used when the lights are on and the wind isn't blowing. It's not fine here though, it's a very poor idea. Tidal barrages make much more sense here, we're an island nation. It inherently solves the storage issue.
    Offshore wind actually is very reliable, onshore wind less so but that's why much more emphasis and investment is going to offshore now.

    Tidal barrages make a lot of sense too but they are complementary not competitive. Tidal barrages can be used as storage and as a backup to wind can't they?

    Both should be part of the solution. It isn't all or nothing.
    Offshore wind needs a huge amount of backup capacity because it doesn't have a power storage mechanism. Tidal barrages are inherently better because they come with a power storage solution. I guess you could conceivably use a tidal reservoir as power storage for offshore wind, put the pumps into reverse with excess energy but I'm not sure how feasible it is.
    You can't really store energy with tidal without some monumental inefficiencies, which would make it much more economic to use current battery technology.

    Apart from anything else, if you try to store energy ar low tide by pumping enough water into the lagoon to be able to generate electricity at high tide you have to not only expend energy pumping the water into the lagoon, but you forego generating electricity at the same time.

    They're useful in terms of being a highly predictable source, but they're not dispatchable. You might end up using a form of storage to time-shift some of the electricity produced by tidal.
  • I tell you now.

    Do not get a smart meter. Do not. The energy companies will use it to black you out when the inevitable gargantuan shortages of energy, any energy, cheap expensive, any, come. As they surely will.

    Make no mistake, these policies are brave new world Maoism, and the results will be the same.

    Have you got any evidence for this conspiracy theory nonsense?

    And are you aware that blackouts and brownouts can occur without smart meters?
    What happens when the wind stops blowing?

    You rely upon backups or storage or interconnectors.
    Oh Philip, do stop talking about things that you have absolutely zero knowledge of!
This discussion has been closed.