"They're putting off the day as long as they can."
Hardly. The mandate they secured in 2011 was for a referendum "well into the second half" of this parliamentary term - which started in May 2011 and will finish in May 2016.
They're actually holding it remarkably early.
since when is "well into the second half" early ? Is there a different concept of time in Cumbernauld ?
"since when is "well into the second half" early ?"
Sigh. Within the confines of the mandate given by the Scottish people for a referendum "well into the second half" of this parliamentary term, September 2014 is early. I know it must be confusing to you as a Tory that the SNP actually plan to keep their promise to the electorate, but there it is.
One of the things that struck me about Lady Thatcher's funeral procession was the lack of protesters from ethnic minorities despite the fact that most of them didn't like her governments, to put it midly.
I wonder whether this could be because of a more traditional attitude towards death amongst those communities? ie. the idea of protesting on the day of someone's funeral is totally unacceptable no matter how much you disliked the person while they were alive.
No, Oswald Mosley. I've yet to hear from you about how you feel towards the man who was a prominent Conservative MP. And perhaps we should have a chat about Lord Halifax some time...
(NOTE : Posted before you edited your comment to make it even more peculiar.)
In what sense was Oswald Mosley a 'prominent Conservative MP'? He was elected as a Conservative MP once. Going on to be an independent MP, and a Labour MP.
Now, addressing @JamesKelly, which Party did the late, great, Robert Maxwell, represent in Parliament? Surely, it wasn't the Labour Party? .... [cough, cough}
TSE, a word of advice for future reference - if you want to reach a consensus with SNP supporters (or anyone with an ounce of common sense) on what constitutes historical fact, it's probably best not to pray in aid an article in a Brit Nat rag that carries the headline "SNP boss planned Nazi Scotland".
TSE, a word of advice for future reference - if you want to reach a consensus with SNP supporters (or anyone with an ounce of common sense) on what constitutes historical fact, it's probably best not to pray in aid an article in a Brit Nat rag that carries the headline "SNP boss planned Nazi Scotland".
James I would have thought you'd have learnt your lesson the last time you wrongly automatically dismissed something published in the Times/Sunday Times.
"James I would have thought you'd have learnt your lesson the last time you wrongly automatically dismissed something published in the Times/Sunday Times."
Not only have I not learned a lesson from it, I don't even recall it. It wouldn't be a figment of your imagination, by any chance?
So tell me, TSE, what was the nature of the "extreme nationalist views" that led to Donaldson being thrown out of the SNP in 1940? (That golden year when Britain was the junior partner to the US in World War II...)
Sounds like even Lagarde is going to bail out on Osborne
@EdConwaySky: Asked Lagarde abt UK fiscal plan. Her: IMF always said UK shld readjust if growth disappoints. Adds: “growth numbers not particularly good”
That can only be because she hasn't read your posts saying that Osborne is increasing spending. You ought to drop her a line pointing out the truth.
Interesting that UKIP voters' certainty to vote is so high. That's possibly relevant for the County elections, where lots of people don't bother - we'll see if they really are as keen as they say.
"In what sense was Oswald Mosley a 'prominent Conservative MP'? He was elected as a Conservative MP once. Going on to be an independent MP, and a Labour MP."
In the sense that he was a Conservative MP, and he was prominent.
"Now, addressing @JamesKelly, which Party did the late, great, Robert Maxwell, represent in Parliament? Surely, it wasn't the Labour Party? .... [cough, cough}"
Yes, it sure as hell wasn't the SNP. You Brit Nats do know how to pick 'em.
"James I would have thought you'd have learnt your lesson the last time you wrongly automatically dismissed something published in the Times/Sunday Times."
Not only have I not learned a lesson from it, I don't even recall it. It wouldn't be a figment of your imagination, by any chance?
So tell me, TSE, what was the nature of the "extreme nationalist views" that led to Donaldson being thrown out of the SNP in 1940? (That golden year when Britain was the junior partner to the US in World War II...)
Please don't take this as proof that I read your blog, but at the time, a prominent pollster emailed me this, because they thought I'd be amused at it.
UPDATE : Ipsos-Mori have been in touch, and have asked me to correct this post, which originally stated -
"There is also a question on voting intention for the independence referendum. Caution should be exercised here, because from the little I've seen of the report in the Times, it looks very much like this is yet another example of a unionist newspaper commissioning a pollster to ask a question that bears little resemblance to the actual proposed referendum question. However, for what it's worth, here are the figures..."
"James I would have thought you'd have learnt your lesson the last time you wrongly automatically dismissed something published in the Times/Sunday Times."
Not only have I not learned a lesson from it, I don't even recall it. It wouldn't be a figment of your imagination, by any chance?
So tell me, TSE, what was the nature of the "extreme nationalist views" that led to Donaldson being thrown out of the SNP in 1940? (That golden year when Britain was the junior partner to the US in World War II...)
Please don't take this as proof that I read your blog, but at the time, a prominent pollster emailed me this, because they thought I'd be amused at it.
UPDATE : Ipsos-Mori have been in touch, and have asked me to correct this post, which originally stated -
"There is also a question on voting intention for the independence referendum. Caution should be exercised here, because from the little I've seen of the report in the Times, it looks very much like this is yet another example of a unionist newspaper commissioning a pollster to ask a question that bears little resemblance to the actual proposed referendum question. However, for what it's worth, here are the figures..."
Interesting that UKIP voters' certainty to vote is so high. That's possibly relevant for the County elections, where lots of people don't bother - we'll see if they really are as keen as they say.
We know that voters over 65 are about twice as likely to vote compared to those in the 18-24 age group in general elections and UKIP supporters tend to be older people. In local elections the ratio may be even higher.
All the events of the last month, the big Tory push on welfare ("won the argument", Tories kept assuring us, bizarrely), the interminable Thatcherthon, and the impact on the polls is - nowt.
"Please don't take this as proof that I read your blog, but at the time, a prominent pollster emailed me this, because they thought I'd be amused at it."
I ought to tell you what a prominent PB poster once emailed to me, because he knew I'd be shocked by it, but alas I'm sworn to secrecy.
I was contacted by Ipsos-Mori and asked to make a correction, and I did so immediately. You may be "amused" by such professionalism, as may your prominent pollster chum, but if I may say so I'm content for my actions to stand comparison to your antics as moderator of this blog.
Let's see if you've got the guts to leave this post up.
"This, while continental industry and electricity consumers will be paying something like £2 per ton of carbon dioxide produced, the British equivalents will be paying about £7.
With the UK government committed (via the economic suicide bill) to driving the carbon price up to £18 in 2018, to £30 in 2020 and to £70 in 2030, using the carbon tax mechanism, we now face the spectre of the EU's carbon market collapsing completely, leaving the UK as the only country in the EU handicapped in this way."
It seemed clear that the 79 Group's aim of transforming the party's image [was going to be long]. Its three guiding principles were nationalism, socialism and republicanism, the last owing largely to the influence of the Cunninghams [and some others]... Members of the SNP quarrelled about the third... Alex Salmond did not have a lot of sympathy with it.
"James I would have thought you'd have learnt your lesson the last time you wrongly automatically dismissed something published in the Times/Sunday Times."
Not only have I not learned a lesson from it, I don't even recall it. It wouldn't be a figment of your imagination, by any chance?
So tell me, TSE, what was the nature of the "extreme nationalist views" that led to Donaldson being thrown out of the SNP in 1940? (That golden year when Britain was the junior partner to the US in World War II...)
Please don't take this as proof that I read your blog, but at the time, a prominent pollster emailed me this, because they thought I'd be amused at it.
UPDATE : Ipsos-Mori have been in touch, and have asked me to correct this post, which originally stated -
"There is also a question on voting intention for the independence referendum. Caution should be exercised here, because from the little I've seen of the report in the Times, it looks very much like this is yet another example of a unionist newspaper commissioning a pollster to ask a question that bears little resemblance to the actual proposed referendum question. However, for what it's worth, here are the figures..."
"The renewal of solidarity, subsidiarity and status within welfare is a transformational change that would complement the new economic position."
"The one nation idea allows an inclusive politics of the common good to be developed in which virtue, loyalty and honesty can be spoken of as necessary features of the move from debt to value in our economy."
"A further paradox is that the renewal of democracy can be achieved only with effective leadership"
"By challenging prevailing orthodoxies, having the courage to defy the old consensus and define a new political position, and championing changes (party organisers; the living wage; the interest rate cap; the establishment of regional banks; a renewed vocational economy; a relational approach to welfare within a politics of renewed solidarity) Miliband has all the ingredients necessary to bake the cake."
"The renewal of solidarity, subsidiarity and status within welfare is a transformational change that would complement the new economic position."
"The one nation idea allows an inclusive politics of the common good to be developed in which virtue, loyalty and honesty can be spoken of as necessary features of the move from debt to value in our economy."
"A further paradox is that the renewal of democracy can be achieved only with effective leadership"
"By challenging prevailing orthodoxies, having the courage to defy the old consensus and define a new political position, and championing changes (party organisers; the living wage; the interest rate cap; the establishment of regional banks; a renewed vocational economy; a relational approach to welfare within a politics of renewed solidarity) Miliband has all the ingredients necessary to bake the cake."
I can now see why they're sticking with a blank piece of paper.
Conservative and Labour voters both have good reason to hate Clegg.
Labour see him as a traitor for going into coalition with Conservatives. Conservatives see him as stopping them from implementing Tory policies in Government.
On the other hand there are similar reasons for Conservative and Labour voters to keep each other out by voting Lib Dem.
A UKIP vote is a wasted vote because they are spread evenly across England. Lib Dems used to have the same problem until they focussed (sic) on target seats.
I doubt rEd's ratings would be so dire if only the peons north of Primrose hill knew that he was all about the renewal of solidarity, subsidiarity and status within welfare as a transformational change that would complement the new economic position."
Meant to post it this morning, but had to go and get my car serviced and watch Oblivion (a terrible film that just makes Cruise look like he has a Messiah complex at the end - don't worry, no spoilers).
Anyone keen to make connections between the tragic explosion in Texas and terrorism should take care. There may be a terrorist cause, but the fact that there was a fire beforehand does point in my mind to accident rather than deliberate act.
When the AZF plant in Toulouse went up ten days after 9/11 (killing 39 people), terrorism was initially blamed by the authorities, and one employee named. Many believe it to have been an accident, but suspicion still falls on the individual.
"James I would have thought you'd have learnt your lesson the last time you wrongly automatically dismissed something published in the Times/Sunday Times."
Not only have I not learned a lesson from it, I don't even recall it. It wouldn't be a figment of your imagination, by any chance?
So tell me, TSE, what was the nature of the "extreme nationalist views" that led to Donaldson being thrown out of the SNP in 1940? (That golden year when Britain was the junior partner to the US in World War II...)
Please don't take this as proof that I read your blog, but at the time, a prominent pollster emailed me this, because they thought I'd be amused at it.
UPDATE : Ipsos-Mori have been in touch, and have asked me to correct this post, which originally stated -
"There is also a question on voting intention for the independence referendum. Caution should be exercised here, because from the little I've seen of the report in the Times, it looks very much like this is yet another example of a unionist newspaper commissioning a pollster to ask a question that bears little resemblance to the actual proposed referendum question. However, for what it's worth, here are the figures..."
I'm unfortunately unable to make tomorrow night at Dirty Dicks (I'm travelling to Hungary tonight) but given that I am in Glasgow with some regularity and have some discretion over when I go, I might ironically be able to make a Glasgow gathering.
@TGOHF : I used to be good at translating Chomsky's English into English, so this should be a doddle.
"The renewal of solidarity, subsidiarity and status within welfare is a transformational change that would complement the new economic position."
"There's no money left, so we need to wibble on about fairness in the hope that people won't notice we're not reversing any of the coalition's cuts"
"The one nation idea allows an inclusive politics of the common good to be developed in which virtue, loyalty and honesty can be spoken of as necessary features of the move from debt to value in our economy."
"There's no money left, and we can no longer get away with conning people that we can borrow our way out of the problem."
"A further paradox is that the renewal of democracy can be achieved only with effective leadership"
"If only we had someone with the popular appeal of Maggie to lead the party.... but it can't be helped. We're stuck with Ed."
"By challenging prevailing orthodoxies, having the courage to defy the old consensus and define a new political position, and championing changes (party organisers; the living wage; the interest rate cap; the establishment of regional banks; a renewed vocational economy; a relational approach to welfare within a politics of renewed solidarity) Miliband has all the ingredients necessary to bake the cake."
"All the same, we can win the next election despite having nothing to say, as long as we keep to meaningless platitudes."
"This, while continental industry and electricity consumers will be paying something like £2 per ton of carbon dioxide produced, the British equivalents will be paying about £7.
With the UK government committed (via the economic suicide bill) to driving the carbon price up to £18 in 2018, to £30 in 2020 and to £70 in 2030, using the carbon tax mechanism, we now face the spectre of the EU's carbon market collapsing completely, leaving the UK as the only country in the EU handicapped in this way."
It is clearly nonsense that the UK has set minimum carbon prices.
But that was our choice. We chose to deliberately disadvantage ourselves relative to not just to Europe, but to almost everyone else in the entire world. One can only hope that our government reconsiders the minimum price.
(It's also worth noting that one of the reasons why the carbon price has collapsed in Europe is because so much of European power is now being generated by wind and solar - and nuclear in France. While numbers vary depending on the definition, it is clear that in a great many European countries - Denmark, Spain, Germany, France, Sweden - more than 25% of power comes from non-emitting sources. In the UK, I believe, the number is more like 5%.)
Ukip not wasted in the Euro's - def wasted in the GE. Luckily Labour are ignoring the possibility of voters behaving differently in different elections.
Conservative and Labour voters both have good reason to hate Clegg.
Labour see him as a traitor for going into coalition with Conservatives. Conservatives see him as stopping them from implementing Tory policies in Government.
On the other hand there are similar reasons for Conservative and Labour voters to keep each other out by voting Lib Dem.
A UKIP vote is a wasted vote because they are spread evenly across England. Lib Dems used to have the same problem until they focussed (sic) on target seats.
I have to LOL at all the misinformation political hacks are spreading about Ukip. 1. In the locals there will be many seats that are targeted and others that will have minimum attention. 2. If people are banking on only the ancients voting for Ukip, think again. Of the over 6000 new members recruited to Ukip in the last 6 weeks, over 2/3 are under 40. Many of the volunteers for pamphleting, etc., are young and in their teens. 3. The immediate aim of Ukip is to show a presence where they are scarcely known, get as many votes in the targeted seats and recruit more members.
"This, while continental industry and electricity consumers will be paying something like £2 per ton of carbon dioxide produced, the British equivalents will be paying about £7.
With the UK government committed (via the economic suicide bill) to driving the carbon price up to £18 in 2018, to £30 in 2020 and to £70 in 2030, using the carbon tax mechanism, we now face the spectre of the EU's carbon market collapsing completely, leaving the UK as the only country in the EU handicapped in this way."
It is clearly nonsense that the UK has set minimum carbon prices.
But that was our choice. We chose to deliberately disadvantage ourselves relative to not just to Europe, but to almost everyone else in the entire world. One can only hope that our government reconsiders the minimum price.
(It's also worth noting that one of the reasons why the carbon price has collapsed in Europe is because so much of European power is now being generated by wind and solar - and nuclear in France. While numbers vary depending on the definition, it is clear that in a great many European countries - Denmark, Spain, Germany, France, Sweden - more than 25% of power comes from non-emitting sources. In the UK, I believe, the number is more like 5%.)
"But that was our choice."
Most people don't know global warming flat-lined in 1998. They don't know that because the BBC and the political class didn't tell them. A choice based of false information isn't a fair choice.
You clearly missed the coded messages to bankstas of the world to rise up and enslave the ordinary folk.
The coded message - if there is one and it wasn't just a glitch in the market-rigging software - would be that the bankstas had already had done that but it was unraveling because the amount of supposedly physical gold being traded round the world was less than the actual amount of physical gold in existence.
"This, while continental industry and electricity consumers will be paying something like £2 per ton of carbon dioxide produced, the British equivalents will be paying about £7.
With the UK government committed (via the economic suicide bill) to driving the carbon price up to £18 in 2018, to £30 in 2020 and to £70 in 2030, using the carbon tax mechanism, we now face the spectre of the EU's carbon market collapsing completely, leaving the UK as the only country in the EU handicapped in this way."
It is clearly nonsense that the UK has set minimum carbon prices.
But that was our choice. We chose to deliberately disadvantage ourselves relative to not just to Europe, but to almost everyone else in the entire world. One can only hope that our government reconsiders the minimum price.
(It's also worth noting that one of the reasons why the carbon price has collapsed in Europe is because so much of European power is now being generated by wind and solar - and nuclear in France. While numbers vary depending on the definition, it is clear that in a great many European countries - Denmark, Spain, Germany, France, Sweden - more than 25% of power comes from non-emitting sources. In the UK, I believe, the number is more like 5%.)
"But that was our choice."
Most people don't know global warming flat-lined in 1998. They don't know that because the BBC and the political class didn't tell them. A choice based of false information isn't a fair choice.
Didn't the land temperature flatline (Or move within a very small margin) but the oceans have heated up a tad since ?
"This, while continental industry and electricity consumers will be paying something like £2 per ton of carbon dioxide produced, the British equivalents will be paying about £7.
With the UK government committed (via the economic suicide bill) to driving the carbon price up to £18 in 2018, to £30 in 2020 and to £70 in 2030, using the carbon tax mechanism, we now face the spectre of the EU's carbon market collapsing completely, leaving the UK as the only country in the EU handicapped in this way."
It is clearly nonsense that the UK has set minimum carbon prices.
But that was our choice. We chose to deliberately disadvantage ourselves relative to not just to Europe, but to almost everyone else in the entire world. One can only hope that our government reconsiders the minimum price.
(It's also worth noting that one of the reasons why the carbon price has collapsed in Europe is because so much of European power is now being generated by wind and solar - and nuclear in France. While numbers vary depending on the definition, it is clear that in a great many European countries - Denmark, Spain, Germany, France, Sweden - more than 25% of power comes from non-emitting sources. In the UK, I believe, the number is more like 5%.)
"But that was our choice."
Most people don't know global warming flat-lined in 1998. They don't know that because the BBC and the political class didn't tell them. A choice based of false information isn't a fair choice.
But let's forget global warming for a minute. The ETS basically ensures that countries meet their carbon reduction targets in a moderately efficient manner.
Yet we decided that we wanted to horse-whip ourselves so that - even if the targets were being met - British companies had to pay more than their competitors because... because... because...
It's incomprehensible to me, irrespective of your underlying view on the science of global warming, why you want to do such a thing.
"This, while continental industry and electricity consumers will be paying something like £2 per ton of carbon dioxide produced, the British equivalents will be paying about £7.
With the UK government committed (via the economic suicide bill) to driving the carbon price up to £18 in 2018, to £30 in 2020 and to £70 in 2030, using the carbon tax mechanism, we now face the spectre of the EU's carbon market collapsing completely, leaving the UK as the only country in the EU handicapped in this way."
It is clearly nonsense that the UK has set minimum carbon prices.
But that was our choice. We chose to deliberately disadvantage ourselves relative to not just to Europe, but to almost everyone else in the entire world. One can only hope that our government reconsiders the minimum price.
(It's also worth noting that one of the reasons why the carbon price has collapsed in Europe is because so much of European power is now being generated by wind and solar - and nuclear in France. While numbers vary depending on the definition, it is clear that in a great many European countries - Denmark, Spain, Germany, France, Sweden - more than 25% of power comes from non-emitting sources. In the UK, I believe, the number is more like 5%.)
"But that was our choice."
Most people don't know global warming flat-lined in 1998. They don't know that because the BBC and the political class didn't tell them. A choice based of false information isn't a fair choice.
But let's forget global warming for a minute. The ETS basically ensures that countries meet their carbon reduction targets in a moderately efficient manner.
Yet we decided that we wanted to horse-whip ourselves so that - even if the targets were being met - British companies had to pay more than their competitors because... because... because...
It's incomprehensible to me, irrespective of your underlying view on the science of global warming, why you want to do such a thing.
The British political class has a habit of taking the 'rules' then tweaking them to be stricter/harsher or softer as appropriate to be more 'worthy' then the continentals.
"This, while continental industry and electricity consumers will be paying something like £2 per ton of carbon dioxide produced, the British equivalents will be paying about £7.
With the UK government committed (via the economic suicide bill) to driving the carbon price up to £18 in 2018, to £30 in 2020 and to £70 in 2030, using the carbon tax mechanism, we now face the spectre of the EU's carbon market collapsing completely, leaving the UK as the only country in the EU handicapped in this way."
It is clearly nonsense that the UK has set minimum carbon prices.
But that was our choice. We chose to deliberately disadvantage ourselves relative to not just to Europe, but to almost everyone else in the entire world. One can only hope that our government reconsiders the minimum price.
(It's also worth noting that one of the reasons why the carbon price has collapsed in Europe is because so much of European power is now being generated by wind and solar - and nuclear in France. While numbers vary depending on the definition, it is clear that in a great many European countries - Denmark, Spain, Germany, France, Sweden - more than 25% of power comes from non-emitting sources. In the UK, I believe, the number is more like 5%.)
"But that was our choice."
Most people don't know global warming flat-lined in 1998. They don't know that because the BBC and the political class didn't tell them. A choice based of false information isn't a fair choice.
But let's forget global warming for a minute. The ETS basically ensures that countries meet their carbon reduction targets in a moderately efficient manner.
Yet we decided that we wanted to horse-whip ourselves so that - even if the targets were being met - British companies had to pay more than their competitors because... because... because...
It's incomprehensible to me, irrespective of your underlying view on the science of global warming, why you want to do such a thing.
The British political class has a habit of taking the 'rules' then tweaking them to be stricter/harsher or softer as appropriate to be more 'worthy' then the continentals.
and then the continentals decide the rules aren't so much rules as guidelines.
You clearly missed the coded messages to bankstas of the world to rise up and enslave the ordinary folk.
The coded message - if there is one and it wasn't just a glitch in the market-rigging software - would be that the bankstas had already had done that but it was unraveling because the amount of supposedly physical gold being traded round the world was less than the actual amount of physical gold in existence.
Ah yes, the market rigging software that sends prices up and down. You must feel right at home on ZeroHedge. Home of the conspiracy.
If you look at facts for a moment: the amount of gold traded - as a percentage of the total gold that exists in the world - is incredibly high. More so than almost any commodity, each physical gram of gold changes hands (albeit mostly electronically) many, many times per year. In fact, there have been a number of excellent analyses that suggest that the amount of physical gold in the world is much more than is generally posited, because of the sheer volume of trading that takes place. (See The Thunder Road Report.)
During the collapse of Yugoslavia in the 1990s, phyical gold was a terrible store of value. You were much better off with bottled water and tinned food. It turned out that nice gold watch might get you the equivalent of a couple of good meals.
I sincerely hope there is some global warming, Paddy Power's sea ice minima was available at 2.37, I think its an Evens chance personally. Small stakes only but this chart indicates its not a complete mug bet - http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Extent.png
"This, while continental industry and electricity consumers will be paying something like £2 per ton of carbon dioxide produced, the British equivalents will be paying about £7.
With the UK government committed (via the economic suicide bill) to driving the carbon price up to £18 in 2018, to £30 in 2020 and to £70 in 2030, using the carbon tax mechanism, we now face the spectre of the EU's carbon market collapsing completely, leaving the UK as the only country in the EU handicapped in this way."
It is clearly nonsense that the UK has set minimum carbon prices.
But that was our choice. We chose to deliberately disadvantage ourselves relative to not just to Europe, but to almost everyone else in the entire world. One can only hope that our government reconsiders the minimum price.
(It's also worth noting that one of the reasons why the carbon price has collapsed in Europe is because so much of European power is now being generated by wind and solar - and nuclear in France. While numbers vary depending on the definition, it is clear that in a great many European countries - Denmark, Spain, Germany, France, Sweden - more than 25% of power comes from non-emitting sources. In the UK, I believe, the number is more like 5%.)
"But that was our choice."
Most people don't know global warming flat-lined in 1998. They don't know that because the BBC and the political class didn't tell them. A choice based of false information isn't a fair choice.
But let's forget global warming for a minute. The ETS basically ensures that countries meet their carbon reduction targets in a moderately efficient manner.
Yet we decided that we wanted to horse-whip ourselves so that - even if the targets were being met - British companies had to pay more than their competitors because... because... because...
It's incomprehensible to me, irrespective of your underlying view on the science of global warming, why you want to do such a thing.
Because the political elite of the TORY/LAB/LIB Party, are plain stupid and nuts. Only Ukip has the sensible policies to the global warming scam: get rid of all these manic targets and abolish the windmill farms.
"This, while continental industry and electricity consumers will be paying something like £2 per ton of carbon dioxide produced, the British equivalents will be paying about £7.
With the UK government committed (via the economic suicide bill) to driving the carbon price up to £18 in 2018, to £30 in 2020 and to £70 in 2030, using the carbon tax mechanism, we now face the spectre of the EU's carbon market collapsing completely, leaving the UK as the only country in the EU handicapped in this way."
It is clearly nonsense that the UK has set minimum carbon prices.
But that was our choice. We chose to deliberately disadvantage ourselves relative to not just to Europe, but to almost everyone else in the entire world. One can only hope that our government reconsiders the minimum price.
(It's also worth noting that one of the reasons why the carbon price has collapsed in Europe is because so much of European power is now being generated by wind and solar - and nuclear in France. While numbers vary depending on the definition, it is clear that in a great many European countries - Denmark, Spain, Germany, France, Sweden - more than 25% of power comes from non-emitting sources. In the UK, I believe, the number is more like 5%.)
"But that was our choice."
Most people don't know global warming flat-lined in 1998. They don't know that because the BBC and the political class didn't tell them. A choice based of false information isn't a fair choice.
But let's forget global warming for a minute. The ETS basically ensures that countries meet their carbon reduction targets in a moderately efficient manner.
Yet we decided that we wanted to horse-whip ourselves so that - even if the targets were being met - British companies had to pay more than their competitors because... because... because...
It's incomprehensible to me, irrespective of your underlying view on the science of global warming, why you want to do such a thing.
Because the political elit of the TORY/LAB/LIB Party, are plain stupid and nuts. Only Ukip has the sensible policies to the global warming scam: get rid of all these manic targets and abolish the windmill farms.
"This, while continental industry and electricity consumers will be paying something like £2 per ton of carbon dioxide produced, the British equivalents will be paying about £7.
With the UK government committed (via the economic suicide bill) to driving the carbon price up to £18 in 2018, to £30 in 2020 and to £70 in 2030, using the carbon tax mechanism, we now face the spectre of the EU's carbon market collapsing completely, leaving the UK as the only country in the EU handicapped in this way."
It is clearly nonsense that the UK has set minimum carbon prices.
But that was our choice. We chose to deliberately disadvantage ourselves relative to not just to Europe, but to almost everyone else in the entire world. One can only hope that our government reconsiders the minimum price.
(It's also worth noting that one of the reasons why the carbon price has collapsed in Europe is because so much of European power is now being generated by wind and solar - and nuclear in France. While numbers vary depending on the definition, it is clear that in a great many European countries - Denmark, Spain, Germany, France, Sweden - more than 25% of power comes from non-emitting sources. In the UK, I believe, the number is more like 5%.)
"But that was our choice."
Most people don't know global warming flat-lined in 1998. They don't know that because the BBC and the political class didn't tell them. A choice based of false information isn't a fair choice.
But let's forget global warming for a minute. The ETS basically ensures that countries meet their carbon reduction targets in a moderately efficient manner.
Yet we decided that we wanted to horse-whip ourselves so that - even if the targets were being met - British companies had to pay more than their competitors because... because... because...
It's incomprehensible to me, irrespective of your underlying view on the science of global warming, why you want to do such a thing.
Because the political elit of the TORY/LAB/LIB Party, are plain stupid and nuts. Only Ukip has the sensible policies to the global warming scam: get rid of all these manic targets and abolish the windmill farms.
Why would you want to abolish something which produces electricity with zero marginal cost?
Because the political elit of the TORY/LAB/LIB Party, are plain stupid and nuts. Only Ukip has the sensible policies
But Labour opposed the carbon price floor - so presumably on this point you would accept that they have a sensible (from your perspective) policy on this?
Didn't the land temperature flatline (Or move within a very small margin) but the oceans have heated up a tad since ?
No. They're just assuming the oceans *must* have warmed up because they're assuming the globe is warming up (based on the land temperatures before they flat-lined) and therefore that extra energy must be going somewhere and if it's not on land (which is the basis for the theory in the first place) then it *must* be the sea.
could it be that our political class likes making grand idiotic gestures without thinking of the consequences ?
In this they might be being pushed along by the Civil Service. In this week's Spectator, there's an anecdote about a Treasury civil servant who sees his prime task to be the welfare of people in the the third world. Not UK citizens/companies.
"This, while continental industry and electricity consumers will be paying something like £2 per ton of carbon dioxide produced, the British equivalents will be paying about £7.
With the UK government committed (via the economic suicide bill) to driving the carbon price up to £18 in 2018, to £30 in 2020 and to £70 in 2030, using the carbon tax mechanism, we now face the spectre of the EU's carbon market collapsing completely, leaving the UK as the only country in the EU handicapped in this way."
It is clearly nonsense that the UK has set minimum carbon prices.
But that was our choice. We chose to deliberately disadvantage ourselves relative to not just to Europe, but to almost everyone else in the entire world. One can only hope that our government reconsiders the minimum price.
(It's also worth noting that one of the reasons why the carbon price has collapsed in Europe is because so much of European power is now being generated by wind and solar - and nuclear in France. While numbers vary depending on the definition, it is clear that in a great many European countries - Denmark, Spain, Germany, France, Sweden - more than 25% of power comes from non-emitting sources. In the UK, I believe, the number is more like 5%.)
"But that was our choice."
Most people don't know global warming flat-lined in 1998. They don't know that because the BBC and the political class didn't tell them. A choice based of false information isn't a fair choice.
But let's forget global warming for a minute. The ETS basically ensures that countries meet their carbon reduction targets in a moderately efficient manner.
Yet we decided that we wanted to horse-whip ourselves so that - even if the targets were being met - British companies had to pay more than their competitors because... because... because...
It's incomprehensible to me, irrespective of your underlying view on the science of global warming, why you want to do such a thing.
Because the political elit of the TORY/LAB/LIB Party, are plain stupid and nuts. Only Ukip has the sensible policies to the global warming scam: get rid of all these manic targets and abolish the windmill farms.
what are you poing to replace them with ?
I'm guessing he's going to say 'nuclear'. Which is funny, because new nuclear requires exactly the same kind of subsidies (i.e. guaranteed electricity prices over 20 years) as wind.
Ah yes, the market rigging software that sends prices up and down. You must feel right at home on ZeroHedge. Home of the conspiracy.
If you look at facts for a moment: the amount of gold traded - as a percentage of the total gold that exists in the world - is incredibly high. More so than almost any commodity, each physical gram of gold changes hands (albeit mostly electronically) many, many times per year. In fact, there have been a number of excellent analyses that suggest that the amount of physical gold in the world is much more than is generally posited, because of the sheer volume of trading that takes place. (See The Thunder Road Report.)
During the collapse of Yugoslavia in the 1990s, phyical gold was a terrible store of value. You were much better off with bottled water and tinned food. It turned out that nice gold watch might get you the equivalent of a couple of good meals.
I think the drop in the gold price was probably some kind of glitch but i also think it's possible the German gold supposedly held by the fed isn't there. I'm not sure it matters to me either way but it could be very entertaining.
"This, while continental industry and electricity consumers will be paying something like £2 per ton of carbon dioxide produced, the British equivalents will be paying about £7.
With the UK government committed (via the economic suicide bill) to driving the carbon price up to £18 in 2018, to £30 in 2020 and to £70 in 2030, using the carbon tax mechanism, we now face the spectre of the EU's carbon market collapsing completely, leaving the UK as the only country in the EU handicapped in this way."
It is clearly nonsense that the UK has set minimum carbon prices.
But that was our choice. We chose to deliberately disadvantage ourselves relative to not just to Europe, but to almost everyone else in the entire world. One can only hope that our government reconsiders the minimum price.
(It's also worth noting that one of the reasons why the carbon price has collapsed in Europe is because so much of European power is now being generated by wind and solar - and nuclear in France. While numbers vary depending on the definition, it is clear that in a great many European countries - Denmark, Spain, Germany, France, Sweden - more than 25% of power comes from non-emitting sources. In the UK, I believe, the number is more like 5%.)
"But that was our choice."
Most people don't know global warming flat-lined in 1998. They don't know that because the BBC and the political class didn't tell them. A choice based of false information isn't a fair choice.
But let's forget global warming for a minute. The ETS basically ensures that countries meet their carbon reduction targets in a moderately efficient manner.
Yet we decided that we wanted to horse-whip ourselves so that - even if the targets were being met - British companies had to pay more than their competitors because... because... because...
It's incomprehensible to me, irrespective of your underlying view on the science of global warming, why you want to do such a thing.
Because the political elit of the TORY/LAB/LIB Party, are plain stupid and nuts. Only Ukip has the sensible policies to the global warming scam: get rid of all these manic targets and abolish the windmill farms.
Why would you want to abolish something which produces electricity with zero marginal cost?
Cant get past the paywall but I think this proves a point. Windfarms are NOT cost free. The cost of manufacture means that these absurd windmills will eat more current than they produce, sometimes for years.
Ukip not wasted in the Euro's - def wasted in the GE. Luckily Labour are ignoring the possibility of voters behaving differently in different elections.
Since when has voting for something you believe in been a wasted vote?
If the Lib Dems and Labour members want to vote for something they don't believe in on idealogical grounds it just shows their lack of principles.
"This, while continental industry and electricity consumers will be paying something like £2 per ton of carbon dioxide produced, the British equivalents will be paying about £7.
With the UK government committed (via the economic suicide bill) to driving the carbon price up to £18 in 2018, to £30 in 2020 and to £70 in 2030, using the carbon tax mechanism, we now face the spectre of the EU's carbon market collapsing completely, leaving the UK as the only country in the EU handicapped in this way."
It is clearly nonsense that the UK has set minimum carbon prices.
But that was our choice. We chose to deliberately disadvantage ourselves relative to not just to Europe, but to almost everyone else in the entire world. One can only hope that our government reconsiders the minimum price.
(It's also worth noting that one of the reasons why the carbon price has collapsed in Europe is because so much of European power is now being generated by wind and solar - and nuclear in France. While numbers vary depending on the definition, it is clear that in a great many European countries - Denmark, Spain, Germany, France, Sweden - more than 25% of power comes from non-emitting sources. In the UK, I believe, the number is more like 5%.)
"But that was our choice."
Most people don't know global warming flat-lined in 1998. They don't know that because the BBC and the political class didn't tell them. A choice based of false information isn't a fair choice.
But let's forget global warming for a minute. The ETS basically ensures that countries meet their carbon reduction targets in a moderately efficient manner.
Yet we decided that we wanted to horse-whip ourselves so that - even if the targets were being met - British companies had to pay more than their competitors because... because... because...
It's incomprehensible to me, irrespective of your underlying view on the science of global warming, why you want to do such a thing.
Because the political elit of the TORY/LAB/LIB Party, are plain stupid and nuts. Only Ukip has the sensible policies to the global warming scam: get rid of all these manic targets and abolish the windmill farms.
what are you poing to replace them with ?
I'm guessing he's going to say 'nuclear'. Which is funny, because new nuclear requires exactly the same kind of subsidies (i.e. guaranteed electricity prices over 20 years) as wind.
My point is that like them or hate them windmills are generating power today at a time when the UK arguably faces an energy squeeze as power stations close down so if we shut wind energy we make the problem worse. In places like Scotland the dependency is quite high. If we want to move away from wind then we need to do something to fill the gap until new power sources come on stream. I'd also say that where renewables are economic they should be pushed as both a benefit to the environment and something which helps our BoP and gives us greater enrgey independence. So if we shut them down what will replace them ?
Because the political elite of the TORY/LAB/LIB Party, are plain stupid and nuts.
They're mostly not though. They're mostly reacting to a scare that *had* some rational basis up till 1998-ish but when the data behind it started to go off-message instead of coming clean people who had an interest in maintaining the scare kept it going. I'd guess the economic suicide bill was pretty popular and probably still is because the majority of people don't know that global warming flat-lined in 1998 - because the BBC won't tell them and those parts of the political class not benefiting from the scare can't risk telling people until after the BBC does.
"This, while continental industry and electricity consumers will be paying something like £2 per ton of carbon dioxide produced, the British equivalents will be paying about £7.
With the UK government committed (via the economic suicide bill) to driving the carbon price up to £18 in 2018, to £30 in 2020 and to £70 in 2030, using the carbon tax mechanism, we now face the spectre of the EU's carbon market collapsing completely, leaving the UK as the only country in the EU handicapped in this way."
It is clearly nonsense that the UK has set minimum carbon prices.
But that was our choice. We chose to deliberately disadvantage ourselves relative to not just to Europe, but to almost everyone else in the entire world. One can only hope that our government reconsiders the minimum price.
(It's also worth noting that one of the reasons why the carbon price has collapsed in Europe is because so much of European power is now being generated by wind and solar - and nuclear in France. While numbers vary depending on the definition, it is clear that in a great many European countries - Denmark, Spain, Germany, France, Sweden - more than 25% of power comes from non-emitting sources. In the UK, I believe, the number is more like 5%.)
"But that was our choice."
Most people don't know global warming flat-lined in 1998. They don't know that because the BBC and the political class didn't tell them. A choice based of false information isn't a fair choice.
But let's forget global warming for a minute. The ETS basically ensures that countries meet their carbon reduction targets in a moderately efficient manner.
Yet we decided that we wanted to horse-whip ourselves so that - even if the targets were being met - British companies had to pay more than their competitors because... because... because...
It's incomprehensible to me, irrespective of your underlying view on the science of global warming, why you want to do such a thing.
Because the political elit of the TORY/LAB/LIB Party, are plain stupid and nuts. Only Ukip has the sensible policies to the global warming scam: get rid of all these manic targets and abolish the windmill farms.
Why would you want to abolish something which produces electricity with zero marginal cost?
Cant get past the paywall but I think this proves a point. Windfarms are NOT cost free. The cost of manufacture means that these absurd windmills will eat more current than they produce, sometimes for years.
Fine, but once you've turned the wind turbines off what is going to replace the electricity they generate ?
That is a fair point now you mention it. Before the EU ordered the pretend government to close down those three coal power stations the simple answer was "don't close down the three coal powered stations" but the Cameroons may have painted themselves into another corner.
"This, while continental industry and electricity consumers will be paying something like £2 per ton of carbon dioxide produced, the British equivalents will be paying about £7.
With the UK government committed (via the economic suicide bill) to driving the carbon price up to £18 in 2018, to £30 in 2020 and to £70 in 2030, using the carbon tax mechanism, we now face the spectre of the EU's carbon market collapsing completely, leaving the UK as the only country in the EU handicapped in this way."
It is clearly nonsense that the UK has set minimum carbon prices.
But that was our choice. We chose to deliberately disadvantage ourselves relative to not just to Europe, but to almost everyone else in the entire world. One can only hope that our government reconsiders the minimum price.
(It's also worth noting that one of the reasons why the carbon price has collapsed in Europe is because so much of European power is now being generated by wind and solar - and nuclear in France. While numbers vary depending on the definition, it is clear that in a great many European countries - Denmark, Spain, Germany, France, Sweden - more than 25% of power comes from non-emitting sources. In the UK, I believe, the number is more like 5%.)
"But that was our choice."
Most people don't know global warming flat-lined in 1998. They don't know that because the BBC and the political class didn't tell them. A choice based of false information isn't a fair choice.
But let's forget global warming for a minute. The ETS basically ensures that countries meet their carbon reduction targets in a moderately efficient manner.
Yet we decided that we wanted to horse-whip ourselves so that - even if the targets were being met - British companies had to pay more than their competitors because... because... because...
It's incomprehensible to me, irrespective of your underlying view on the science of global warming, why you want to do such a thing.
Because the political elit of the TORY/LAB/LIB Party, are plain stupid and nuts. Only Ukip has the sensible policies to the global warming scam: get rid of all these manic targets and abolish the windmill farms.
Why would you want to abolish something which produces electricity with zero marginal cost?
Cant get past the paywall but I think this proves a point. Windfarms are NOT cost free. The cost of manufacture means that these absurd windmills will eat more current than they produce, sometimes for years.
Fine, but once you've turned the wind turbines off what is going to replace the electricity they generate ?
The problem MikeK has is that he doesn't understand the difference between marginal and total cost.
When you build a windmill you spend a lot of money. Every time the windmill turns and chucks out a stream of electrons, you are getting some payback. Some people have claimed that the total number of electrons produced by the windmill over its life are less than those required to produce it.
Let us assume that is true. Even if it is, you would still not pull down your existing windmills, because the electrons have already been spent building them. Pulling them down just makes the economics worse.
For solar and wind (and to a lesser extend nuclear), we are talking about high capital cost, low marginal cost electricity. For gas, on the other hand, we are talking about low capital cost, and high marginal cost. Any sensible electrical generating system should be a mix of the two types.
"This, while continental industry and electricity consumers will be paying something like £2 per ton of carbon dioxide produced, the British equivalents will be paying about £7.
With the UK government committed (via the economic suicide bill) to driving the carbon price up to £18 in 2018, to £30 in 2020 and to £70 in 2030, using the carbon tax mechanism, we now face the spectre of the EU's carbon market collapsing completely, leaving the UK as the only country in the EU handicapped in this way."
It is clearly nonsense that the UK has set minimum carbon prices.
But that was our choice. We chose to deliberately disadvantage ourselves relative to not just to Europe, but to almost everyone else in the entire world. One can only hope that our government reconsiders the minimum price.
(It's also worth noting that one of the reasons why the carbon price has collapsed in Europe is because so much of European power is now being generated by wind and solar - and nuclear in France. While numbers vary depending on the definition, it is clear that in a great many European countries - Denmark, Spain, Germany, France, Sweden - more than 25% of power comes from non-emitting sources. In the UK, I believe, the number is more like 5%.)
"But that was our choice."
Most people don't know global warming flat-lined in 1998. They don't know that because the BBC and the political class didn't tell them. A choice based of false information isn't a fair choice.
But let's forget global warming for a minute. The ETS basically ensures that countries meet their carbon reduction targets in a moderately efficient manner.
Yet we decided that we wanted to horse-whip ourselves so that - even if the targets were being met - British companies had to pay more than their competitors because... because... because...
It's incomprehensible to me, irrespective of your underlying view on the science of global warming, why you want to do such a thing.
Because the political elit of the TORY/LAB/LIB Party, are plain stupid and nuts. Only Ukip has the sensible policies to the global warming scam: get rid of all these manic targets and abolish the windmill farms.
what are you poing to replace them with ?
I'm guessing he's going to say 'nuclear'. Which is funny, because new nuclear requires exactly the same kind of subsidies (i.e. guaranteed electricity prices over 20 years) as wind.
I think the only fuel that exists without subsidy currently is pretty much coal. Even this pro wind article http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/27/wind-power-subsidy-fossil-fuels (Which counts the 5% VAT on fuel as a 'fossil fuel' subsidy only ?) reckons £72m. In terms of subsidy per Watt Hour that must be way below anything else.
Electoral Calculus now have a 'changed seats' option on their 'dynamic map'. (The button in the top left corner cycles through '2010 result' > prediction > changed seats)
@Alanbrooke: Fine, but once you've turned the wind turbines off what is going to replace the electricity they generate ?
Sadly, the political elite have made such dogs dinner of energy, for decades now, that I cannot help you. Obviously the existing windfarms will be kept serviceable for as long as possible. I am not against sun or wind power being produced, providing the systems used are economical.
I guess fracking will have to be used and eventually the nuclear option will have to be considered. Otherwise it's Ice Age Britain in our childrens and grandchildrens future.
"This, while continental industry and electricity consumers will be paying something like £2 per ton of carbon dioxide produced, the British equivalents will be paying about £7.
With the UK government committed (via the economic suicide bill) to driving the carbon price up to £18 in 2018, to £30 in 2020 and to £70 in 2030, using the carbon tax mechanism, we now face the spectre of the EU's carbon market collapsing completely, leaving the UK as the only country in the EU handicapped in this way."
It is clearly nonsense that the UK has set minimum carbon prices.
But that was our choice. We chose to deliberately disadvantage ourselves relative to not just to Europe, but to almost everyone else in the entire world. One can only hope that our government reconsiders the minimum price.
(It's also worth noting that one of the reasons why the carbon price has collapsed in Europe is because so much of European power is now being generated by wind and solar - and nuclear in France. While numbers vary depending on the definition, it is clear that in a great many European countries - Denmark, Spain, Germany, France, Sweden - more than 25% of power comes from non-emitting sources. In the UK, I believe, the number is more like 5%.)
"But that was our choice."
Most people don't know global warming flat-lined in 1998. They don't know that because the BBC and the political class didn't tell them. A choice based of false information isn't a fair choice.
But let's forget global warming for a minute. The ETS basically ensures that countries meet their carbon reduction targets in a moderately efficient manner.
Yet we decided that we wanted to horse-whip ourselves so that - even if the targets were being met - British companies had to pay more than their competitors because... because... because...
It's incomprehensible to me, irrespective of your underlying view on the science of global warming, why you want to do such a thing.
Because the political elit of the TORY/LAB/LIB Party, are plain stupid and nuts. Only Ukip has the sensible policies to the global warming scam: get rid of all these manic targets and abolish the windmill farms.
what are you poing to replace them with ?
I'm guessing he's going to say 'nuclear'. Which is funny, because new nuclear requires exactly the same kind of subsidies (i.e. guaranteed electricity prices over 20 years) as wind.
I think the only fuel that exists without subsidy currently is pretty much coal. Even this article (Which counts the 5% VAT on fuel as a 'fossil fuel' subsidy only ?) reckons £72m. In terms of subsidy per Watt Hour that must be way below anything else.
Actually gas and coal have very similar economics in the UK. The most profitable power generation is almost certainly hydro, where the costs of construction were paid for decades ago. Nuclear is also profitable right now, albeit because most of the plant is towards the end of its operating life, and therefore sustaining capex is modest. However, building new nuclear is not cost efficient, because the massive capital costs required mean - given current electricity prices - that it just simply doesn't make economic sense. Without subsidies, solar would not exist in the UK.
Fine, but once you've turned the wind turbines off what is going to replace the electricity they generate ?
That is a fair point now you mention it. Before the EU ordered the pretend government to close down those three coal power stations the simple answer was "don't close down the three coal powered stations" but the Cameroons may have painted themselves into another corner.
I'd agree with that and the Cameroons were just idiots, but we are where we are. Currently wind generates about 5% of uk energy so if we switch the turbines off our options are we all use 5% less, 1.3 million houses go completely without electricity or we find 5% elsewhere. If so where ?
"This, while continental industry and electricity consumers will be paying something like £2 per ton of carbon dioxide produced, the British equivalents will be paying about £7.
With the UK government committed (via the economic suicide bill) to driving the carbon price up to £18 in 2018, to £30 in 2020 and to £70 in 2030, using the carbon tax mechanism, we now face the spectre of the EU's carbon market collapsing completely, leaving the UK as the only country in the EU handicapped in this way."
It is clearly nonsense that the UK has set minimum carbon prices.
But that was our choice. We chose to deliberately disadvantage ourselves relative to not just to Europe, but to almost everyone else in the entire world. One can only hope that our government reconsiders the minimum price.
(It's also worth noting that one of the reasons why the carbon price has collapsed in Europe is because so much of European power is now being generated by wind and solar - and nuclear in France. While numbers vary depending on the definition, it is clear that in a great many European countries - Denmark, Spain, Germany, France, Sweden - more than 25% of power comes from non-emitting sources. In the UK, I believe, the number is more like 5%.)
"But that was our choice."
Most people don't know global warming flat-lined in 1998. They don't know that because the BBC and the political class didn't tell them. A choice based of false information isn't a fair choice.
But let's forget global warming for a minute. The ETS basically ensures that countries meet their carbon reduction targets in a moderately efficient manner.
Yet we decided that we wanted to horse-whip ourselves so that - even if the targets were being met - British companies had to pay more than their competitors because... because... because...
It's incomprehensible to me, irrespective of your underlying view on the science of global warming, why you want to do such a thing.
Because the political elit of the TORY/LAB/LIB Party, are plain stupid and nuts. Only Ukip has the sensible policies to the global warming scam: get rid of all these manic targets and abolish the windmill farms.
Why would you want to abolish something which produces electricity with zero marginal cost?
Cant get past the paywall but I think this proves a point. Windfarms are NOT cost free. The cost of manufacture means that these absurd windmills will eat more current than they produce, sometimes for years.
@Alanbrooke: Fine, but once you've turned the wind turbines off what is going to replace the electricity they generate ?
Sadly, the political elite have made such dogs dinner of energy, for decades now, that I cannot help you. Obviously the existing windfarms will be kept serviceable for as long as possible. I am not against sun or wind power being produced, providing the systems used are economical.
I guess fracking will have to be used and eventually the nuclear option will have to be considered. Otherwise it's Ice Age Britain in our childrens and grandchildrens future.
Fine Mike, I'll take that as UKIP have ideas about energy but not an actual worked out policy.
@Alanbrooke: Fine, but once you've turned the wind turbines off what is going to replace the electricity they generate ?
Sadly, the political elite have made such dogs dinner of energy, for decades now, that I cannot help you. Obviously the existing windfarms will be kept serviceable for as long as possible. I am not against sun or wind power being produced, providing the systems used are economical.
I guess fracking will have to be used and eventually the nuclear option will have to be considered. Otherwise it's Ice Age Britain in our childrens and grandchildrens future.
MikeK: would you like to make a list of all the merchant nuclear power stations built in the world.
I can help: the answer is zero. Just like with wind, nuclear exists only with (implicit and explicit) subsidies.
@rcs1000 "For solar and wind (and to a lesser extend nuclear), we are talking about high capital cost, low marginal cost electricity. For gas, on the other hand, we are talking about low capital cost, and high marginal cost. Any sensible electrical generating system should be a mix of the two types."
"This, while continental industry and electricity consumers will be paying something like £2 per ton of carbon dioxide produced, the British equivalents will be paying about £7.
With the UK government committed (via the economic suicide bill) to driving the carbon price up to £18 in 2018, to £30 in 2020 and to £70 in 2030, using the carbon tax mechanism, we now face the spectre of the EU's carbon market collapsing completely, leaving the UK as the only country in the EU handicapped in this way."
It is clearly nonsense that the UK has set minimum carbon prices.
But that was our choice. We chose to deliberately disadvantage ourselves relative to not just to Europe, but to almost everyone else in the entire world. One can only hope that our government reconsiders the minimum price.
(It's also worth noting that one of the reasons why the carbon price has collapsed in Europe is because so much of European power is now being generated by wind and solar - and nuclear in France. While numbers vary depending on the definition, it is clear that in a great many European countries - Denmark, Spain, Germany, France, Sweden - more than 25% of power comes from non-emitting sources. In the UK, I believe, the number is more like 5%.)
"But that was our choice."
Most people don't know global warming flat-lined in 1998. They don't know that because the BBC and the political class didn't tell them. A choice based of false information isn't a fair choice.
But let's forget global warming for a minute. The ETS basically ensures that countries meet their carbon reduction targets in a moderately efficient manner.
Yet we decided that we wanted to horse-whip ourselves so that - even if the targets were being met - British companies had to pay more than their competitors because... because... because...
It's incomprehensible to me, irrespective of your underlying view on the science of global warming, why you want to do such a thing.
Because the political elit of the TORY/LAB/LIB Party, are plain stupid and nuts. Only Ukip has the sensible policies to the global warming scam: get rid of all these manic targets and abolish the windmill farms.
Why would you want to abolish something which produces electricity with zero marginal cost?
Cant get past the paywall but I think this proves a point. Windfarms are NOT cost free. The cost of manufacture means that these absurd windmills will eat more current than they produce, sometimes for years.
Fine, but once you've turned the wind turbines off what is going to replace the electricity they generate ?
The windmills all have backup options already. Mostly gas.
anotherDave.
Again I'll ask the question: why would you turn off a windmill? Given the marginal cost of electricity generated from a windmill is zero, it would be clearly bonkers to do so.
Ukip not wasted in the Euro's - def wasted in the GE. Luckily Labour are ignoring the possibility of voters behaving differently in different elections.
Since when has voting for something you believe in been a wasted vote?
If the Lib Dems and Labour members want to vote for something they don't believe in on idealogical grounds it just shows their lack of principles.
Depends if you value personal smugness over having rEd Miliband as PM.
Ukip not wasted in the Euro's - def wasted in the GE. Luckily Labour are ignoring the possibility of voters behaving differently in different elections.
Since when has voting for something you believe in been a wasted vote?
If the Lib Dems and Labour members want to vote for something they don't believe in on idealogical grounds it just shows their lack of principles.
Depends if you value personal smugness over having rEd Miliband as PM.
Choose your poison.
What if you want to leave the EU and reinstate Grammar schools? What does it matter if it's Dave or Ed in charge?
Ukip not wasted in the Euro's - def wasted in the GE. Luckily Labour are ignoring the possibility of voters behaving differently in different elections.
Since when has voting for something you believe in been a wasted vote?
If the Lib Dems and Labour members want to vote for something they don't believe in on idealogical grounds it just shows their lack of principles.
Depends if you value personal smugness over having rEd Miliband as PM.
Choose your poison.
What if you want to leave the EU and reinstate Grammar schools? What does it matter if it's Dave or Ed in charge?
Then you can either go for least worst option and hope for salami slicing or sit in your bunker and watch Labour sign up to even more Europe without a sniff of a referendum.
Your choice - go for the percentage option or the moral high ground of superiority and righteous indignation.
Ukip not wasted in the Euro's - def wasted in the GE. Luckily Labour are ignoring the possibility of voters behaving differently in different elections.
Since when has voting for something you believe in been a wasted vote?
If the Lib Dems and Labour members want to vote for something they don't believe in on idealogical grounds it just shows their lack of principles.
Depends if you value personal smugness over having rEd Miliband as PM.
Choose your poison.
What if you want to leave the EU and reinstate Grammar schools? What does it matter if it's Dave or Ed in charge?
I'd say it's like a bet Sam you have to look at the facts. The facts are in your constituency is it marginal or not ? If it is you can impact the outcome of the government, if it's not the blues or reds could have a total dildo for a candidate and he'll still get elected.
Ukip not wasted in the Euro's - def wasted in the GE. Luckily Labour are ignoring the possibility of voters behaving differently in different elections.
Since when has voting for something you believe in been a wasted vote?
If the Lib Dems and Labour members want to vote for something they don't believe in on idealogical grounds it just shows their lack of principles.
Depends if you value personal smugness over having rEd Miliband as PM.
Choose your poison.
What if you want to leave the EU and reinstate Grammar schools? What does it matter if it's Dave or Ed in charge?
Then you can either go for least worst option and hope for salami slicing or sit in your bunker and watch Labour sign up to even more Europe without a sniff of a referendum.
Your choice - go for the percentage option or the moral high ground of superiority and righteous indignation.
Cannot agree with that.
Rome wasn't built in a day. If people do as you suggest, the Tories will think its ok to carry on being what amounts to New Labour. If enough people vote UKIP, it will deter the Tory leader from pursuing lefty policies like overseas aid, gay marriage, comprehensive schooling, etc etc
Strange that you call it smugness to vote for something you believe in
Again I'll ask the question: why would you turn off a windmill? Given the marginal cost of electricity generated from a windmill is zero, it would be clearly bonkers to do so.
"2. His wealthy father in law – Sir Reginald Sheffield Bt – receives a thousand pounds a day, mostly from hidden tariffs on your energy bill, for the hideous wind turbines sticking out like a sore thumb on his estates."
If the marginal cost is zero where's dave's father-in-law getting his grand a day from?
Ukip not wasted in the Euro's - def wasted in the GE. Luckily Labour are ignoring the possibility of voters behaving differently in different elections.
Since when has voting for something you believe in been a wasted vote?
If the Lib Dems and Labour members want to vote for something they don't believe in on idealogical grounds it just shows their lack of principles.
Depends if you value personal smugness over having rEd Miliband as PM.
Choose your poison.
What if you want to leave the EU and reinstate Grammar schools? What does it matter if it's Dave or Ed in charge?
I'd say it's like a bet Sam you have to look at the facts. The facts are in your constituency is it marginal or not ? If it is you can impact the outcome of the government, if it's not the blues or reds could have a total dildo for a candidate and he'll still get elected.
My constituency is Hornchurch and Upminster, the sitting Tory MP is v right wing and I wouldn't be amazed if she defected to UKIP.
Diehard supporters of one of the old big three may not like it, but a lot of people see no difference between them. I am going to vote UKIP, I joined them today actually, and couldnt really care less whether Cameron, Clegg or Miliband were PM.
(ex Labour voter, under 40, sorry to defy the stereotype)
"This, while continental industry and electricity consumers will be paying something like £2 per ton of carbon dioxide produced, the British equivalents will be paying about £7.
With the UK government committed (via the economic suicide bill) to driving the carbon price up to £18 in 2018, to £30 in 2020 and to £70 in 2030, using the carbon tax mechanism, we now face the spectre of the EU's carbon market collapsing completely, leaving the UK as the only country in the EU handicapped in this way."
It is clearly nonsense that the UK has set minimum carbon prices.
But that was our choice. We chose to deliberately disadvantage ourselves relative to not just to Europe, but to almost everyone else in the entire world. One can only hope that our government reconsiders the minimum price.
(It's also worth noting that one of the reasons why the carbon price has collapsed in Europe is because so much of European power is now being generated by wind and solar - and nuclear in France. While numbers vary depending on the definition, it is clear that in a great many European countries - Denmark, Spain, Germany, France, Sweden - more than 25% of power comes from non-emitting sources. In the UK, I believe, the number is more like 5%.)
"But that was our choice."
Most people don't know global warming flat-lined in 1998. They don't know that because the BBC and the political class didn't tell them. A choice based of false information isn't a fair choice.
But let's forget global warming for a minute. The ETS basically ensures that countries meet their carbon reduction targets in a moderately efficient manner.
Yet we decided that we wanted to horse-whip ourselves so that - even if the targets were being met - British companies had to pay more than their competitors because... because... because...
It's incomprehensible to me, irrespective of your underlying view on the science of global warming, why you want to do such a thing.
Because the political elit of the TORY/LAB/LIB Party, are plain stupid and nuts. Only Ukip has the sensible policies to the global warming scam: get rid of all these manic targets and abolish the windmill farms.
Why would you want to abolish something which produces electricity with zero marginal cost?
Cant get past the paywall but I think this proves a point. Windfarms are NOT cost free. The cost of manufacture means that these absurd windmills will eat more current than they produce, sometimes for years.
Fine, but once you've turned the wind turbines off what is going to replace the electricity they generate ?
The windmills all have backup options already. Mostly gas.
anotherDave.
Again I'll ask the question: why would you turn off a windmill? Given the marginal cost of electricity generated from a windmill is zero, it would be clearly bonkers to do so.
Because the marginal cost is not zero. They get a guaranteed price over the market rate (renewables obligation certificate/feed in tariff?). In the case of the off shore wind farms, the maintenance costs may well be non-trivial.
But fine, leave them on, but do not subsidise them at all. If they can sell their electricity in competition with other providers let them go for it.
Ukip not wasted in the Euro's - def wasted in the GE. Luckily Labour are ignoring the possibility of voters behaving differently in different elections.
Since when has voting for something you believe in been a wasted vote?
If the Lib Dems and Labour members want to vote for something they don't believe in on idealogical grounds it just shows their lack of principles.
Depends if you value personal smugness over having rEd Miliband as PM.
Choose your poison.
What if you want to leave the EU and reinstate Grammar schools? What does it matter if it's Dave or Ed in charge?
Then you can either go for least worst option and hope for salami slicing or sit in your bunker and watch Labour sign up to even more Europe without a sniff of a referendum.
Your choice - go for the percentage option or the moral high ground of superiority and righteous indignation.
Cannot agree with that.
Rome wasn't built in a day. If people do as you suggest, the Tories will think its ok to carry on being what amounts to New Labour. If enough people vote UKIP, it will deter the Tory leader from pursuing lefty policies like overseas aid, gay marriage, comprehensive schooling, etc etc
Strange that you call it smugness to vote for something you believe in
I'm not saying you are right or wrong - just a decision whether you want something less worse in the next 5 years in the hope of perfection tomorrow which might never come - you have to figure that out for yourself.
Wait long by the river and the bodies of your enemies will float by say the Indians - however you could be a pile bones by then too.
Please provide the links requested on the previous thread
You asked for links to the clinical data. I guess you have no idea first how proprietary that is and secondly how many thousands of pages are involved in the dossiers. However, to be helpful here are some of the summaries
ATTENUVAX - live attenuated measles vaccine from MSD / Sanofi Pasteur
Mumps single vaccine is more difficult. I don't like Pavivac (the Czech one you referred to) and I don't like IIL as a company so won't be using any of their products.
It's the CNS, musculoskeletal and hypersensitivity side effects (plus also the SSIs which can be nasty, but are basically transitory) that cause me most concern, particularly GBS, acute polyneuropathy
'Scottish independence: Call for Better Together to return Ian Taylor donation'
Alex Salmond questioned the donation because of controversy over some of Vitol's past business dealings.
Better Together said it was a "valid donation" and would be retained.
In 2007, Vitol was heavily fined by a New York court after admitting making payments to the national oil company in Saddam Hussein's Iraq which were outside the UN's oil for food programme.
Vitol is also reported to have paid $1m to the notorious Serbian paramilitary Arkan as part of an oil deal in the 1990s. The company said it had not acted illegally.
In a BBC interview, Mr Salmond said: "The problem is the range of activities which is suggested that the company have been involved in.
"I think the Better Together campaign should examine this and return the money in the same way as the Labour Party argued that the Conservatives should return the money when a donation was made to them."
@AlanBrooke "'but we are where we are. Currently wind generates about 5% of uk energy so if we switch the turbines off our options are we all use 5% less, 1.3 million houses go completely without electricity or we find 5% elsewhere. If so where ?"
Slipped my mind until anotherdave mentioned it below but one of the arguments against the windmills was they needed to have full backup in place as well - so isn't it already there?
"This, while continental industry and electricity consumers will be paying something like £2 per ton of carbon dioxide produced, the British equivalents will be paying about £7.
With the UK government committed (via the economic suicide bill) to driving the carbon price up to £18 in 2018, to £30 in 2020 and to £70 in 2030, using the carbon tax mechanism, we now face the spectre of the EU's carbon market collapsing completely, leaving the UK as the only country in the EU handicapped in this way."
It is clearly nonsense that the UK has set minimum carbon prices.
But that was our choice. We chose to deliberately disadvantage ourselves relative to not just to Europe, but to almost everyone else in the entire world. One can only hope that our government reconsiders the minimum price.
(It's also worth noting that one of the reasons why the carbon price has collapsed in Europe is because so much of European power is now being generated by wind and solar - and nuclear in France. While numbers vary depending on the definition, it is clear that in a great many European countries - Denmark, Spain, Germany, France, Sweden - more than 25% of power comes from non-emitting sources. In the UK, I believe, the number is more like 5%.)
"But that was our choice."
Most people don't know global warming flat-lined in 1998. They don't know that because the BBC and the political class didn't tell them. A choice based of false information isn't a fair choice.
But let's forget global warming for a minute. The ETS basically ensures that countries meet their carbon reduction targets in a moderately efficient manner.
Yet we decided that we wanted to horse-whip ourselves so that - even if the targets were being met - British companies had to pay more than their competitors because... because... because...
It's incomprehensible to me, irrespective of your underlying view on the science of global warming, why you want to do such a thing.
Because the political elit of the TORY/LAB/LIB Party, are plain stupid and nuts. Only Ukip has the sensible policies to the global warming scam: get rid of all these manic targets and abolish the windmill farms.
Why would you want to abolish something which produces electricity with zero marginal cost?
Cant get past the paywall but I think this proves a point. Windfarms are NOT cost free. The cost of manufacture means that these absurd windmills will eat more current than they produce, sometimes for years.
Fine, but once you've turned the wind turbines off what is going to replace the electricity they generate ?
The problem MikeK has is that he doesn't understand the difference between marginal and total cost.
When you build a windmill you spend a lot of money. Every time the windmill turns and chucks out a stream of electrons, you are getting some payback. Some people have claimed that the total number of electrons produced by the windmill over its life are less than those required to produce it.
Let us assume that is true. Even if it is, you would still not pull down your existing windmills, because the electrons have already been spent building them. Pulling them down just makes the economics worse.
For solar and wind (and to a lesser extend nuclear), we are talking about high capital cost, low marginal cost electricity. For gas, on the other hand, we are talking about low capital cost, and high marginal cost. Any sensible electrical generating system should be a mix of the two types.
From an economic perspective, yes. However you are ignoring the negative externalities (feel like a bit of a theme this week) - visual and auditory pollution. I'd tend to keep the ones we have but not replace them and not hurry to build new ones because they are expensive, unreliable and ugly. Would typically prefer combination of gas and nuclear, mainly because there is a good chance that both can be UK-centric.
Comments
What is of considerably more interest is WHERE are you reading that 'report'?
http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/article155208.ece
I note you couldn't actually bring yourself to use the words "in the Sunday Times". Moving on...
Sigh. Within the confines of the mandate given by the Scottish people for a referendum "well into the second half" of this parliamentary term, September 2014 is early. I know it must be confusing to you as a Tory that the SNP actually plan to keep their promise to the electorate, but there it is.
I wonder whether this could be because of a more traditional attitude towards death amongst those communities? ie. the idea of protesting on the day of someone's funeral is totally unacceptable no matter how much you disliked the person while they were alive.
UKIP are on the rise while other parties are losing support.
TSE, a word of advice for future reference - if you want to reach a consensus with SNP supporters (or anyone with an ounce of common sense) on what constitutes historical fact, it's probably best not to pray in aid an article in a Brit Nat rag that carries the headline "SNP boss planned Nazi Scotland".
Unlike Nesbitt's mob, which is the ayer party.
Clearly not.
Not only have I not learned a lesson from it, I don't even recall it. It wouldn't be a figment of your imagination, by any chance?
So tell me, TSE, what was the nature of the "extreme nationalist views" that led to Donaldson being thrown out of the SNP in 1940? (That golden year when Britain was the junior partner to the US in World War II...)
In the sense that he was a Conservative MP, and he was prominent.
"Now, addressing @JamesKelly, which Party did the late, great, Robert Maxwell, represent in Parliament? Surely, it wasn't the Labour Party? .... [cough, cough}"
Yes, it sure as hell wasn't the SNP. You Brit Nats do know how to pick 'em.
UPDATE : Ipsos-Mori have been in touch, and have asked me to correct this post, which originally stated -
"There is also a question on voting intention for the independence referendum. Caution should be exercised here, because from the little I've seen of the report in the Times, it looks very much like this is yet another example of a unionist newspaper commissioning a pollster to ask a question that bears little resemblance to the actual proposed referendum question. However, for what it's worth, here are the figures..."
http://scotgoespop.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/ipsos-mori-poll-snp-retain-solid.html
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-01-14/it-begins-bundesbank-commence-repatriating-gold-new-york-fed
which would mean bad things if true.
All the events of the last month, the big Tory push on welfare ("won the argument", Tories kept assuring us, bizarrely), the interminable Thatcherthon, and the impact on the polls is - nowt.
Opinion is looking pretty settled.
I ought to tell you what a prominent PB poster once emailed to me, because he knew I'd be shocked by it, but alas I'm sworn to secrecy.
I was contacted by Ipsos-Mori and asked to make a correction, and I did so immediately. You may be "amused" by such professionalism, as may your prominent pollster chum, but if I may say so I'm content for my actions to stand comparison to your antics as moderator of this blog.
Let's see if you've got the guts to leave this post up.
http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=83813
"This, while continental industry and electricity consumers will be paying something like £2 per ton of carbon dioxide produced, the British equivalents will be paying about £7.
With the UK government committed (via the economic suicide bill) to driving the carbon price up to £18 in 2018, to £30 in 2020 and to £70 in 2030, using the carbon tax mechanism, we now face the spectre of the EU's carbon market collapsing completely, leaving the UK as the only country in the EU handicapped in this way."
The language is baffling and yet meaningless - could have come straight from rEd's mouth though.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/18/ed-miliband-right-to-ignore-blair-centre-transform
"The renewal of solidarity, subsidiarity and status within welfare is a transformational change that would complement the new economic position."
"The one nation idea allows an inclusive politics of the common good to be developed in which virtue, loyalty and honesty can be spoken of as necessary features of the move from debt to value in our economy."
"A further paradox is that the renewal of democracy can be achieved only with effective leadership"
"By challenging prevailing orthodoxies, having the courage to defy the old consensus and define a new political position, and championing changes (party organisers; the living wage; the interest rate cap; the establishment of regional banks; a renewed vocational economy; a relational approach to welfare within a politics of renewed solidarity) Miliband has all the ingredients necessary to bake the cake."
Labour see him as a traitor for going into coalition with Conservatives.
Conservatives see him as stopping them from implementing Tory policies in Government.
On the other hand there are similar reasons for Conservative and Labour voters to keep each other out by voting Lib Dem.
A UKIP vote is a wasted vote because they are spread evenly across England. Lib Dems used to have the same problem until they focussed (sic) on target seats.
Anyone keen to make connections between the tragic explosion in Texas and terrorism should take care. There may be a terrorist cause, but the fact that there was a fire beforehand does point in my mind to accident rather than deliberate act.
Ammonium nitrate disasters are surprisingly common:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ammonium_nitrate_disasters
Including the tragic Texas City disaster:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_City_Disaster
When the AZF plant in Toulouse went up ten days after 9/11 (killing 39 people), terrorism was initially blamed by the authorities, and one employee named. Many believe it to have been an accident, but suspicion still falls on the individual.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AZF_(factory)
As it was a fire rather than an instantaneous explosion, there's a good chance some staff may have got out in time with information on how it started.
Really, absolutely nothing. It is one of the most momentous examples of non-news in the history of economics and finance.
It will be even more of a giggle if Ben Doone and Phil McCavity attend.
I'm unfortunately unable to make tomorrow night at Dirty Dicks (I'm travelling to Hungary tonight) but given that I am in Glasgow with some regularity and have some discretion over when I go, I might ironically be able to make a Glasgow gathering.
"The renewal of solidarity, subsidiarity and status within welfare is a transformational change that would complement the new economic position."
"There's no money left, so we need to wibble on about fairness in the hope that people won't notice we're not reversing any of the coalition's cuts"
"The one nation idea allows an inclusive politics of the common good to be developed in which virtue, loyalty and honesty can be spoken of as necessary features of the move from debt to value in our economy."
"There's no money left, and we can no longer get away with conning people that we can borrow our way out of the problem."
"A further paradox is that the renewal of democracy can be achieved only with effective leadership"
"If only we had someone with the popular appeal of Maggie to lead the party.... but it can't be helped. We're stuck with Ed."
"By challenging prevailing orthodoxies, having the courage to defy the old consensus and define a new political position, and championing changes (party organisers; the living wage; the interest rate cap; the establishment of regional banks; a renewed vocational economy; a relational approach to welfare within a politics of renewed solidarity) Miliband has all the ingredients necessary to bake the cake."
"All the same, we can win the next election despite having nothing to say, as long as we keep to meaningless platitudes."
But that was our choice. We chose to deliberately disadvantage ourselves relative to not just to Europe, but to almost everyone else in the entire world. One can only hope that our government reconsiders the minimum price.
(It's also worth noting that one of the reasons why the carbon price has collapsed in Europe is because so much of European power is now being generated by wind and solar - and nuclear in France. While numbers vary depending on the definition, it is clear that in a great many European countries - Denmark, Spain, Germany, France, Sweden - more than 25% of power comes from non-emitting sources. In the UK, I believe, the number is more like 5%.)
could it be that our political class likes making grand idiotic gestures without thinking of the consequences ?
1. In the locals there will be many seats that are targeted and others that will have minimum attention.
2. If people are banking on only the ancients voting for Ukip, think again. Of the over 6000 new members recruited to Ukip in the last 6 weeks, over 2/3 are under 40. Many of the volunteers for pamphleting, etc., are young and in their teens.
3. The immediate aim of Ukip is to show a presence where they are scarcely known, get as many votes in the targeted seats and recruit more members.
Most people don't know global warming flat-lined in 1998. They don't know that because the BBC and the political class didn't tell them. A choice based of false information isn't a fair choice.
Yet we decided that we wanted to horse-whip ourselves so that - even if the targets were being met - British companies had to pay more than their competitors because... because... because...
It's incomprehensible to me, irrespective of your underlying view on the science of global warming, why you want to do such a thing.
lolz
If you look at facts for a moment: the amount of gold traded - as a percentage of the total gold that exists in the world - is incredibly high. More so than almost any commodity, each physical gram of gold changes hands (albeit mostly electronically) many, many times per year. In fact, there have been a number of excellent analyses that suggest that the amount of physical gold in the world is much more than is generally posited, because of the sheer volume of trading that takes place. (See The Thunder Road Report.)
During the collapse of Yugoslavia in the 1990s, phyical gold was a terrible store of value. You were much better off with bottled water and tinned food. It turned out that nice gold watch might get you the equivalent of a couple of good meals.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/environment/article3704842.ece
If the Lib Dems and Labour members want to vote for something they don't believe in on idealogical grounds it just shows their lack of principles.
When you build a windmill you spend a lot of money. Every time the windmill turns and chucks out a stream of electrons, you are getting some payback. Some people have claimed that the total number of electrons produced by the windmill over its life are less than those required to produce it.
Let us assume that is true. Even if it is, you would still not pull down your existing windmills, because the electrons have already been spent building them. Pulling them down just makes the economics worse.
For solar and wind (and to a lesser extend nuclear), we are talking about high capital cost, low marginal cost electricity. For gas, on the other hand, we are talking about low capital cost, and high marginal cost. Any sensible electrical generating system should be a mix of the two types.
http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/dynamicmap.html
Fine, but once you've turned the wind turbines off what is going to replace the electricity they generate ?
Sadly, the political elite have made such dogs dinner of energy, for decades now, that I cannot help you. Obviously the existing windfarms will be kept serviceable for as long as possible. I am not against sun or wind power being produced, providing the systems used are economical.
I guess fracking will have to be used and eventually the nuclear option will have to be considered. Otherwise it's Ice Age Britain in our childrens and grandchildrens future.
I can help: the answer is zero. Just like with wind, nuclear exists only with (implicit and explicit) subsidies.
"For solar and wind (and to a lesser extend nuclear), we are talking about high capital cost, low marginal cost electricity. For gas, on the other hand, we are talking about low capital cost, and high marginal cost. Any sensible electrical generating system should be a mix of the two types."
I don't dispute you there.
Again I'll ask the question: why would you turn off a windmill? Given the marginal cost of electricity generated from a windmill is zero, it would be clearly bonkers to do so.
Choose your poison.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/apr/18/michael-gove-longer-school-day-holidays
Then you can either go for least worst option and hope for salami slicing or sit in your bunker and watch Labour sign up to even more Europe without a sniff of a referendum.
Your choice - go for the percentage option or the moral high ground of superiority and righteous indignation.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/isabel-hardman/2013/04/a-lurch-to-the-left-or-a-wise-appointment/
Rome wasn't built in a day. If people do as you suggest, the Tories will think its ok to carry on being what amounts to New Labour. If enough people vote UKIP, it will deter the Tory leader from pursuing lefty policies like overseas aid, gay marriage, comprehensive schooling, etc etc
Strange that you call it smugness to vote for something you believe in
"2. His wealthy father in law – Sir Reginald Sheffield Bt – receives a thousand pounds a day, mostly from hidden tariffs on your energy bill, for the hideous wind turbines sticking out like a sore thumb on his estates."
If the marginal cost is zero where's dave's father-in-law getting his grand a day from?
Diehard supporters of one of the old big three may not like it, but a lot of people see no difference between them. I am going to vote UKIP, I joined them today actually, and couldnt really care less whether Cameron, Clegg or Miliband were PM.
(ex Labour voter, under 40, sorry to defy the stereotype)
But fine, leave them on, but do not subsidise them at all. If they can sell their electricity in competition with other providers let them go for it.
I'm not saying you are right or wrong - just a decision whether you want something less worse in the next 5 years in the hope of perfection tomorrow which might never come - you have to figure that out for yourself.
Wait long by the river and the bodies of your enemies will float by say the Indians - however you could be a pile bones by then too.
ATTENUVAX - live attenuated measles vaccine from MSD / Sanofi Pasteur
http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?term=attenuvax&Search=Search
MERUVAX II - SubQ rubella vaccine (again vL,a but what can you do). Again Merck/MSD/Sanofi Pasteur
http://www.drugs.com/mtm/rubella-virus-vaccine.html
Mumps single vaccine is more difficult. I don't like Pavivac (the Czech one you referred to) and I don't like IIL as a company so won't be using any of their products.
On MMR
http://www.drugs.com/sfx/measles-virus-vaccine-mumps-virus-vaccine-rubella-virus-vaccine-side-effects.html
It's the CNS, musculoskeletal and hypersensitivity side effects (plus also the SSIs which can be nasty, but are basically transitory) that cause me most concern, particularly GBS, acute polyneuropathy
Alex Salmond questioned the donation because of controversy over some of Vitol's past business dealings.
Better Together said it was a "valid donation" and would be retained.
In 2007, Vitol was heavily fined by a New York court after admitting making payments to the national oil company in Saddam Hussein's Iraq which were outside the UN's oil for food programme.
Vitol is also reported to have paid $1m to the notorious Serbian paramilitary Arkan as part of an oil deal in the 1990s. The company said it had not acted illegally.
In a BBC interview, Mr Salmond said: "The problem is the range of activities which is suggested that the company have been involved in.
"I think the Better Together campaign should examine this and return the money in the same way as the Labour Party argued that the Conservatives should return the money when a donation was made to them."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-22208385
"'but we are where we are. Currently wind generates about 5% of uk energy so if we switch the turbines off our options are we all use 5% less, 1.3 million houses go completely without electricity or we find 5% elsewhere. If so where ?"
Slipped my mind until anotherdave mentioned it below but one of the arguments against the windmills was they needed to have full backup in place as well - so isn't it already there?
Welcome to the fold, Sam. I keep telling PB that most new recruits to Ukip are under 40. I still don't think they believe me.
I hope the supply of high horses can keep up...