politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Brecon & Radnor recall petition succeeds and an early by-e
Options
Comments
-
I may know him. Was he called Andy?Andy_Cooke said:From the detailed poll tables, we can conclude that Continuity Change were supported by one person out of the 1641 they polled.
That person was a Londoner, male, aged between 25-34, voted Remain in 2016 and Conservative in 2017, social group ABC1.0 -
From looking at the detail of that YouGov poll, it is apparent that out of the YouGov sample of 1641, the total support for TIG/Change UK/The Independent Group for Change has fallen from single figures to a single person.
That person is an ABC1 male living in London, voted Remain in 2016 and Conservative in 2017.0 -
For all the bile spat at them by naysayers, Greta Thurnberg, Extinction Rebellion and now Greenpeace have forced environmentalism up the political agenda.Richard_Nabavi said:
Of course it's a bad thing, but there are serious discussions about climate change there, as is witnessed by the remarkable progress the UK has made on this issue. The protestors aren't interested in serious discussions, unfortunately.Jonathan said:The fact no10 is now a fortress is a bad thing. We would be better off if there were serious discussions about climate change behind that black door.
Increasingly politicions desiring avoiding extinction themselves will need to take these considerations very seriously.1 -
OT just looking at a photo on the BBC cricket update of a half-empty Headingly stand. Are these games not all sold out?
(I couldn't get a wheelchair space ticket at any of the games in the south west when I tried early in the year.)0 -
Funny how all the decisions that led to the closure of the coal plants and the reduction in CO2 emissions happened before they entered the fray, isn’t it?Foxy said:
For all the bile spat at them by naysayers, Greta Thurnberg, Extinction Rebellion and now Greenpeace have forced environmentalism up the political agenda.Richard_Nabavi said:
Of course it's a bad thing, but there are serious discussions about climate change there, as is witnessed by the remarkable progress the UK has made on this issue. The protestors aren't interested in serious discussions, unfortunately.Jonathan said:The fact no10 is now a fortress is a bad thing. We would be better off if there were serious discussions about climate change behind that black door.
Increasingly politicions desiring avoiding extinction themselves will need to take these considerations very seriously.0 -
They didn't break in, they walked in.Charles said:
Breaking into a private event and disrupting proceedings is not peaceful in my viewSandyRentool said:
Peaceful protest is not 'getting angry', it is shaping the discourse.Richard_Nabavi said:It would be rather sweet if they went on an anger management course together. He could learn techniques for controlling himself better in situations which look threatening, and she could learn to reflect on the idiocy of getting angry against politicians who are working to find solutions to the issue she's rightly identified as crucially important.
Standing outside and protesting is fine0 -
OK then, what's wrong (in detail please) with the definition on wikipedia?eek said:
HYUFD has continually stated that we need an FTA for the last few days. Why should I provide my definition for something that he is insisting on?Wulfrun_Phil said:
You do assume that contributors here are willing to indulge you. Why don't you first tell us in copious detail what your definition of a FTA is.eek said:
And what exactly is one of those when it's at home - hint I know I want to see what your definition is in as much detail as you care to give me...HYUFD said:
Free Trade Agreementeek said:
What do you mean by a FTA?HYUFD said:
A Boris majority then FTA for GB and backstop for NIBenpointer said:
Maybe, maybe not - misleading to assume this poll is accurate or that those polled are accurately predicting what they will do in 9 months time.HYUFD said:
So if Boris or Hunt delivers Brexit by October the Tories win a clear majority with the Brexit Party collapsing to 9% or 12%. If not the Brexit Party is largest party with the Tories collapsing to 4th under Hunt though still level with Labour under BorisCarlottaVance said:
In any event, how is Boris going to deliver Brexit by 31st October? I can see no path to that.0 -
Still trespassing, isn’t it?SandyRentool said:
They didn't break in, they walked in.Charles said:
Breaking into a private event and disrupting proceedings is not peaceful in my viewSandyRentool said:
Peaceful protest is not 'getting angry', it is shaping the discourse.Richard_Nabavi said:It would be rather sweet if they went on an anger management course together. He could learn techniques for controlling himself better in situations which look threatening, and she could learn to reflect on the idiocy of getting angry against politicians who are working to find solutions to the issue she's rightly identified as crucially important.
Standing outside and protesting is fine
0 -
Not really. They've forced a naive and simplistic version of environmentalism up the political agenda, which means that politicians will have to pretend to take naive and simplistic measures, or do daft things like Ed Miliband's screw-up on smart meters.Foxy said:
For all the bile spat at them by naysayers, Greta Thurnberg, Extinction Rebellion and now Greenpeace have forced environmentalism up the political agenda.Richard_Nabavi said:
Of course it's a bad thing, but there are serious discussions about climate change there, as is witnessed by the remarkable progress the UK has made on this issue. The protestors aren't interested in serious discussions, unfortunately.Jonathan said:The fact no10 is now a fortress is a bad thing. We would be better off if there were serious discussions about climate change behind that black door.
Increasingly politicions desiring avoiding extinction themselves will need to take these considerations very seriously.1 -
Charles thinks she was politely ushered out, so I don’t think you’ll reach a consensus here.SandyRentool said:
They didn't break in, they walked in.Charles said:
Breaking into a private event and disrupting proceedings is not peaceful in my viewSandyRentool said:
Peaceful protest is not 'getting angry', it is shaping the discourse.Richard_Nabavi said:It would be rather sweet if they went on an anger management course together. He could learn techniques for controlling himself better in situations which look threatening, and she could learn to reflect on the idiocy of getting angry against politicians who are working to find solutions to the issue she's rightly identified as crucially important.
Standing outside and protesting is fine
0 -
A lot of their individual constituency results seem very odd to me, especially in the South West.Dadge said:
That's how Flavible have things atm https://flavible.com/politics/map/polls?sid=2076Benpointer said:
Yes but four parties with between 100-200 seats?Andy_Cooke said:
Could be, but at this point we're looking at Labour right down to their most solid redoubts. Otherwise they'd have fallen yet further.Benpointer said:
Can't see it myself. FPTP is unlikely to give a result as (vaguely) proportional as that.Andy_Cooke said:
Of course, the chaotic situation (in the mathematical tense), coupled with the lack of Brexit Party ground game historically and local factors plus tactical voting would probably result in four parties between 100 and 200 seats.HYUFD said:
Electoral Calculus makes the Brexit Party largest party in another hung parliament on 265 MPs on that Yougov with Labour second on 178 and LDs third on 80, the Tories on 60 and SNP on 42Cicero said:I see another YouGov has the Lib Dems above Labour and the Tories and only a couple of points behind TBP...
TBP. 23
LD 21
Lab 20
Con 20
Grn 9
Fieldwork 18-19 June.
This is going to be one of the most unpredictable GEs in UK history.
The Tories would fall to 4th but still be Kingmakers between a Farage or Corbyn premiership
https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/cgi-bin/usercode.py?CON=20&LAB=20&LIB=21&Brexit=23&Green=9&UKIP=2&TVCON=&TVLAB=&TVLIB=&TVBrexit=&TVGreen=&TVUKIP=&SCOTCON=&SCOTLAB=&SCOTLIB=&SCOTBrexit=&SCOTGreen=&SCOTUKIP=&SCOTNAT=&display=AllChanged&regorseat=(none)&boundary=2017base
Best guess would be Labour on high hundreds (170-195), Brexit Party mid-to-high hundreds (155-180), Lib Dems low-to-mid hundreds (110-135), Cons low hundreds (100-125). Or thereabouts.
Suspect Con and TBP will be fishing in the same pool to a larger extent than LAB and LDs.
Brexit Party should be further up on "normal" FPTP, but Peterborough-like ground-game failure drops them down a decent chunk, mainly to the benefit of the Tories, who would otherwise, on these sorts of figures and a swing from now, be on mid-double-figures. Lib Dems benefiting from a lot of coming-through-the-middle in those BXP/Con fights and places where Labour have vapourised.
To be fair, on the proportionality front, the party who came third in votes would be first or second on seats, the one second in votes would be third or fourth in seats, the one who came first in votes would be second or third in seats, and the one fourth in votes would be third or fourth in seats.
Not at all likely imho - but really, who tf knows?0 -
I suggest that if the four way split in polling becomes well-established, we are going to need far more in the way of regional polls or polling of seats by classification type to make sensible seat predictions.0
-
Isn't that how turbines work?RobD said:
It’s all spin is it?Jonathan said:
If you believe the spin. The latest is Tories for wind-farms. The truth is there is yet more to do. And Brexit is not helping.RobD said:
Hasn’t the U.K. already done more than most on this front?Jonathan said:
The fact no10 is now a fortress is a bad thing. We would be better off if there were serious discussions about climate change behind that black door.Richard_Nabavi said:
So is No 10 Downing Street. I think you'd be escorted out pretty sharpish and without much fuss about whether you were gripped lightly by the neck if you found a way to walk in there.Jonathan said:They didn't break in. They walked in. And it wasn't really all that private either. It's a public building, with public servants, talking about public policy.
0 -
If Labour had the numbers for a VONC, I think they'd go for it.justin124 said:
Well four Tory MPs have crossed the floor since the January vote and Labour has two new MPs. Now we have a vacancy in a Tory held seat. Those changes alone could knock 11 off the Government's 19 majority in January. Lady Hermon much less likely to support Boris than May. Woodcock and Lewis probably less likely to abstain too.Sean_F said:
At present, I'd suggest the government has a majority of 10 - 20 on a confidence motion.TheValiant said:
Hence why I think its fair to say we don't know where we really are at the moment.justin124 said:
I don't think any of the ex-Labour Independents would support a Boris Govt in a VNOC - none voted for May in January. Doubtful too that Lady Hermon will remain on board .
Today, right now, there is a Conservative led government. They have only 312 MPs supporting them on all legislative matters. There are (potentially) up to 337 MPs who might oppose.
On the same basis, we have a government who can count on the Confidence of 322 MPs, with potentially 327MPs who might oppose such Confidence.
On the raw numbers, the Conservatives are deep in the red, running a minority administration day to day by luck and prayer.
After that, we get into all sorts of 'what about?' 'what if?' territory.
What if Nick Boles rejoins?
What if Sinn Fein rock up?
What if Johnny Mercer won't support the Cons after all?
Which independents might be tempted to support the government? How many are there?
What if Mark Field does resign as an MP?
What if the Brecon by-election is lost to the Lib Dems?
What other skeletons does any Con MP have in the closet that might come out at any point in time?
What if Grieve, Lee and Greening leave and join the Lib Dems if the PM goes for No Deal?
What if the ERG leave and join the BXP if the PM goes for revoke?
Some of the above are more or less likely to happen. I can't really see Sinn Fein attending, but can you guarantee they won't?
It's not a way to run a government. We can't go on like this for much longer. Either:
A) We need a General Election to try to clarify the mess; or
B.) The Conservatives need to approach another party with sufficient MPs for a formal coalition mid-parliament (like the Lib-Lab pact) to get through.
A) may produce chaos (probably will)
B.) isn't a bad idea, but who?0 -
I’ve been handed a coat, it might be yours?TrèsDifficile said:
Isn't that how turbines work?RobD said:
It’s all spin is it?Jonathan said:
If you believe the spin. The latest is Tories for wind-farms. The truth is there is yet more to do. And Brexit is not helping.RobD said:
Hasn’t the U.K. already done more than most on this front?Jonathan said:
The fact no10 is now a fortress is a bad thing. We would be better off if there were serious discussions about climate change behind that black door.Richard_Nabavi said:
So is No 10 Downing Street. I think you'd be escorted out pretty sharpish and without much fuss about whether you were gripped lightly by the neck if you found a way to walk in there.Jonathan said:They didn't break in. They walked in. And it wasn't really all that private either. It's a public building, with public servants, talking about public policy.
0 -
Naive and simplistc is the politics of out times. It doesn't mean that the issue can be ignored, but politicians have responsibility to derive more sophisticated solutions.Richard_Nabavi said:
Not really. They've forced a naive and simplistic version of environmentalism up the political agenda, which means that politicians will have to pretend to take naive and simplistic measures, or do daft things like Ed Miliband's screw-up on smart meters.Foxy said:
For all the bile spat at them by naysayers, Greta Thurnberg, Extinction Rebellion and now Greenpeace have forced environmentalism up the political agenda.Richard_Nabavi said:
Of course it's a bad thing, but there are serious discussions about climate change there, as is witnessed by the remarkable progress the UK has made on this issue. The protestors aren't interested in serious discussions, unfortunately.Jonathan said:The fact no10 is now a fortress is a bad thing. We would be better off if there were serious discussions about climate change behind that black door.
Increasingly politicions desiring avoiding extinction themselves will need to take these considerations very seriously.0 -
I think that's right. I think that (at present) the Lib Dems would pull off some enormous swings in some London and Home Counties constituencies, but make not a lot of progress in Devon, Cornwall, and Dorset.AlastairMeeks said:I suggest that if the four way split in polling becomes well-established, we are going to need far more in the way of regional polls or polling of seats by classification type to make sensible seat predictions.
0 -
Isn't trespass a bit of a complex area in law?RobD said:
Still trespassing, isn’t it?SandyRentool said:
They didn't break in, they walked in.Charles said:
Breaking into a private event and disrupting proceedings is not peaceful in my viewSandyRentool said:
Peaceful protest is not 'getting angry', it is shaping the discourse.Richard_Nabavi said:It would be rather sweet if they went on an anger management course together. He could learn techniques for controlling himself better in situations which look threatening, and she could learn to reflect on the idiocy of getting angry against politicians who are working to find solutions to the issue she's rightly identified as crucially important.
Standing outside and protesting is fine0 -
Indeed. The in-your-face security that now surrounds top politicians is a factor contributing to the sense of alienation and detachment from ordinary voters that is so pervasive.Jonathan said:
The fact no10 is now a fortress is a bad thing. We would be better off if there were serious discussions about climate change behind that black door.Richard_Nabavi said:
So is No 10 Downing Street. I think you'd be escorted out pretty sharpish and without much fuss about whether you were gripped lightly by the neck if you found a way to walk in there.Jonathan said:They didn't break in. They walked in. And it wasn't really all that private either. It's a public building, with public servants, talking about public policy.
When I started out in politics Downing Street was a public road, no ministers (or members of the royal family IIRC) had convoys or outriders and it was possible to walk into the central lobby at Westminster without any security check. And that was in the 1970s, at the height of the IRA campaign, when the risk to politicians was probably much greater than it is today.0 -
The issue isn't being ignored, that's the whole point. They are protesting to the converted.Foxy said:
Naive and simplistc is the politics of out times. It doesn't mean that the issue can be ignored, but politicians have responsibility to derive more sophisticated solutions.Richard_Nabavi said:
Not really. They've forced a naive and simplistic version of environmentalism up the political agenda, which means that politicians will have to pretend to take naive and simplistic measures, or do daft things like Ed Miliband's screw-up on smart meters.Foxy said:
For all the bile spat at them by naysayers, Greta Thurnberg, Extinction Rebellion and now Greenpeace have forced environmentalism up the political agenda.Richard_Nabavi said:
Of course it's a bad thing, but there are serious discussions about climate change there, as is witnessed by the remarkable progress the UK has made on this issue. The protestors aren't interested in serious discussions, unfortunately.Jonathan said:The fact no10 is now a fortress is a bad thing. We would be better off if there were serious discussions about climate change behind that black door.
Increasingly politicions desiring avoiding extinction themselves will need to take these considerations very seriously.0 -
I'm assuming that Charles was in the room, so has a greater insight on events than the rest of us.Nigelb said:
Charles thinks she was politely ushered out, so I don’t think you’ll reach a consensus here.SandyRentool said:
They didn't break in, they walked in.Charles said:
Breaking into a private event and disrupting proceedings is not peaceful in my viewSandyRentool said:
Peaceful protest is not 'getting angry', it is shaping the discourse.Richard_Nabavi said:It would be rather sweet if they went on an anger management course together. He could learn techniques for controlling himself better in situations which look threatening, and she could learn to reflect on the idiocy of getting angry against politicians who are working to find solutions to the issue she's rightly identified as crucially important.
Standing outside and protesting is fine0 -
The Lib Dems might well do well in the South West simply by standing still if the Brexit party splits the Conservative vote, as it looks set to.Sean_F said:
I think that's right. I think that (at present) the Lib Dems would pull off some enormous swings in some London and Home Counties constituencies, but make not a lot of progress in Devon, Cornwall, and Dorset.AlastairMeeks said:I suggest that if the four way split in polling becomes well-established, we are going to need far more in the way of regional polls or polling of seats by classification type to make sensible seat predictions.
0 -
It's the lone wolves who are more of a threat to politicians these days.anothernick said:
Indeed. The in-your-face security that now surrounds top politicians is a factor contributing to the sense of alienation and detachment from ordinary voters that is so pervasive.Jonathan said:
The fact no10 is now a fortress is a bad thing. We would be better off if there were serious discussions about climate change behind that black door.Richard_Nabavi said:
So is No 10 Downing Street. I think you'd be escorted out pretty sharpish and without much fuss about whether you were gripped lightly by the neck if you found a way to walk in there.Jonathan said:They didn't break in. They walked in. And it wasn't really all that private either. It's a public building, with public servants, talking about public policy.
When I started out in politics Downing Street was a public road, no ministers (or members of the royal family IIRC) had convoys or outriders and it was possible to walk into the central lobby at Westminster without any security check. And that was in the 1970s, at the height of the IRA campaign, when the risk to politicians was probably much greater than it is today.0 -
Agreed, although Uxbridge falling to TBP would be the one gain of theirs I might cheer!Sean_F said:
A lot of their individual constituency results seem very odd to me, especially in the South West.Dadge said:
That's how Flavible have things atm https://flavible.com/politics/map/polls?sid=2076Benpointer said:
Yes but four parties with between 100-200 seats?Andy_Cooke said:
Could be, but at this point we're looking at Labour right down to their most solid redoubts. Otherwise they'd have fallen yet further.Benpointer said:
Can't see it myself. FPTP is unlikely to give a result as (vaguely) proportional as that.Andy_Cooke said:
Of course, the chaotic situation (in the mathematical tense), coupled with the lack of Brexit Party ground game historically and local factors plus tactical voting would probably result in four parties between 100 and 200 seats.HYUFD said:
Electoral Calculus makes the Brexit Party largest party in another hung parliament on 265 MPs on that Yougov with Labour second on 178 and LDs third on 80, the Tories on 60 and SNP on 42Cicero said:
The Tories would fall to 4th but still be Kingmakers between a Farage or Corbyn premiership
https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/cgi-bin/usercode.py?CON=20&LAB=20&LIB=21&Brexit=23&Green=9&UKIP=2&TVCON=&TVLAB=&TVLIB=&TVBrexit=&TVGreen=&TVUKIP=&SCOTCON=&SCOTLAB=&SCOTLIB=&SCOTBrexit=&SCOTGreen=&SCOTUKIP=&SCOTNAT=&display=AllChanged&regorseat=(none)&boundary=2017base
Best guess would be Labour on high hundreds (170-195), Brexit Party mid-to-high hundreds (155-180), Lib Dems low-to-mid hundreds (110-135), Cons low hundreds (100-125). Or thereabouts.
Suspect Con and TBP will be fishing in the same pool to a larger extent than LAB and LDs.
Brexit Party should be further up on "normal" FPTP, but Peterborough-like ground-game failure drops them down a decent chunk, mainly to the benefit of the Tories, who would otherwise, on these sorts of figures and a swing from now, be on mid-double-figures. Lib Dems benefiting from a lot of coming-through-the-middle in those BXP/Con fights and places where Labour have vapourised.
To be fair, on the proportionality front, the party who came third in votes would be first or second on seats, the one second in votes would be third or fourth in seats, the one who came first in votes would be second or third in seats, and the one fourth in votes would be third or fourth in seats.
Not at all likely imho - but really, who tf knows?
0 -
Naivety is the head in the sand crowd who believe that some nebulous 'technological solutions' will come to the rescue, allowing them to carry on with business as usual.Richard_Nabavi said:
Not really. They've forced a naive and simplistic version of environmentalism up the political agenda, which means that politicians will have to pretend to take naive and simplistic measures, or do daft things like Ed Miliband's screw-up on smart meters.Foxy said:
For all the bile spat at them by naysayers, Greta Thurnberg, Extinction Rebellion and now Greenpeace have forced environmentalism up the political agenda.Richard_Nabavi said:
Of course it's a bad thing, but there are serious discussions about climate change there, as is witnessed by the remarkable progress the UK has made on this issue. The protestors aren't interested in serious discussions, unfortunately.Jonathan said:The fact no10 is now a fortress is a bad thing. We would be better off if there were serious discussions about climate change behind that black door.
Increasingly politicions desiring avoiding extinction themselves will need to take these considerations very seriously.
The green-left has been so far ahead of the game on this, while the centre-right still hasn't completely woken up, and the neo-whatevers are still in denial.0 -
A quick muse on the timing of the B&R by-election.
If the Conservatives realistically believe that B&R will be lost they may decide to let Theresa May take the rap rather than the new PM and accordingly move the writ quickly.0 -
It ain't the wolf, it is little red riding hood who Field perceived as the threat.Sean_F said:
It's the lone wolves who are more of a threat to politicians these days.anothernick said:
Indeed. The in-your-face security that now surrounds top politicians is a factor contributing to the sense of alienation and detachment from ordinary voters that is so pervasive.Jonathan said:
The fact no10 is now a fortress is a bad thing. We would be better off if there were serious discussions about climate change behind that black door.Richard_Nabavi said:
So is No 10 Downing Street. I think you'd be escorted out pretty sharpish and without much fuss about whether you were gripped lightly by the neck if you found a way to walk in there.Jonathan said:They didn't break in. They walked in. And it wasn't really all that private either. It's a public building, with public servants, talking about public policy.
When I started out in politics Downing Street was a public road, no ministers (or members of the royal family IIRC) had convoys or outriders and it was possible to walk into the central lobby at Westminster without any security check. And that was in the 1970s, at the height of the IRA campaign, when the risk to politicians was probably much greater than it is today.0 -
I believe there were some incidents in 1979, 1984 and 1991 which were factors in that change.anothernick said:Indeed. The in-your-face security that now surrounds top politicians is a factor contributing to the sense of alienation and detachment from ordinary voters that is so pervasive.
When I started out in politics Downing Street was a public road, no ministers (or members of the royal family IIRC) had convoys or outriders and it was possible to walk into the central lobby at Westminster without any security check. And that was in the 1970s, at the height of the IRA campaign, when the risk to politicians was probably much greater than it is today.
The remarkable thing is that senior politicians and MPs in the UK remain extremely accessible. They don't get enough credit for this, given the number and intensity of the threats they now face.0 -
Well, this looks like a bold decision:
https://twitter.com/adrianmasters84/status/11420753746685829130 -
Except technological solutions is exactly what has happened in this case.SandyRentool said:
Naivety is the head in the sand crowd who believe that some nebulous 'technological solutions' will come to the rescue, allowing them to carry on with business as usual.Richard_Nabavi said:
Not really. They've forced a naive and simplistic version of environmentalism up the political agenda, which means that politicians will have to pretend to take naive and simplistic measures, or do daft things like Ed Miliband's screw-up on smart meters.Foxy said:
For all the bile spat at them by naysayers, Greta Thurnberg, Extinction Rebellion and now Greenpeace have forced environmentalism up the political agenda.Richard_Nabavi said:
Of course it's a bad thing, but there are serious discussions about climate change there, as is witnessed by the remarkable progress the UK has made on this issue. The protestors aren't interested in serious discussions, unfortunately.Jonathan said:The fact no10 is now a fortress is a bad thing. We would be better off if there were serious discussions about climate change behind that black door.
Increasingly politicions desiring avoiding extinction themselves will need to take these considerations very seriously.
The green-left has been so far ahead of the game on this, while the centre-right still hasn't completely woken up, and the neo-whatevers are still in denial.0 -
"Women are playing an increasingly significant role in terrorism. As men are progressively targeted by security personnel, using female operatives provides terrorist organizations with a “win-win” scenario; if security forces avoid invasively searching women for fear of outraging the local conservative population (based on social norms of women’s modesty and the honor code), women are the ideal stealth operatives. If security personnel are too aggressive in searching women, they aid terrorist recruitment by outraging the men in that society and providing the terrorists with propaganda that “our women” are being violated. In most conflicts, women remain an untapped resource. Recruiting women allows terrorist organizations to access an additional 50% of the population. Female attacks generate greater media attention than those conducted by men. This is especially relevant when media attention is one of the terrorists’ main objectives. Although women’s involvement in terrorist and extremist activities is not a recent development, their presence as frontline activists, propagandists, and recruiters is increasing around the globe."SandyRentool said:
It ain't the wolf, it is little red riding hood who Field perceived as the threat.Sean_F said:
It's the lone wolves who are more of a threat to politicians these days.anothernick said:
Indeed. The in-your-face security that now surrounds top politicians is a factor contributing to the sense of alienation and detachment from ordinary voters that is so pervasive.Jonathan said:
The fact no10 is now a fortress is a bad thing. We would be better off if there were serious discussions about climate change behind that black door.Richard_Nabavi said:
So is No 10 Downing Street. I think you'd be escorted out pretty sharpish and without much fuss about whether you were gripped lightly by the neck if you found a way to walk in there.Jonathan said:They didn't break in. They walked in. And it wasn't really all that private either. It's a public building, with public servants, talking about public policy.
When I started out in politics Downing Street was a public road, no ministers (or members of the royal family IIRC) had convoys or outriders and it was possible to walk into the central lobby at Westminster without any security check. And that was in the 1970s, at the height of the IRA campaign, when the risk to politicians was probably much greater than it is today.
Women and Terrorism - Mia Bloom, Oxford Research Encyclopedias0 -
Let's just say, it's just as well the Green left are around today, rather than at the start of the Industrial Revolution.SandyRentool said:
Naivety is the head in the sand crowd who believe that some nebulous 'technological solutions' will come to the rescue, allowing them to carry on with business as usual.Richard_Nabavi said:
Not really. They've forced a naive and simplistic version of environmentalism up the political agenda, which means that politicians will have to pretend to take naive and simplistic measures, or do daft things like Ed Miliband's screw-up on smart meters.Foxy said:
For all the bile spat at them by naysayers, Greta Thurnberg, Extinction Rebellion and now Greenpeace have forced environmentalism up the political agenda.Richard_Nabavi said:
Of course it's a bad thing, but there are serious discussions about climate change there, as is witnessed by the remarkable progress the UK has made on this issue. The protestors aren't interested in serious discussions, unfortunately.Jonathan said:The fact no10 is now a fortress is a bad thing. We would be better off if there were serious discussions about climate change behind that black door.
Increasingly politicions desiring avoiding extinction themselves will need to take these considerations very seriously.
The green-left has been so far ahead of the game on this, while the centre-right still hasn't completely woken up, and the neo-whatevers are still in denial.0 -
Possibly. But I think politicians have been spooked by the spooks, some of the resources that go into paying gun-toting police to mooch about Westminster doing nothing in particular would be better used doing something about knife crime in the less salubrious parts of the city.Sean_F said:
It's the lone wolves who are more of a threat to politicians these days.anothernick said:
Indeed. The in-your-face security that now surrounds top politicians is a factor contributing to the sense of alienation and detachment from ordinary voters that is so pervasive.Jonathan said:
The fact no10 is now a fortress is a bad thing. We would be better off if there were serious discussions about climate change behind that black door.Richard_Nabavi said:
So is No 10 Downing Street. I think you'd be escorted out pretty sharpish and without much fuss about whether you were gripped lightly by the neck if you found a way to walk in there.Jonathan said:They didn't break in. They walked in. And it wasn't really all that private either. It's a public building, with public servants, talking about public policy.
When I started out in politics Downing Street was a public road, no ministers (or members of the royal family IIRC) had convoys or outriders and it was possible to walk into the central lobby at Westminster without any security check. And that was in the 1970s, at the height of the IRA campaign, when the risk to politicians was probably much greater than it is today.0 -
Considering that some Tories will have signed the petition, letting him stand again is tantamount to throwing in the towel. But maybe they're assuming they're not going to win anyway, and hoping that Davies will be rehabilitated by the general election.AlastairMeeks said:Well, this looks like a bold decision:
https://twitter.com/adrianmasters84/status/11420753746685829130 -
Because I want to know what he means by it - does it include services, is it between the uk and the EEA only? Throwing acronyms around without exhaling what you want with them doesn’t really work especially when I don’t think he understands what it meansWulfrun_Phil said:
OK then, what's wrong (in detail please) with the definition on wikipedia?eek said:
HYUFD has continually stated that we need an FTA for the last few days. Why should I provide my definition for something that he is insisting on?Wulfrun_Phil said:
You do assume that contributors here are willing to indulge you. Why don't you first tell us in copious detail what your definition of a FTA is.eek said:
And what exactly is one of those when it's at home - hint I know I want to see what your definition is in as much detail as you care to give me...HYUFD said:
Free Trade Agreementeek said:
What do you mean by a FTA?HYUFD said:
A Boris majority then FTA for GB and backstop for NIBenpointer said:
Maybe, maybe not - misleading to assume this poll is accurate or that those polled are accurately predicting what they will do in 9 months time.HYUFD said:
So if Boris or Hunt delivers Brexit by October the Tories win a clear majority with the Brexit Party collapsing to 9% or 12%. If not the Brexit Party is largest party with the Tories collapsing to 4th under Hunt though still level with Labour under BorisCarlottaVance said:
In any event, how is Boris going to deliver Brexit by 31st October? I can see no path to that.
And remember the uk sells invisibles I can’t think of anytime in the past 30 years when our current account (which focuses on physical goods rather than services) hasn’t been in deficit.0 -
Nebulous 'technological solutions' aren't needed, the capitalist economy has been able to develop affordable solutions at an astonishing rate. The energy industry has been completely transformed since 2010 when it looked as though we'd have to rely on a lot of nuclear power to make much difference. Of course this is mainly global developments rather than anything specific to the UK or the government, but nonetheless the UK government deserves a fair bit of credit - measures like going all-out for off-shore wind were I think extremely wise, as they avoided the whole thing getting bogged down in protests at scenic areas being wrecked.SandyRentool said:
Naivety is the head in the sand crowd who believe that some nebulous 'technological solutions' will come to the rescue, allowing them to carry on with business as usual.Richard_Nabavi said:
Not really. They've forced a naive and simplistic version of environmentalism up the political agenda, which means that politicians will have to pretend to take naive and simplistic measures, or do daft things like Ed Miliband's screw-up on smart meters.Foxy said:
For all the bile spat at them by naysayers, Greta Thurnberg, Extinction Rebellion and now Greenpeace have forced environmentalism up the political agenda.Richard_Nabavi said:
Of course it's a bad thing, but there are serious discussions about climate change there, as is witnessed by the remarkable progress the UK has made on this issue. The protestors aren't interested in serious discussions, unfortunately.Jonathan said:The fact no10 is now a fortress is a bad thing. We would be better off if there were serious discussions about climate change behind that black door.
Increasingly politicions desiring avoiding extinction themselves will need to take these considerations very seriously.
The green-left has been so far ahead of the game on this, while the centre-right still hasn't completely woken up, and the neo-whatevers are still in denial.0 -
We might have had electric cars 100 years earlier ;-)Sean_F said:
Let's just say, it's just as well the Green left are around today, rather than at the start of the Industrial Revolution.SandyRentool said:
Naivety is the head in the sand crowd who believe that some nebulous 'technological solutions' will come to the rescue, allowing them to carry on with business as usual.Richard_Nabavi said:
Not really. They've forced a naive and simplistic version of environmentalism up the political agenda, which means that politicians will have to pretend to take naive and simplistic measures, or do daft things like Ed Miliband's screw-up on smart meters.Foxy said:
For all the bile spat at them by naysayers, Greta Thurnberg, Extinction Rebellion and now Greenpeace have forced environmentalism up the political agenda.Richard_Nabavi said:
Of course it's a bad thing, but there are serious discussions about climate change there, as is witnessed by the remarkable progress the UK has made on this issue. The protestors aren't interested in serious discussions, unfortunately.Jonathan said:The fact no10 is now a fortress is a bad thing. We would be better off if there were serious discussions about climate change behind that black door.
Increasingly politicions desiring avoiding extinction themselves will need to take these considerations very seriously.
The green-left has been so far ahead of the game on this, while the centre-right still hasn't completely woken up, and the neo-whatevers are still in denial.0 -
How do you pronounce the 'acronym' FTA?eek said:
Because I want to know what he means by it - does it include services, is it between the uk and the EEA only? Throwing acronyms around without exhaling what you want with them doesn’t really work especially when I don’t think he understands what it meansWulfrun_Phil said:
OK then, what's wrong (in detail please) with the definition on wikipedia?eek said:
HYUFD has continually stated that we need an FTA for the last few days. Why should I provide my definition for something that he is insisting on?Wulfrun_Phil said:
You do assume that contributors here are willing to indulge you. Why don't you first tell us in copious detail what your definition of a FTA is.eek said:
And what exactly is one of those when it's at home - hint I know I want to see what your definition is in as much detail as you care to give me...HYUFD said:
Free Trade Agreementeek said:
What do you mean by a FTA?HYUFD said:
A Boris majority then FTA for GB and backstop for NIBenpointer said:
Maybe, maybe not - misleading to assume this poll is accurate or that those polled are accurately predicting what they will do in 9 months time.HYUFD said:
So if Boris or Hunt delivers Brexit by October the Tories win a clear majority with the Brexit Party collapsing to 9% or 12%. If not the Brexit Party is largest party with the Tories collapsing to 4th under Hunt though still level with Labour under BorisCarlottaVance said:
In any event, how is Boris going to deliver Brexit by 31st October? I can see no path to that.
And remember the uk sells invisibles I can’t think of anytime in the past 30 years when our current account (which focuses on physical goods rather than services) hasn’t been in deficit.0 -
Or we might still enjoy a pre-industrial standard of living.logical_song said:
We might have had electric cars 100 years earlier ;-)Sean_F said:
Let's just say, it's just as well the Green left are around today, rather than at the start of the Industrial Revolution.SandyRentool said:
Naivety is the head in the sand crowd who believe that some nebulous 'technological solutions' will come to the rescue, allowing them to carry on with business as usual.Richard_Nabavi said:
Not really. They've forced a naive and simplistic version of environmentalism up the political agenda, which means that politicians will have to pretend to take naive and simplistic measures, or do daft things like Ed Miliband's screw-up on smart meters.Foxy said:
For all the bile spat at them by naysayers, Greta Thurnberg, Extinction Rebellion and now Greenpeace have forced environmentalism up the political agenda.Richard_Nabavi said:
Of course it's a bad thing, but there are serious discussions about climate change there, as is witnessed by the remarkable progress the UK has made on this issue. The protestors aren't interested in serious discussions, unfortunately.Jonathan said:The fact no10 is now a fortress is a bad thing. We would be better off if there were serious discussions about climate change behind that black door.
Increasingly politicions desiring avoiding extinction themselves will need to take these considerations very seriously.
The green-left has been so far ahead of the game on this, while the centre-right still hasn't completely woken up, and the neo-whatevers are still in denial.0 -
Yeah.. glancing down the list of seats that Electoral Calculus turns out, it just doesn't look that likely. Owen Paterson unseated by a BP-er? The flavible one looked more credible seat by seat.. though I'd also be surprised to see a four-way 100+ spread like that.AlastairMeeks said:I suggest that if the four way split in polling becomes well-established, we are going to need far more in the way of regional polls or polling of seats by classification type to make sensible seat predictions.
I know models are dodgy enough at a seat level anyway, but I just don't see insurgent parties getting largest party on near-equal shares of the vote0 -
https://www.ianvisits.co.uk/blog/2014/01/09/the-fraud-that-killed-off-londons-first-electric-buses/Sean_F said:
Or we might still enjoy a pre-industrial standard of living.logical_song said:
We might have had electric cars 100 years earlier ;-)Sean_F said:
Let's just say, it's just as well the Green left are around today, rather than at the start of the Industrial Revolution.SandyRentool said:
Naivety is the head in the sand crowd who believe that some nebulous 'technological solutions' will come to the rescue, allowing them to carry on with business as usual.Richard_Nabavi said:
Not really. They've forced a naive and simplistic version of environmentalism up the political agenda, which means that politicians will have to pretend to take naive and simplistic measures, or do daft things like Ed Miliband's screw-up on smart meters.Foxy said:
For all the bile spat at them by naysayers, Greta Thurnberg, Extinction Rebellion and now Greenpeace have forced environmentalism up the political agenda.Richard_Nabavi said:
Of course it's a bad thing, but there are serious discussions about climate change there, as is witnessed by the remarkable progress the UK has made on this issue. The protestors aren't interested in serious discussions, unfortunately.Jonathan said:The fact no10 is now a fortress is a bad thing. We would be better off if there were serious discussions about climate change behind that black door.
Increasingly politicions desiring avoiding extinction themselves will need to take these considerations very seriously.
The green-left has been so far ahead of the game on this, while the centre-right still hasn't completely woken up, and the neo-whatevers are still in denial.0 -
Initialization then - meh I’m flying and been up 13 hours already...TrèsDifficile said:
How do you pronounce the 'acronym' FTA?eek said:
Because I want to know what he means by it - does it include services, is it between the uk and the EEA only? Throwing acronyms around without exhaling what you want with them doesn’t really work especially when I don’t think he understands what it meansWulfrun_Phil said:
OK then, what's wrong (in detail please) with the definition on wikipedia?eek said:
HYUFD has continually stated that we need an FTA for the last few days. Why should I provide my definition for something that he is insisting on?Wulfrun_Phil said:
You do assume that contributors here are willing to indulge you. Why don't you first tell us in copious detail what your definition of a FTA is.eek said:
And what exactly is one of those when it's at home - hint I know I want to see what your definition is in as much detail as you care to give me...HYUFD said:
Free Trade Agreementeek said:
What do you mean by a FTA?HYUFD said:
A Boris majority then FTA for GB and backstop for NIBenpointer said:
Maybe, maybe not - misleading to assume this poll is accurate or that those polled are accurately predicting what they will do in 9 months time.HYUFD said:
So if Boris or Hunt delivers Brexit by October the Tories win a clear majority with the Brexit Party collapsing to 9% or 12%. If not the Brexit Party is largest party with the Tories collapsing to 4th under Hunt though still level with Labour under BorisCarlottaVance said:
In any event, how is Boris going to deliver Brexit by 31st October? I can see no path to that.
And remember the uk sells invisibles I can’t think of anytime in the past 30 years when our current account (which focuses on physical goods rather than services) hasn’t been in deficit.0 -
On those numbers, yes, I think a 1923 result would be very plausible. But, at the next election after, a lot of the contests would have resolved into binary fights.Harris_Tweed said:
Yeah.. glancing down the list of seats that Electoral Calculus turns out, it just doesn't look that likely. Owen Paterson unseated by a BP-er? The flavible one looked more credible seat by seat.. though I'd also be surprised to see a four-way 100+ spread like that.AlastairMeeks said:I suggest that if the four way split in polling becomes well-established, we are going to need far more in the way of regional polls or polling of seats by classification type to make sensible seat predictions.
I know models are dodgy enough at a seat level anyway, but I just don't see insurgent parties getting largest party on near-equal shares of the vote0 -
Whatever system they've used doesn't bear very close inspection, but it gives a reasonable general flavour of what might happen. Swings will vary quite widely from region to region, and some MPs will be much harder to shift than others. eg. it's unlikely that the LDs will unseat Jess Phillips.Sean_F said:
A lot of their individual constituency results seem very odd to me, especially in the South West.Dadge said:
That's how Flavible have things atm https://flavible.com/politics/map/polls?sid=2076Benpointer said:
Yes but four parties with between 100-200 seats?Andy_Cooke said:
Could be, but at this point we're looking at Labour right down to their most solid redoubts. Otherwise they'd have fallen yet further.Benpointer said:
Can't see it myself. FPTP is unlikely to give a result as (vaguely) proportional as that.Andy_Cooke said:
Of course, the chaotic situation (in the mathematical tense), coupled with the lack of Brexit Party ground game historically and local factors plus tactical voting would probably result in four parties between 100 and 200 seats.
Best guess would be Labour on high hundreds (170-195), Brexit Party mid-to-high hundreds (155-180), Lib Dems low-to-mid hundreds (110-135), Cons low hundreds (100-125). Or thereabouts.
Suspect Con and TBP will be fishing in the same pool to a larger extent than LAB and LDs.
Brexit Party should be further up on "normal" FPTP, but Peterborough-like ground-game failure drops them down a decent chunk, mainly to the benefit of the Tories, who would otherwise, on these sorts of figures and a swing from now, be on mid-double-figures. Lib Dems benefiting from a lot of coming-through-the-middle in those BXP/Con fights and places where Labour have vapourised.
To be fair, on the proportionality front, the party who came third in votes would be first or second on seats, the one second in votes would be third or fourth in seats, the one who came first in votes would be second or third in seats, and the one fourth in votes would be third or fourth in seats.
Not at all likely imho - but really, who tf knows?
It's fun to have a look round at the percentages. eg. LDs winning Filton with 23%.0 -
Very well, if you must know.TrèsDifficile said:
How do you pronounce the 'acronym' FTA?eek said:
Because I want to know what he means by it - does it include services, is it between the uk and the EEA only? Throwing acronyms around without exhaling what you want with them doesn’t really work especially when I don’t think he understands what it meansWulfrun_Phil said:
OK then, what's wrong (in detail please) with the definition on wikipedia?eek said:
HYUFD has continually stated that we need an FTA for the last few days. Why should I provide my definition for something that he is insisting on?Wulfrun_Phil said:
You do assume that contributors here are willing to indulge you. Why don't you first tell us in copious detail what your definition of a FTA is.eek said:
And what exactly is one of those when it's at home - hint I know I want to see what your definition is in as much detail as you care to give me...HYUFD said:
Free Trade Agreementeek said:
What do you mean by a FTA?HYUFD said:
A Boris majority then FTA for GB and backstop for NIBenpointer said:
Maybe, maybe not - misleading to assume this poll is accurate or that those polled are accurately predicting what they will do in 9 months time.HYUFD said:
So if Boris or Hunt delivers Brexit by October the Tories win a clear majority with the Brexit Party collapsing to 9% or 12%. If not the Brexit Party is largest party with the Tories collapsing to 4th under Hunt though still level with Labour under BorisCarlottaVance said:
In any event, how is Boris going to deliver Brexit by 31st October? I can see no path to that.
And remember the uk sells invisibles I can’t think of anytime in the past 30 years when our current account (which focuses on physical goods rather than services) hasn’t been in deficit.0 -
I find the rate at which we have increased renewable energy consumption absolutely remarkable. We are getting near 19% of all of our energy from solar right now. In the UK. The virtual elimination of coal as a source of electricity is a big step forward too.Richard_Nabavi said:
Nebulous 'technological solutions' aren't needed, the capitalist economy has been able to develop affordable solutions at an astonishing rate. The energy industry has been completely transformed since 2010 when it looked as though we'd have to rely on a lot of nuclear power to make much difference. Of course this is mainly global developments rather than anything specific to the UK or the government, but nonetheless the UK government deserves a fair bit of credit - measures like going all-out for off-shore wind were I think extremely wise, as they avoided the whole thing getting bogged down in protests at scenic areas being wrecked.SandyRentool said:
Naivety is the head in the sand crowd who believe that some nebulous 'technological solutions' will come to the rescue, allowing them to carry on with business as usual.Richard_Nabavi said:
Not really. They've forced a naive and simplistic version of environmentalism up the political agenda, which means that politicians will have to pretend to take naive and simplistic measures, or do daft things like Ed Miliband's screw-up on smart meters.Foxy said:
For all the bile spat at them by naysayers, Greta Thurnberg, Extinction Rebellion and now Greenpeace have forced environmentalism up the political agenda.Richard_Nabavi said:
Of course it's a bad thing, but there are serious discussions about climate change there, as is witnessed by the remarkable progress the UK has made on this issue. The protestors aren't interested in serious discussions, unfortunately.Jonathan said:The fact no10 is now a fortress is a bad thing. We would be better off if there were serious discussions about climate change behind that black door.
Increasingly politicions desiring avoiding extinction themselves will need to take these considerations very seriously.
The green-left has been so far ahead of the game on this, while the centre-right still hasn't completely woken up, and the neo-whatevers are still in denial.
The challenge will be to continue the rate of increase so that we can reduce imports of power and have the additional capacity that is going to be required to support millions of electric vehicles. Long way to go and all that but I agree that progress since 2010 has been swift.0 -
One of Sir Humphrey's irregular verbs:AlastairMeeks said:Well, this looks like a bold decision:
https://twitter.com/adrianmasters84/status/1142075374668582913
I make bold decisions
You are going somewhat out on a limb
He is certifiably off his tiny f******* rocker0 -
You are joking, yes? The first production electric car with rechargeable batteries, invented by Thomas Parker, dates to 1884 (the year Oscar Wilde got married, to put it in perspective).logical_song said:
We might have had electric cars 100 years earlier ;-)Sean_F said:
Let's just say, it's just as well the Green left are around today, rather than at the start of the Industrial Revolution.SandyRentool said:
Naivety is the head in the sand crowd who believe that some nebulous 'technological solutions' will come to the rescue, allowing them to carry on with business as usual.Richard_Nabavi said:
Not really. They've forced a naive and simplistic version of environmentalism up the political agenda, which means that politicians will have to pretend to take naive and simplistic measures, or do daft things like Ed Miliband's screw-up on smart meters.Foxy said:
For all the bile spat at them by naysayers, Greta Thurnberg, Extinction Rebellion and now Greenpeace have forced environmentalism up the political agenda.Richard_Nabavi said:
Of course it's a bad thing, but there are serious discussions about climate change there, as is witnessed by the remarkable progress the UK has made on this issue. The protestors aren't interested in serious discussions, unfortunately.Jonathan said:The fact no10 is now a fortress is a bad thing. We would be better off if there were serious discussions about climate change behind that black door.
Increasingly politicions desiring avoiding extinction themselves will need to take these considerations very seriously.
The green-left has been so far ahead of the game on this, while the centre-right still hasn't completely woken up, and the neo-whatevers are still in denial.0 -
But it's clear that Field was not acting due to a perceived threat - he was acting in fury at the disruption. So whether or not one considers that she was a potential threat is not at the heart of the matter.TOPPING said:Yes I appreciate the rhetoric (cf La Toynbee); he knows how to rouse the rabble and present a position. Trouble is that it is very often based on a false premise and hence relies on preaching to the converted. If he had thought about the Field issue he might have written a more balanced article. But to dismiss any possibility of red dress woman being a threat is facile, if we're talking threat assessment for example and hence Jones almost forfeits the indulgence you afford him.
For me, the 'Sir Norfolk Passmore' construct got it down well in his summary on the thread just gone.0 -
We can take it that it was no harsher than the treatment Charles's butler habitually hands out to unwanted guests.Nigelb said:
Charles thinks she was politely ushered out, so I don’t think you’ll reach a consensus here.SandyRentool said:
They didn't break in, they walked in.Charles said:
Breaking into a private event and disrupting proceedings is not peaceful in my viewSandyRentool said:
Peaceful protest is not 'getting angry', it is shaping the discourse.Richard_Nabavi said:It would be rather sweet if they went on an anger management course together. He could learn techniques for controlling himself better in situations which look threatening, and she could learn to reflect on the idiocy of getting angry against politicians who are working to find solutions to the issue she's rightly identified as crucially important.
Standing outside and protesting is fine0 -
Certainly with a four way contest (and the Green Party winning big votes in some places) you would see candidates getting elected with absurdly small vote shares.Dadge said:
Whatever system they've used doesn't bear very close inspection, but it gives a reasonable general flavour of what might happen. Swings will vary quite widely from region to region, and some MPs will be much harder to shift than others. eg. it's unlikely that the LDs will unseat Jess Phillips.Sean_F said:
A lot of their individual constituency results seem very odd to me, especially in the South West.Dadge said:
That's how Flavible have things atm https://flavible.com/politics/map/polls?sid=2076Benpointer said:
Yes but four parties with between 100-200 seats?Andy_Cooke said:
Could be, but at this point we're looking at Labour right down to their most solid redoubts. Otherwise they'd have fallen yet further.Benpointer said:
Can't see it myself. FPTP is unlikely to give a result as (vaguely) proportional as that.Andy_Cooke said:
Of course, the chaotic situation (in the mathematical tense), coupled with the lack of Brexit Party ground game historically and local factors plus tactical voting would probably result in four parties between 100 and 200 seats.
Best guess would be Labour on high hundreds (170-195), Brexit Party mid-to-high hundreds (155-180), Lib Dems low-to-mid hundreds (110-135), Cons low hundreds (100-125). Or thereabouts.
Suspect Con and TBP will be fishing in the same pool to a larger extent than LAB and LDs.
Brexit Party should be further up on "normal" FPTP, but Peterborough-like ground-game failure drops them down a decent chunk, mainly to the benefit of the Tories, who would otherwise, on these sorts of figures and a swing from now, be on mid-double-figures. Lib Dems benefiting from a lot of coming-through-the-middle in those BXP/Con fights and places where Labour have vapourised.
To be fair, on the proportionality front, the party who came third in votes would be first or second on seats, the one second in votes would be third or fourth in seats, the one who came first in votes would be second or third in seats, and the one fourth in votes would be third or fourth in seats.
Not at all likely imho - but really, who tf knows?
It's fun to have a look round at the percentages. eg. LDs winning Filton with 23%.0 -
As I recall Williamson was the one who put the Tory deal together with the DUP so presumbaly he could do it again. (Remember as it seemed appropriate for Williamson to be dealing with the Sons of Williameek said:
I do wonder if the DUP deal is still valid with a new Tory Leader...justin124 said:
Nobody beyond the DUP will want to support the Tories - particularly when led by Boris.TheValiant said:
Hence why I think its fair to say we don't know where we really are at the moment.justin124 said:
I don't think any of the ex-Labour Independents would support a Boris Govt in a VNOC - none voted for May in January. Doubtful too that Lady Hermon will remain on board .
Today, right now, there is a Conservative led government. They have only 312 MPs supporting them on all legislative matters. There are (potentially) up to 337 MPs who might oppose.
On the same basis, we have a government who can count on the Confidence of 322 MPs, with potentially 327MPs who might oppose such Confidence.
On the raw numbers, the Conservatives are deep in the red, running a minority administration day to day by luck and prayer.
After that, we get into all sorts of 'what about?' 'what if?' territory.
What if Nick Boles rejoins?
What if Sinn Fein rock up?
What if Johnny Mercer won't support the Cons after all?
Which independents might be tempted to support the government? How many are there?
What if Mark Field does resign as an MP?
What if the Brecon by-election is lost to the Lib Dems?
What other skeletons does any Con MP have in the closet that might come out at any point in time?
What if Grieve, Lee and Greening leave and join the Lib Dems if the PM goes for No Deal?
What if the ERG leave and join the BXP if the PM goes for revoke?
Some of the above are more or less likely to happen. I can't really see Sinn Fein attending, but can you guarantee they won't?
It's not a way to run a government. We can't go on like this for much longer. Either:
A) We need a General Election to try to clarify the mess; or
B.) The Conservatives need to approach another party with sufficient MPs for a formal coalition mid-parliament (like the Lib-Lab pact) to get through.
A) may produce chaos (probably will)
B.) isn't a bad idea, but who?
) 0 -
They must be deep cover LibDem plants .... "Yellow Skunk Cabbage" fits the bill ....AlastairMeeks said:Well, this looks like a bold decision:
https://twitter.com/adrianmasters84/status/1142075374668582913
0 -
Glad to see you've changed your mind on wind power.Richard_Nabavi said:
Nebulous 'technological solutions' aren't needed, the capitalist economy has been able to develop affordable solutions at an astonishing rate. The energy industry has been completely transformed since 2010 when it looked as though we'd have to rely on a lot of nuclear power to make much difference. Of course this is mainly global developments rather than anything specific to the UK or the government, but nonetheless the UK government deserves a fair bit of credit - measures like going all-out for off-shore wind were I think extremely wise, as they avoided the whole thing getting bogged down in protests at scenic areas being wrecked.SandyRentool said:
Naivety is the head in the sand crowd who believe that some nebulous 'technological solutions' will come to the rescue, allowing them to carry on with business as usual.Richard_Nabavi said:
Not really. They've forced a naive and simplistic version of environmentalism up the political agenda, which means that politicians will have to pretend to take naive and simplistic measures, or do daft things like Ed Miliband's screw-up on smart meters.Foxy said:
For all the bile spat at them by naysayers, Greta Thurnberg, Extinction Rebellion and now Greenpeace have forced environmentalism up the political agenda.Richard_Nabavi said:
Of course it's a bad thing, but there are serious discussions about climate change there, as is witnessed by the remarkable progress the UK has made on this issue. The protestors aren't interested in serious discussions, unfortunately.Jonathan said:The fact no10 is now a fortress is a bad thing. We would be better off if there were serious discussions about climate change behind that black door.
Increasingly politicions desiring avoiding extinction themselves will need to take these considerations very seriously.
The green-left has been so far ahead of the game on this, while the centre-right still hasn't completely woken up, and the neo-whatevers are still in denial.0 -
Interesting. That would on the face of it boost the chances of TBP. While the expenses affair wasn't that serious in the scheme of things the voters there are unlikely to investigate the minutiae and give him the benefit of the doubt as I suspect they do with Mark Field.AlastairMeeks said:Well, this looks like a bold decision:
https://twitter.com/adrianmasters84/status/11420753746685829130 -
If the opinion polls don't already have such a thing, they need a 'lumpiness' factor to be applied to regions or even small groups of constituencies. If TBP got say 15% at a GE they could come away with nothing, as happened to UKIP with 13%, unless their support is uneven across the country. The LibDems on 15% would do moderately well.AlastairMeeks said:
The Lib Dems might well do well in the South West simply by standing still if the Brexit party splits the Conservative vote, as it looks set to.Sean_F said:
I think that's right. I think that (at present) the Lib Dems would pull off some enormous swings in some London and Home Counties constituencies, but make not a lot of progress in Devon, Cornwall, and Dorset.AlastairMeeks said:I suggest that if the four way split in polling becomes well-established, we are going to need far more in the way of regional polls or polling of seats by classification type to make sensible seat predictions.
0 -
Ssh - I think no-one's supposed to notice that one. But yes, Hunt himself is in a lot of trouble in a 4-way split of the vote. The one fly in the ointment is the NHA party are very active there and could help him hang on.Dadge said:We were discussing earlier whether Bojo might lose his seat at the GE. It's since occured to me that Jeremy Hunt is also in a somewhat precarious position - his seat is a high LD target, and the way things are going I wouldn't put money on him surviving.
0 -
You have no idea what he was reacting to. The media has been full of milkshaking (!) and other attacks on politicians. How and why on earth is anyone supposed to know what to expect and what is or is not a potential threat. Haven't seen Sir Norfolk's comment but no one is able to determine what went through Field's head as a protester sought to pass him on the way to the top table at a private event that he was attending.kinabalu said:
But it's clear that Field was not acting due to a perceived threat - he was acting in fury at the disruption. So whether or not one considers that she was a potential threat is not at the heart of the matter.TOPPING said:Yes I appreciate the rhetoric (cf La Toynbee); he knows how to rouse the rabble and present a position. Trouble is that it is very often based on a false premise and hence relies on preaching to the converted. If he had thought about the Field issue he might have written a more balanced article. But to dismiss any possibility of red dress woman being a threat is facile, if we're talking threat assessment for example and hence Jones almost forfeits the indulgence you afford him.
For me, the 'Sir Norfolk Passmore' construct got it down well in his summary on the thread just gone.0 -
It may prove to be the right one. This struck me as a highly technical offence for no personal gain. Trying to persuade the locals that this is an unnecessary election might just be the Tory's best chance. Its not much of a chance of course but it might be as good as it gets.AlastairMeeks said:Well, this looks like a bold decision:
https://twitter.com/adrianmasters84/status/11420753746685829130 -
Have you read The Big Short by Michael Lewis?SandyRentool said:All of these feckers should have been up against the metaphorical wall.
Instead, they are on their yachts.0 -
If those Flavible seat totals came off (which as we've already discussed, they won't), forming a government would be fun: Brx + Con nowhere near a majority (even with DUP added). Lab + SNP nowhere near a majority. The closest to a workable combo would be Lab + LD (probably plus SNP for safety).
A lot of their individual constituency results seem very odd to me, especially in the South West.
That's how Flavible have things atm https://flavible.com/politics/map/polls?sid=2076
"Minutes of a meeting to discuss a Lib-Lab-SNP coalition. Item 1: Resignation of Jeremy Corbyn. The meeting ended at 10.02am without agreement".0 -
On 15%, I expect TBP would win Thurrock and maybe Boston and Thanet South. But above 20%, the number of gains rises swiftly.logical_song said:
If the opinion polls don't already have such a thing, they need a 'lumpiness' factor to be applied to regions or even small groups of constituencies. If TBP got say 15% at a GE they could come away with nothing, as happened to UKIP with 13%, unless their support is uneven across the country. The LibDems on 15% would do moderately well.AlastairMeeks said:
The Lib Dems might well do well in the South West simply by standing still if the Brexit party splits the Conservative vote, as it looks set to.Sean_F said:
I think that's right. I think that (at present) the Lib Dems would pull off some enormous swings in some London and Home Counties constituencies, but make not a lot of progress in Devon, Cornwall, and Dorset.AlastairMeeks said:I suggest that if the four way split in polling becomes well-established, we are going to need far more in the way of regional polls or polling of seats by classification type to make sensible seat predictions.
0 -
But not fast enough.Richard_Nabavi said:
Nebulous 'technological solutions' aren't needed, the capitalist economy has been able to develop affordable solutions at an astonishing rate...SandyRentool said:
Naivety is the head in the sand crowd who believe that some nebulous 'technological solutions' will come to the rescue, allowing them to carry on with business as usual.Richard_Nabavi said:
Not really. They've forced a naive and simplistic version of environmentalism up the political agenda, which means that politicians will have to pretend to take naive and simplistic measures, or do daft things like Ed Miliband's screw-up on smart meters.Foxy said:
For all the bile spat at them by naysayers, Greta Thurnberg, Extinction Rebellion and now Greenpeace have forced environmentalism up the political agenda.Richard_Nabavi said:
Of course it's a bad thing, but there are serious discussions about climate change there, as is witnessed by the remarkable progress the UK has made on this issue. The protestors aren't interested in serious discussions, unfortunately.Jonathan said:The fact no10 is now a fortress is a bad thing. We would be better off if there were serious discussions about climate change behind that black door.
Increasingly politicions desiring avoiding extinction themselves will need to take these considerations very seriously.
The green-left has been so far ahead of the game on this, while the centre-right still hasn't completely woken up, and the neo-whatevers are still in denial.
If we’re going to get anywhere near zero carbon by 2050, let alone 2035, then a couple of technologies (far more efficient batteries, and sunlight or electricity to chemical feedstock) need to the same kind of massive subsidy kickstart that solar and wind received.
(Banning the internal combustion engine would do much the same as subsidies for battery development, but doing so soon enough would run into greater opposition.)
Another item is domestic heating, where the market would take decades to make a difference, absent government intervention.
The capitalist economy sometimes needs intervention in terms of incentives, and the risks associated with climate disruption are large enough to demand much greater intervention than we have now.
0 -
Sorry, I wasn't being specific enough - I was referring to the 'geo-engineering' type nonsense, like squirting reflective particles into the upper atmosphere.RobD said:
Except technological solutions is exactly what has happened in this case.SandyRentool said:
Naivety is the head in the sand crowd who believe that some nebulous 'technological solutions' will come to the rescue, allowing them to carry on with business as usual.Richard_Nabavi said:
Not really. They've forced a naive and simplistic version of environmentalism up the political agenda, which means that politicians will have to pretend to take naive and simplistic measures, or do daft things like Ed Miliband's screw-up on smart meters.Foxy said:
For all the bile spat at them by naysayers, Greta Thurnberg, Extinction Rebellion and now Greenpeace have forced environmentalism up the political agenda.Richard_Nabavi said:
Of course it's a bad thing, but there are serious discussions about climate change there, as is witnessed by the remarkable progress the UK has made on this issue. The protestors aren't interested in serious discussions, unfortunately.Jonathan said:The fact no10 is now a fortress is a bad thing. We would be better off if there were serious discussions about climate change behind that black door.
Increasingly politicions desiring avoiding extinction themselves will need to take these considerations very seriously.
The green-left has been so far ahead of the game on this, while the centre-right still hasn't completely woken up, and the neo-whatevers are still in denial.
I agree that technology is facilitating the reduction of CO2 emissions, but we've done the relatively easy bit, and to do the rest needs more than just a different type of power generation technology.0 -
Superb book and excellent film.kinabalu said:
Have you read The Big Short by Michael Lewis?SandyRentool said:All of these feckers should have been up against the metaphorical wall.
Instead, they are on their yachts.0 -
A bit of precautionary thinking back then, and we wouldn't be in the current predicament.Sean_F said:
Let's just say, it's just as well the Green left are around today, rather than at the start of the Industrial Revolution.SandyRentool said:
Naivety is the head in the sand crowd who believe that some nebulous 'technological solutions' will come to the rescue, allowing them to carry on with business as usual.Richard_Nabavi said:
Not really. They've forced a naive and simplistic version of environmentalism up the political agenda, which means that politicians will have to pretend to take naive and simplistic measures, or do daft things like Ed Miliband's screw-up on smart meters.Foxy said:
For all the bile spat at them by naysayers, Greta Thurnberg, Extinction Rebellion and now Greenpeace have forced environmentalism up the political agenda.Richard_Nabavi said:
Of course it's a bad thing, but there are serious discussions about climate change there, as is witnessed by the remarkable progress the UK has made on this issue. The protestors aren't interested in serious discussions, unfortunately.Jonathan said:The fact no10 is now a fortress is a bad thing. We would be better off if there were serious discussions about climate change behind that black door.
Increasingly politicions desiring avoiding extinction themselves will need to take these considerations very seriously.
The green-left has been so far ahead of the game on this, while the centre-right still hasn't completely woken up, and the neo-whatevers are still in denial.0 -
I haven't changed my mind, I've always been wary on onshore because of the environmental damage, but in favour of off-shore if it could be delivered cost-effectively. What has changed in that respect is the falling cost and the increasing expertise in off-shore.Jonathan said:Glad to see you've changed your mind on wind power.
We just need to crack energy storage, preferably without too much reliance on mining scarce metals, and we'll be well on the way to being able to phase out fossil fuels. That one's proving a bit difficult at the moment, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if some completely new technology emerges on storage.0 -
The by-election should be a fairly easy win for the LDs given their position on about 20% in the national opinion polls.0
-
New green technology needed and probably still needs government incentives for a few more years. I think that the Coalition government with Ed Davey as Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change probably deserves most praise. In 2017 things started going downhill.Jonathan said:
Glad to see you've changed your mind on wind power.Richard_Nabavi said:
Nebulous 'technological solutions' aren't needed, the capitalist economy has been able to develop affordable solutions at an astonishing rate. The energy industry has been completely transformed since 2010 when it looked as though we'd have to rely on a lot of nuclear power to make much difference. Of course this is mainly global developments rather than anything specific to the UK or the government, but nonetheless the UK government deserves a fair bit of credit - measures like going all-out for off-shore wind were I think extremely wise, as they avoided the whole thing getting bogged down in protests at scenic areas being wrecked.SandyRentool said:
Naivety is the head in the sand crowd who believe that some nebulous 'technological solutions' will come to the rescue, allowing them to carry on with business as usual.Richard_Nabavi said:
Not really. They've forced a naive and simplistic version of environmentalism up the political agenda, which means that politicians will have to pretend to take naive and simplistic measures, or do daft things like Ed Miliband's screw-up on smart meters.Foxy said:
For all the bile spat at them by naysayers, Greta Thurnberg, Extinction Rebellion and now Greenpeace have forced environmentalism up the political agenda.Richard_Nabavi said:
Of course it's a bad thing, but there are serious discussions about climate change there, as is witnessed by the remarkable progress the UK has made on this issue. The protestors aren't interested in serious discussions, unfortunately.Jonathan said:The fact no10 is now a fortress is a bad thing. We would be better off if there were serious discussions about climate change behind that black door.
Increasingly politicions desiring avoiding extinction themselves will need to take these considerations very seriously.
The green-left has been so far ahead of the game on this, while the centre-right still hasn't completely woken up, and the neo-whatevers are still in denial.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/wind-power-solar-investment-drop-uk-government-funding-environment-figures-budget-a8162261.html0 -
Our predicament would be a good deal worse.SandyRentool said:
A bit of precautionary thinking back then, and we wouldn't be in the current predicament.Sean_F said:
Let's just say, it's just as well the Green left are around today, rather than at the start of the Industrial Revolution.SandyRentool said:
Naivety is the head in the sand crowd who believe that some nebulous 'technological solutions' will come to the rescue, allowing them to carry on with business as usual.Richard_Nabavi said:
Not really. They've forced a naive and simplistic version of environmentalism up the political agenda, which means that politicians will have to pretend to take naive and simplistic measures, or do daft things like Ed Miliband's screw-up on smart meters.Foxy said:
For all the bile spat at them by naysayers, Greta Thurnberg, Extinction Rebellion and now Greenpeace have forced environmentalism up the political agenda.Richard_Nabavi said:
Of course it's a bad thing, but there are serious discussions about climate change there, as is witnessed by the remarkable progress the UK has made on this issue. The protestors aren't interested in serious discussions, unfortunately.Jonathan said:The fact no10 is now a fortress is a bad thing. We would be better off if there were serious discussions about climate change behind that black door.
Increasingly politicions desiring avoiding extinction themselves will need to take these considerations very seriously.
The green-left has been so far ahead of the game on this, while the centre-right still hasn't completely woken up, and the neo-whatevers are still in denial.0 -
I think that only works if a) TBP doesn't stand and b) Davies is a very well regarded local MP both apply.DavidL said:
It may prove to be the right one. This struck me as a highly technical offence for no personal gain. Trying to persuade the locals that this is an unnecessary election might just be the Tory's best chance. Its not much of a chance of course but it might be as good as it gets.AlastairMeeks said:Well, this looks like a bold decision:
https://twitter.com/adrianmasters84/status/11420753746685829130 -
Was reminded by hearing Peter Bottomley on the radio this morning that he's related to Hunt. Virginia Bottomley, who held the seat before Hunt, had an aunt who was married to Hunt's uncle.Dadge said:We were discussing earlier whether Bojo might lose his seat at the GE. It's since occured to me that Jeremy Hunt is also in a somewhat precarious position - his seat is a high LD target, and the way things are going I wouldn't put money on him surviving.
0 -
They managed 4% in 2015 when their leader was useless and Labour hadn't pissed off more than half its voters. Not saying they'd manage 9%, some squeezing would be inevitable, but could well improve on that 2015 result, especially if they a) open up a few more potential battleground seats b) the polls remain a mess so people are more inclined to vote on who they ideally support, rather than tactically.justin124 said:
These are fantasy figures - no way the Greens will poll 9% in a GE . They would do well to exceed 2%.TheWhiteRabbit said:
God, 34/22/20 would be landslide!!!CarlottaVance said:0 -
I wouldn’t dismiss nebulous technical solutions out of hand - for example we may well need direct CO2 capture from the atmosphere - a nascent technology which is quite feasible, but for now hopelessly uneconomic at scale.SandyRentool said:
Sorry, I wasn't being specific enough - I was referring to the 'geo-engineering' type nonsense, like squirting reflective particles into the upper atmosphere.RobD said:
Except technological solutions is exactly what has happened in this case.SandyRentool said:
Naivety is the head in the sand crowd who believe that some nebulous 'technological solutions' will come to the rescue, allowing them to carry on with business as usual.Richard_Nabavi said:
Not really. They've forced a naive and simplistic version of environmentalism up the political agenda, which means that politicians will have to pretend to take naive and simplistic measures, or do daft things like Ed Miliband's screw-up on smart meters.Foxy said:
For all the bile spat at them by naysayers, Greta Thurnberg, Extinction Rebellion and now Greenpeace have forced environmentalism up the political agenda.Richard_Nabavi said:
Of course it's a bad thing, but there are serious discussions about climate change there, as is witnessed by the remarkable progress the UK has made on this issue. The protestors aren't interested in serious discussions, unfortunately.Jonathan said:The fact no10 is now a fortress is a bad thing. We would be better off if there were serious discussions about climate change behind that black door.
Increasingly politicions desiring avoiding extinction themselves will need to take these considerations very seriously.
The green-left has been so far ahead of the game on this, while the centre-right still hasn't completely woken up, and the neo-whatevers are still in denial.
I agree that technology is facilitating the reduction of CO2 emissions, but we've done the relatively easy bit, and to do the rest needs more than just a different type of power generation technology.
0 -
... and yet CO2 emissions keep going up.SandyRentool said:
Sorry, I wasn't being specific enough - I was referring to the 'geo-engineering' type nonsense, like squirting reflective particles into the upper atmosphere.RobD said:
Except technological solutions is exactly what has happened in this case.SandyRentool said:
Naivety is the head in the sand crowd who believe that some nebulous 'technological solutions' will come to the rescue, allowing them to carry on with business as usual.Richard_Nabavi said:
Not really. They've forced a naive and simplistic version of environmentalism up the political agenda, which means that politicians will have to pretend to take naive and simplistic measures, or do daft things like Ed Miliband's screw-up on smart meters.Foxy said:
For all the bile spat at them by naysayers, Greta Thurnberg, Extinction Rebellion and now Greenpeace have forced environmentalism up the political agenda.Richard_Nabavi said:
Of course it's a bad thing, but there are serious discussions about climate change there, as is witnessed by the remarkable progress the UK has made on this issue. The protestors aren't interested in serious discussions, unfortunately.Jonathan said:The fact no10 is now a fortress is a bad thing. We would be better off if there were serious discussions about climate change behind that black door.
Increasingly politicions desiring avoiding extinction themselves will need to take these considerations very seriously.
The green-left has been so far ahead of the game on this, while the centre-right still hasn't completely woken up, and the neo-whatevers are still in denial.
I agree that technology is facilitating the reduction of CO2 emissions, but we've done the relatively easy bit, and to do the rest needs more than just a different type of power generation technology.
https://climatenewsnetwork.net/human-carbon-emissions-to-rise-in-2019/0 -
"The capitalist economy". Don't be daft. It is central planning, interventionism, public sector subsidy and putting a cost on negative externalities that has made a difference. Like you say - UK government policy has driven offshore wind; without that policy, the energy companies would either be sitting on their hands or carrying on business as usual in their investment decisions.Richard_Nabavi said:
Nebulous 'technological solutions' aren't needed, the capitalist economy has been able to develop affordable solutions at an astonishing rate. The energy industry has been completely transformed since 2010 when it looked as though we'd have to rely on a lot of nuclear power to make much difference. Of course this is mainly global developments rather than anything specific to the UK or the government, but nonetheless the UK government deserves a fair bit of credit - measures like going all-out for off-shore wind were I think extremely wise, as they avoided the whole thing getting bogged down in protests at scenic areas being wrecked.SandyRentool said:
Naivety is the head in the sand crowd who believe that some nebulous 'technological solutions' will come to the rescue, allowing them to carry on with business as usual.Richard_Nabavi said:
Not really. They've forced a naive and simplistic version of environmentalism up the political agenda, which means that politicians will have to pretend to take naive and simplistic measures, or do daft things like Ed Miliband's screw-up on smart meters.Foxy said:
For all the bile spat at them by naysayers, Greta Thurnberg, Extinction Rebellion and now Greenpeace have forced environmentalism up the political agenda.Richard_Nabavi said:
Of course it's a bad thing, but there are serious discussions about climate change there, as is witnessed by the remarkable progress the UK has made on this issue. The protestors aren't interested in serious discussions, unfortunately.Jonathan said:The fact no10 is now a fortress is a bad thing. We would be better off if there were serious discussions about climate change behind that black door.
Increasingly politicions desiring avoiding extinction themselves will need to take these considerations very seriously.
The green-left has been so far ahead of the game on this, while the centre-right still hasn't completely woken up, and the neo-whatevers are still in denial.
Look, I know neither of us is going to change the other's views on this (or much else!), but I think we do agree that tackling climate change is essential.0 -
Greens are the main opposition party now in Germany.MJW said:
They managed 4% in 2015 when their leader was useless and Labour hadn't pissed off more than half its voters. Not saying they'd manage 9%, some squeezing would be inevitable, but could well improve on that 2015 result, especially if they a) open up a few more potential battleground seats b) the polls remain a mess so people are more inclined to vote on who they ideally support, rather than tactically.justin124 said:
These are fantasy figures - no way the Greens will poll 9% in a GE . They would do well to exceed 2%.TheWhiteRabbit said:
God, 34/22/20 would be landslide!!!CarlottaVance said:0 -
The commercial incentives are absolutely massive. You really don't need to worry about that - just look at the innovation that is going on. Not everything needs direct government subsidies.Nigelb said:But not fast enough.
If we’re going to get anywhere near zero carbon by 2050, let alone 2035, then a couple of technologies (far more efficient batteries, and sunlight or electricity to chemical feedstock) need to the same kind of massive subsidy kickstart that solar and wind received.
(Banning the internal combustion engine would do much the same as subsidies for battery development, but doing so soon enough would run into greater opposition.)
Another item is domestic heating, where the market would take decades to make a difference, absent government intervention.
The capitalist economy sometimes needs intervention in terms of incentives, and the risks associated with climate disruption are large enough to demand much greater intervention than we have now.0 -
Brecon & Radnorshire:
Not much trade as yet. Only £240 matched.
LD 1.14 / 1.5
Con 7/ 15
Lab 10 / 500
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/market/1.1598539050 -
STENSEA would be great for offshore wind storage (if the sea is deep enough)Richard_Nabavi said:
I haven't changed my mind, I've always been wary on onshore because of the environmental damage, but in favour of off-shore if it could be delivered cost-effectively. What has changed in that respect is the falling cost and the increasing expertise in off-shore.Jonathan said:Glad to see you've changed your mind on wind power.
We just need to crack energy storage, preferably without too much reliance on mining scarce metals, and we'll be well on the way to being able to phase out fossil fuels. That one's proving a bit difficult at the moment, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if some completely new technology emerges on storage.0 -
Good job england bat deep....0
-
Yes, he might well have had a chance if his Party were not toiling so badly in the polls. There could be a New Party Leader Bounce of course but somehow I don't see Boris appealing much to the mid-Wales electorate so it probably wouldn't be anywhere near big enough to stop a LibDem win.DavidL said:
It may prove to be the right one. This struck me as a highly technical offence for no personal gain. Trying to persuade the locals that this is an unnecessary election might just be the Tory's best chance. Its not much of a chance of course but it might be as good as it gets.AlastairMeeks said:Well, this looks like a bold decision:
https://twitter.com/adrianmasters84/status/1142075374668582913
Shadsy's odds look about right.0 -
The LibDems have achieved over 20% in the past and done quite well. I wonder what having 4 parties on the 20%s would give us.Sean_F said:
On 15%, I expect TBP would win Thurrock and maybe Boston and Thanet South. But above 20%, the number of gains rises swiftly.logical_song said:
If the opinion polls don't already have such a thing, they need a 'lumpiness' factor to be applied to regions or even small groups of constituencies. If TBP got say 15% at a GE they could come away with nothing, as happened to UKIP with 13%, unless their support is uneven across the country. The LibDems on 15% would do moderately well.AlastairMeeks said:
The Lib Dems might well do well in the South West simply by standing still if the Brexit party splits the Conservative vote, as it looks set to.Sean_F said:
I think that's right. I think that (at present) the Lib Dems would pull off some enormous swings in some London and Home Counties constituencies, but make not a lot of progress in Devon, Cornwall, and Dorset.AlastairMeeks said:I suggest that if the four way split in polling becomes well-established, we are going to need far more in the way of regional polls or polling of seats by classification type to make sensible seat predictions.
0 -
That's very clever, I hadn't seen that.TrèsDifficile said:STENSEA would be great for offshore wind storage (if the sea is deep enough)
0 -
I have casually listened to a few Field critics of the sort who are expert at evasion when being interviewed. The common ground has been their unwillingness to (1) say that they would have done nothing (2) say what they would have done instead (3) say what Field should have done instead. There has been a lamentable failure from Field's critics to address what you might call the Jo Cox or Stephen Timms question. The gap between being rubbished by the Guardianista and being recommended for a George Medal by the very same people is a very fine one and seems to depend a bit on party loyalty.TOPPING said:
You have no idea what he was reacting to. The media has been full of milkshaking (!) and other attacks on politicians. How and why on earth is anyone supposed to know what to expect and what is or is not a potential threat. Haven't seen Sir Norfolk's comment but no one is able to determine what went through Field's head as a protester sought to pass him on the way to the top table at a private event that he was attending.kinabalu said:
But it's clear that Field was not acting due to a perceived threat - he was acting in fury at the disruption. So whether or not one considers that she was a potential threat is not at the heart of the matter.TOPPING said:Yes I appreciate the rhetoric (cf La Toynbee); he knows how to rouse the rabble and present a position. Trouble is that it is very often based on a false premise and hence relies on preaching to the converted. If he had thought about the Field issue he might have written a more balanced article. But to dismiss any possibility of red dress woman being a threat is facile, if we're talking threat assessment for example and hence Jones almost forfeits the indulgence you afford him.
For me, the 'Sir Norfolk Passmore' construct got it down well in his summary on the thread just gone.
I don't like the paranoia surrounding security and public figures but it's a fact of our mental makeup now when prominent people are present. BTW at its worst this is hardly Jean Charles de Menezes is it. Now whatever happened to that Cressida Dick who was right in the frame for that one?
0 -
I like that idea, the devil will be in the detail I suppose.TrèsDifficile said:
STENSEA would be great for offshore wind storage (if the sea is deep enough)Richard_Nabavi said:
I haven't changed my mind, I've always been wary on onshore because of the environmental damage, but in favour of off-shore if it could be delivered cost-effectively. What has changed in that respect is the falling cost and the increasing expertise in off-shore.Jonathan said:Glad to see you've changed your mind on wind power.
We just need to crack energy storage, preferably without too much reliance on mining scarce metals, and we'll be well on the way to being able to phase out fossil fuels. That one's proving a bit difficult at the moment, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if some completely new technology emerges on storage.0 -
I've seen the film.kinabalu said:
Have you read The Big Short by Michael Lewis?SandyRentool said:All of these feckers should have been up against the metaphorical wall.
Instead, they are on their yachts.0 -
Someone's probably already said this, but if the Tories do well in this by-election it could persuade Boris to hold an early general election.0
-
There is a decision that he needed to make. Maybe a protester saying 'Stop Climate Change' would be less threatening than one saying 'Britain First' or 'Allahu Ackbar'.algarkirk said:
I have casually listened to a few Field critics of the sort who are expert at evasion when being interviewed. The common ground has been their unwillingness to (1) say that they would have done nothing (2) say what they would have done instead (3) say what Field should have done instead. There has been a lamentable failure from Field's critics to address what you might call the Jo Cox or Stephen Timms question. The gap between being rubbished by the Guardianista and being recommended for a George Medal by the very same people is a very fine one and seems to depend a bit on party loyalty.TOPPING said:
You have no idea what he was reacting to. The media has been full of milkshaking (!) and other attacks on politicians. How and why on earth is anyone supposed to know what to expect and what is or is not a potential threat. Haven't seen Sir Norfolk's comment but no one is able to determine what went through Field's head as a protester sought to pass him on the way to the top table at a private event that he was attending.kinabalu said:
But it's clear that Field was not acting due to a perceived threat - he was acting in fury at the disruption. So whether or not one considers that she was a potential threat is not at the heart of the matter.TOPPING said:Yes I appreciate the rhetoric (cf La Toynbee); he knows how to rouse the rabble and present a position. Trouble is that it is very often based on a false premise and hence relies on preaching to the converted. If he had thought about the Field issue he might have written a more balanced article. But to dismiss any possibility of red dress woman being a threat is facile, if we're talking threat assessment for example and hence Jones almost forfeits the indulgence you afford him.
For me, the 'Sir Norfolk Passmore' construct got it down well in his summary on the thread just gone.
I don't like the paranoia surrounding security and public figures but it's a fact of our mental makeup now when prominent people are present. BTW at its worst this is hardly Jean Charles de Menezes is it. Now whatever happened to that Cressida Dick who was right in the frame for that one?0 -
If they could generate power by releasing pent up ambition and carefully nursed grievances, the Tory party could meet our ongoing energy storage needs. Gove and Boris alone could power the South West.0
-
Not fecking air capture! Given the choice of capturing the CO2 at a concentration of 15% from a power station's flue gas or 400 ppm from the air, which might be an easier proposition?Nigelb said:
I wouldn’t dismiss nebulous technical solutions out of hand - for example we may well need direct CO2 capture from the atmosphere - a nascent technology which is quite feasible, but for now hopelessly uneconomic at scale.SandyRentool said:
Sorry, I wasn't being specific enough - I was referring to the 'geo-engineering' type nonsense, like squirting reflective particles into the upper atmosphere.RobD said:
Except technological solutions is exactly what has happened in this case.SandyRentool said:
Naivety is the head in the sand crowd who believe that some nebulous 'technological solutions' will come to the rescue, allowing them to carry on with business as usual.Richard_Nabavi said:
Not really. They've forced a naive and simplistic version of environmentalism up the political agenda, which means that politicians will have to pretend to take naive and simplistic measures, or do daft things like Ed Miliband's screw-up on smart meters.Foxy said:
For all the bile spat at them by naysayers, Greta Thurnberg, Extinction Rebellion and now Greenpeace have forced environmentalism up the political agenda.Richard_Nabavi said:
Of course it's a bad thing, but there are serious discussions about climate change there, as is witnessed by the remarkable progress the UK has made on this issue. The protestors aren't interested in serious discussions, unfortunately.Jonathan said:The fact no10 is now a fortress is a bad thing. We would be better off if there were serious discussions about climate change behind that black door.
Increasingly politicions desiring avoiding extinction themselves will need to take these considerations very seriously.
The green-left has been so far ahead of the game on this, while the centre-right still hasn't completely woken up, and the neo-whatevers are still in denial.
I agree that technology is facilitating the reduction of CO2 emissions, but we've done the relatively easy bit, and to do the rest needs more than just a different type of power generation technology.
BTW, we already have very efficient air capture devices. They are called trees.0 -
England still very strong favourites to win the match with Betfair.FrancisUrquhart said:Good job england bat deep....
0 -
Like the wave generators that are still struggling one of the problems is having moving parts in salt water.logical_song said:
I like that idea, the devil will be in the detail I suppose.TrèsDifficile said:
STENSEA would be great for offshore wind storage (if the sea is deep enough)Richard_Nabavi said:
I haven't changed my mind, I've always been wary on onshore because of the environmental damage, but in favour of off-shore if it could be delivered cost-effectively. What has changed in that respect is the falling cost and the increasing expertise in off-shore.Jonathan said:Glad to see you've changed your mind on wind power.
We just need to crack energy storage, preferably without too much reliance on mining scarce metals, and we'll be well on the way to being able to phase out fossil fuels. That one's proving a bit difficult at the moment, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if some completely new technology emerges on storage.0 -
Not only trees:SandyRentool said:Not fecking air capture! Given the choice of capturing the CO2 at a concentration of 15% from a power station's flue gas or 400 ppm from the air, which might be an easier proposition?
BTW, we already have very efficient air capture devices. They are called trees.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/apr/16/super-plants-climate-change-joanne-chory-carbon-dioxide
But presumably Greenpeace would be horrified at the idea.0 -
I'm pretty sure he'll have the support of senior Lib Dem figures.AlastairMeeks said:Well, this looks like a bold decision:
https://twitter.com/adrianmasters84/status/11420753746685829130 -
But the government has cut incentives since 2017 and shelved projects. Declaring a Climate Emergency is easy but they should be doing more. There's free energy there that can be had with some effort - and it will keep giving for years.Richard_Nabavi said:
The commercial incentives are absolutely massive. You really don't need to worry about that - just look at the innovation that is going on. Not everything needs direct government subsidies.Nigelb said:But not fast enough.
If we’re going to get anywhere near zero carbon by 2050, let alone 2035, then a couple of technologies (far more efficient batteries, and sunlight or electricity to chemical feedstock) need to the same kind of massive subsidy kickstart that solar and wind received.
(Banning the internal combustion engine would do much the same as subsidies for battery development, but doing so soon enough would run into greater opposition.)
Another item is domestic heating, where the market would take decades to make a difference, absent government intervention.
The capitalist economy sometimes needs intervention in terms of incentives, and the risks associated with climate disruption are large enough to demand much greater intervention than we have now.0 -
Elon Musk has said CO2 capture is difficult and he's far more capable of thinking out the box than most. Rory wanted another 1m trees planted. Seemed a more straightforward solution to me.SandyRentool said:
Not fecking air capture! Given the choice of capturing the CO2 at a concentration of 15% from a power station's flue gas or 400 ppm from the air, which might be an easier proposition?Nigelb said:
I wouldn’t dismiss nebulous technical solutions out of hand - for example we may well need direct CO2 capture from the atmosphere - a nascent technology which is quite feasible, but for now hopelessly uneconomic at scale.SandyRentool said:
Sorry, I wasn't being specific enough - I was referring to the 'geo-engineering' type nonsense, like squirting reflective particles into the upper atmosphere.RobD said:
Except technological solutions is exactly what has happened in this case.SandyRentool said:
Naivety is the head in the sand crowd who believe that some nebulous 'technological solutions' will come to the rescue, allowing them to carry on with business as usual.Richard_Nabavi said:
Not really. They've forced a naive and simplistic version of environmentalism up the political agenda, which means that politicians will have to pretend to take naive and simplistic measures, or do daft things like Ed Miliband's screw-up on smart meters.Foxy said:
For all the bile spat at them by naysayers, Greta Thurnberg, Extinction Rebellion and now Greenpeace have forced environmentalism up the political agenda.Richard_Nabavi said:
Of course it's a bad thing, but there are serious discussions about climate change there, as is witnessed by the remarkable progress the UK has made on this issue. The protestors aren't interested in serious discussions, unfortunately.Jonathan said:The fact no10 is now a fortress is a bad thing. We would be better off if there were serious discussions about climate change behind that black door.
Increasingly politicions desiring avoiding extinction themselves will need to take these considerations very seriously.
The green-left has been so far ahead of the game on this, while the centre-right still hasn't completely woken up, and the neo-whatevers are still in denial.
I agree that technology is facilitating the reduction of CO2 emissions, but we've done the relatively easy bit, and to do the rest needs more than just a different type of power generation technology.
BTW, we already have very efficient air capture devices. They are called trees.0 -
I don't think that Macmillan and Douglas-Home received much of a honeymoon on becoming PM. Moreover Harold Wilson took office in mid-October 1964 and saw his party lose the supposedly safe seat of Leyton in January 1965.Callaghan entered No 10 at beginning of April 1976 , yet Labour did not perform well at the May Local Elections that year - and by the Autumn his Government was very unpopular.. John Major replaced Thatcher at the end of November 1990 , and -despite an initial polling bounce - saw his party lose by elections at Ribble Valley and Monmouth in early 1991.Mysticrose said:On a different note, there's another problem for Boris with the timing of this election.
Every new PM enjoys a honeymoon. Even in normal circumstances Boris would enjoy less of one than most. To add to this, almost as soon as he's in post everyone is off on holiday, taking all momentum out of it. Meanwhile, the clock will be ticking down again to the deadline.
It's far from ideal.0
This discussion has been closed.