politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Scottish play. Will Wales follow Scotland and abandon Labo

nichomar said:

blueblue said:

Pulpstar said:

blueblue said:

What shape do we think the Tory campaign is going to take? I kept waiting for it to start last time and the only bits of news that broke through were the terrible missteps. When will we be able to form an impression about whether or not things will be different this time?

More schools, hospitals and police. I expect there'll be lots of occasions when some left wing activists start heckling Johnson and that along with selacious Arcuri rumours/allegations will be the extent of the negative publicity.

I only hope that's the worst of it. But they also need to dismantle things like the 2030 carbon-neutral plan in an effective way - there'll probably be half a dozen similar boondoggles that need puncturing. Who are the front men / women / attack dogs other than Boris himself?

Why would they want to do that?

Because its economic suicide. Like emptying a bath with a teacup, whilst others fill it with a hosepipe.

OnlyLivingBoy said:

HYUFD said:

malcolmg said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/keiranpedley/status/1191020505685475329

No surprise and given how far the Spanish have gone to block a Catalan independence vote Boris has plenty of leeway to block any indyref2 while he is PM

What rubbish you spout , the two are completely different.

They aren't and the PP are the Tories sister party after all, just not quite as hardline

The PP is not the Tories' sister party because the Tories withdrew from the mainstream centre-right EPP grouping in the European parliament in order to join up with an assortment of nationalist fruitcakes and anti-Semites more to their tastes.

The PP are still the sister party of the Tories in the International Democrat Union

https://www.idu.org/members/

sirclive said:

nichomar said:

sirclive said:

nichomar said:

blueblue said:

Pulpstar said:

blueblue said:

What shape do we think the Tory campaign is going to take? I kept waiting for it to start last time and the only bits of news that broke through were the terrible missteps. When will we be able to form an impression about whether or not things will be different this time?

More schools, hospitals and police. I expect there'll be lots of occasions when some left wing activists start heckling Johnson and that along with selacious Arcuri rumours/allegations will be the extent of the negative publicity.

I only hope that's the worst of it. But they also need to dismantle things like the 2030 carbon-neutral plan in an effective way - there'll probably be half a dozen similar boondoggles that need puncturing. Who are the front men / women / attack dogs other than Boris himself?

Why would they want to do that?

Because its economic suicide. Like emptying a bath with a teacup, whilst others fill it with a hosepipe.

So no need to do anything then all will be fine?

Whatever the UK does or doesn't do will make no difference to total emissions. You do realise that we have already massively reduced co2 and contribute 1% of world output?

So not our problem then let the rest of the world sort it out and if it goes tits up it’s the other buggers fault

logical_song said:

Stereotomy said:

Gabs2 said:

nunu2 said:

rcs1000 said:

HYUFD said:

Pastor in a Gospel Megachurch in Louisiana with a largely African American congregation tweets that Democrats should not vote for Buttigieg as he is in a gay marriage

https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2019/11/03/megachurch-pastor-democrats-reject-pete-buttigieg-not-time-gay-president/

https://twitter.com/BishopPMorton/status/1190599704876322816?s=20

The amusing bit, of course, is that Buttigieg is geniunely a Christian, unlike the current incumbent of the White House, and I suspect a personally moral man. Buttigieg has also served his country in Afghanistan, which he did by choice, not by the draft.

The Democrats win when the have young, articulate (perhaps even inexperienced) candidates: Obama, Clinton, JFK, even Carter in 76.

They win when they have candidates who are blank slates onto which voters can project their own hopes.

I think it's clear who that candidate is.

Now, he win and he might not. But there's probably quite a strong intersection between those people who wouldn't vote for a black candidate and those who wouldn't vote for a gay one.

Is there?

A lot of black Americans wouldn't vote for a gay man, but ofcourse would vote for a black one.

The Dems should have a Warren-Buttigieg ticket. Get Buttigieg nationally known as VP, and have him setup for whichever post-Trump headbanger the Republicans put forward in 2028. Generational change will have helped the homophobia issue by that point.

He's utterly unfit to be president, and fortunately has no chance of ever being elected.

Compared to Trump?
You must be joking.

I assumed it was a reference to Trump.

sirclive said:

nichomar said:

sirclive said:

nichomar said:

blueblue said:

Pulpstar said:

blueblue said:

What shape do we think the Tory campaign is going to take? I kept waiting for it to start last time and the only bits of news that broke through were the terrible missteps. When will we be able to form an impression about whether or not things will be different this time?

More schools, hospitals and police. I expect there'll be lots of occasions when some left wing activists start heckling Johnson and that along with selacious Arcuri rumours/allegations will be the extent of the negative publicity.

I only hope that's the worst of it. But they also need to dismantle things like the 2030 carbon-neutral plan in an effective way - there'll probably be half a dozen similar boondoggles that need puncturing. Who are the front men / women / attack dogs other than Boris himself?

Why would they want to do that?

Because its economic suicide. Like emptying a bath with a teacup, whilst others fill it with a hosepipe.

So no need to do anything then all will be fine?

Whatever the UK does or doesn't do will make no difference to total emissions. You do realise that we have already massively reduced co2 and contribute 1% of world output?

Quite. Infact a moderate increase in our carbon emissions would not be bad news, as most of our success in eliminating them has been due to industry moving overseas. These emissions have not stopped happening, they're now just happening elsewhere.

nichomar said:

sirclive said:

nichomar said:

sirclive said:

nichomar said:

blueblue said:

Pulpstar said:

blueblue said:

What shape do we think the Tory campaign is going to take? I kept waiting for it to start last time and the only bits of news that broke through were the terrible missteps. When will we be able to form an impression about whether or not things will be different this time?

More schools, hospitals and police. I expect there'll be lots of occasions when some left wing activists start heckling Johnson and that along with selacious Arcuri rumours/allegations will be the extent of the negative publicity.

I only hope that's the worst of it. But they also need to dismantle things like the 2030 carbon-neutral plan in an effective way - there'll probably be half a dozen similar boondoggles that need puncturing. Who are the front men / women / attack dogs other than Boris himself?

Why would they want to do that?

Because its economic suicide. Like emptying a bath with a teacup, whilst others fill it with a hosepipe.

So no need to do anything then all will be fine?

Whatever the UK does or doesn't do will make no difference to total emissions. You do realise that we have already massively reduced co2 and contribute 1% of world output?

So not our problem then let the rest of the world sort it out and if it goes tits up it’s the other buggers fault

Pure posturing for no benefit whilst the country will throw billions down the drain. Utter madness.

AndyJS said:

"Tory candidate wrote people on Benefits Street should be 'put down'
Exclusive: prospective Gower MP Francesca O’Brien made comments on Facebook in 2014"

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/nov/03/tory-candidate-francesca-obrien-wrote-people-benefits-street-should-be-put-down

It's good to see that all parties have learned so many lessons from the example of Jared O'Mara.

sirclive said:

nichomar said:

sirclive said:

nichomar said:

sirclive said:

nichomar said:

blueblue said:

Pulpstar said:

blueblue said:

What shape do we think the Tory campaign is going to take? I kept waiting for it to start last time and the only bits of news that broke through were the terrible missteps. When will we be able to form an impression about whether or not things will be different this time?

More schools, hospitals and police. I expect there'll be lots of occasions when some left wing activists start heckling Johnson and that along with selacious Arcuri rumours/allegations will be the extent of the negative publicity.

I only hope that's the worst of it. But they also need to dismantle things like the 2030 carbon-neutral plan in an effective way - there'll probably be half a dozen similar boondoggles that need puncturing. Who are the front men / women / attack dogs other than Boris himself?

Why would they want to do that?

Because its economic suicide. Like emptying a bath with a teacup, whilst others fill it with a hosepipe.

So no need to do anything then all will be fine?

Whatever the UK does or doesn't do will make no difference to total emissions. You do realise that we have already massively reduced co2 and contribute 1% of world output?

So not our problem then let the rest of the world sort it out and if it goes tits up it’s the other buggers fault

Pure posturing for no benefit whilst the country will throw billions down the drain. Utter madness.

So what are you proposing?

HYUFD said:

Casino_Royale said:

I think in every election there are crank/rogue candidate stories right up until polling day.

It might have a local effect but rarely a national one, unless the problem is systemic.

Gower is 43rd on the Tory target seats list and the Tories need 8 net gains for a majority, so they can still win even if they lose the seat but the comments are not helpul

Not helpful? They are a disgrace if all you can say is “not helpful’ then you clearly agree with them but are saying she was unwise to be honest on her views.

HYUFD said:

Casino_Royale said:

I think in every election there are crank/rogue candidate stories right up until polling day.

It might have a local effect but rarely a national one, unless the problem is systemic.

Gower is 43rd on the Tory target seats list and the Tories need 8 net gains for a majority, so they can still win even if they lose the seat but the comments are not helpul

Indeed, no.

And, I doubt it’ll be the last in this campaign either.

Roger said:

Floater said:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/columnists/article-7643695/DAN-HODGES-One-grotesque-acts-appeasement-British-history.html


He has a point

I can say that in the last six months I have met dozens of Jews and I haven't heard any conversations about leaving the country because of Labour's anti semitism. I'd be curious if anyone else has? According to Hodges the actual number considering moving is 47% so anyone with a reasonable circle of Jewish friends or relatives should be well aware of this forthcoming exodus.

If it is just Hodges earning a crust by giving the Mail the kind of story they want to hear then he really ought to consider what he's doing.

He is reporting a poll in the Jewish news.

You might have seen McMao confronted on it by a jounalist

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7644461/John-McDonnell-confronted-Jewish-fury-Labour-anti-Semitism-crisis.html

You may have also seen the lines to take being put out by the left to downplay the anti semitism issue

Fact is you can't hide the fact that Labour are being investigated for racism - a dubious honour they share with the BNP.

ydoethur said:

AndyJS said:

"Tory candidate wrote people on Benefits Street should be 'put down'
Exclusive: prospective Gower MP Francesca O’Brien made comments on Facebook in 2014"

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/nov/03/tory-candidate-francesca-obrien-wrote-people-benefits-street-should-be-put-down

It's good to see that all parties have learned so many lessons from the example of Jared O'Mara.

Guardian struggling - recycling report of an event from 5 years ago.

Lessons not possible to be learnt from Jared, as he was not exposed by then.

:-o

Cyclefree said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

This election comes down to just how good Boris is going to be and the last few weeks when Carrie will be alongside him apparently. She has taken six weeks off work, initially to campaign with conservative female candidates in individual marginal seats and then step in alongside Boris.

This will cause a 'stir' if it happens as the media will be enthralled with the important things in an election, like what Carrie is wearing but no doubt her strong green credentials. Indeed I believe this is where the fracking moratorium has come from

The question then will be one of how a presidential style campaign is received

Oh goodie. We're meant to be enthralled, are we, by policy being dictated by the PM's latest squeeze, an unelected person with no scientific credentials to her name......

At least we know who she is, unlike with other lobbyists making their case to ministers

HYUFD said:

nichomar said:

HYUFD said:

Casino_Royale said:

I think in every election there are crank/rogue candidate stories right up until polling day.

It might have a local effect but rarely a national one, unless the problem is systemic.

Gower is 43rd on the Tory target seats list and the Tories need 8 net gains for a majority, so they can still win even if they lose the seat but the comments are not helpul

Not helpful? They are a disgrace if all you can say is “not helpful’ then you clearly agree with them but are saying she was unwise to be honest on her views.

No I never said I agreed with them I said they are 'not helpful' to an election campaign, which is also true especially on a day it was announced the benefits freeze would end in 2020

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-50278634

You should have said the comments were a disgrace to have come from any conservative candidate and you condemn them without qualification. You didn’t

Wasn't the benefits freeze always due to end in 2020?

Charles said:

Cyclefree said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

This election comes down to just how good Boris is going to be and the last few weeks when Carrie will be alongside him apparently. She has taken six weeks off work, initially to campaign with conservative female candidates in individual marginal seats and then step in alongside Boris.

This will cause a 'stir' if it happens as the media will be enthralled with the important things in an election, like what Carrie is wearing but no doubt her strong green credentials. Indeed I believe this is where the fracking moratorium has come from

The question then will be one of how a presidential style campaign is received

Oh goodie. We're meant to be enthralled, are we, by policy being dictated by the PM's latest squeeze, an unelected person with no scientific credentials to her name......

At least we know who she is, unlike with other lobbyists making their case to ministers

Well you may know who she is but I’m afraid I think she is his latest plaything, but maybe you know her brother

Lewis 3.75 on Betfair to win this race. He should be better than evens.

Luckyguy1983 said:

most of our success in eliminating them has been due to industry moving overseas

Is that true? Industrial emissions of greenhouse gases were fairly modest even in 1990.

I would have thought that the biggest drivers of lower emissions are (in order):

1. The rise of natural gas as a competitive method of electrical generation
2. Greater energy efficiency (in both vehicles, homes and offices)
3. Renewable electricity generation
...
12. Reduced industrial output

Freggles said:

Stereotomy said:

Gabs2 said:

nunu2 said:

rcs1000 said:

HYUFD said:

Pastor in a Gospel Megachurch in Louisiana with a largely African American congregation tweets that Democrats should not vote for Buttigieg as he is in a gay marriage

https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2019/11/03/megachurch-pastor-democrats-reject-pete-buttigieg-not-time-gay-president/

https://twitter.com/BishopPMorton/status/1190599704876322816?s=20

The amusing bit, of course, is that Buttigieg is geniunely a Christian, unlike the current incumbent of the White House, and I suspect a personally moral man. Buttigieg has also served his country in Afghanistan, which he did by choice, not by the draft.

The Democrats win when the have young, articulate (perhaps even inexperienced) candidates: Obama, Clinton, JFK, even Carter in 76.

They win when they have candidates who are blank slates onto which voters can project their own hopes.

I think it's clear who that candidate is.

Now, he win and he might not. But there's probably quite a strong intersection between those people who wouldn't vote for a black candidate and those who wouldn't vote for a gay one.

Is there?

A lot of black Americans wouldn't vote for a gay man, but ofcourse would vote for a black one.

The Dems should have a Warren-Buttigieg ticket. Get Buttigieg nationally known as VP, and have him setup for whichever post-Trump headbanger the Republicans put forward in 2028. Generational change will have helped the homophobia issue by that point.

He's utterly unfit to be president, and fortunately has no chance of ever being elected.

Go on then, I'll bite. Why is the intelligent veteran unfit to be President?

Oxford and McKinsey.

What more do you need to know?

rcs1000 said:

nunu2 said:

rcs1000 said:

HYUFD said:

Pastor in a Gospel Megachurch in Louisiana with a largely African American congregation tweets that Democrats should not vote for Buttigieg as he is in a gay marriage

https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2019/11/03/megachurch-pastor-democrats-reject-pete-buttigieg-not-time-gay-president/

https://twitter.com/BishopPMorton/status/1190599704876322816?s=20

The amusing bit, of course, is that Buttigieg is geniunely a Christian, unlike the current incumbent of the White House, and I suspect a personally moral man. Buttigieg has also served his country in Afghanistan, which he did by choice, not by the draft.

The Democrats win when the have young, articulate (perhaps even inexperienced) candidates: Obama, Clinton, JFK, even Carter in 76.

They win when they have candidates who are blank slates onto which voters can project their own hopes.

I think it's clear who that candidate is.

Now, he win and he might not. But there's probably quite a strong intersection between those people who wouldn't vote for a black candidate and those who wouldn't vote for a gay one.

Is there?

A lot of black Americans wouldn't vote for a gay man, but ofcourse would vote for a black one.

What is more Dems need 90%+ of the black vote to win the WH, so far Boot edge edge is winning 2% in some polls and * in others.

I think this is the same logic as saying "Evangelicals will never vote for a serial adulterer who's paid for mistresses to have abortions".

Once Buttigieg and Obama are up on stage together, those doubts will fade.

If there's one thing we've learned in the last few years, people vote according to whether they think someone will do something for them.

Black voters will vote for the Democtat
Of that there is no doubt, but Dems need 92% of the black vote and about 60% of black people to turnout to win.

Especially if the white working class continue their drift to the GOP.

This headline is interesting because in 2001 a 9 point lead for Labour delivering them a 167 seat majority with 413 seats.

"Tory general election majority in doubt as Telegraph poll shows lead of just eight points"

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/11/02/tory-majority-doubt-telegraph-poll-shows-lead-just-eight-points/

nichomar said:

Casino_Royale said:

I worry @AlastairMeeks is going to lay an egg in the next 5 weeks.

I read in The Sunday Times today the Conservatives new social media strategy includes “shit posting” to drive viral sharing - with one insider saying they wouldn’t be surprised if they brought the Vote Leave red bus back as the ultimate shit post.

And, they are also planning a Turkey week.

Is that the week when they threaten us with millions of Turkish immigrants or are we talking different turkeys?

I’ll leave that to your imagination.

Floater said:

Roger said:

Floater said:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/columnists/article-7643695/DAN-HODGES-One-grotesque-acts-appeasement-British-history.html


He has a point

I can say that in the last six months I have met dozens of Jews and I haven't heard any conversations about leaving the country because of Labour's anti semitism. I'd be curious if anyone else has? According to Hodges the actual number considering moving is 47% so anyone with a reasonable circle of Jewish friends or relatives should be well aware of this forthcoming exodus.

If it is just Hodges earning a crust by giving the Mail the kind of story they want to hear then he really ought to consider what he's doing.

He is reporting a poll in the Jewish news.

You might have seen McMao confronted on it by a jounalist

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7644461/John-McDonnell-confronted-Jewish-fury-Labour-anti-Semitism-crisis.html

You may have also seen the lines to take being put out by the left to downplay the anti semitism issue

Fact is you can't hide the fact that Labour are being investigated for racism - a dubious honour they share with the BNP.

I have read the article which quotes the Jewish Telegraph a publication owned and edited by Paul Harris who I have known for many years. It has a circulation in the hundreds . He quotes a Rabbi from Manchester who is one of dozens and to my knowledge doesn't practice in any major synagogue

I can't find details of the poll anywhere. If you can perhaps you can post it on here and we can make our own minds up.

In case you are unfamiliar with them fifty Rabbis will give you fifty opinions so I'd take the one giving the interview to the Jewish telegraph with a large pinch of salt.

nunu2 said:

Black voters will vote for the Democtat
Of that there is no doubt, but Dems need 92% of the black vote and about 60% of black people to turnout to win.

Especially if the white working class continue their drift to the GOP.

I think it's a bit more complex than that. There are so many interconnecting elements and (for example) the move of white women away from the GOP is probably going to have greater influence than whether African American turnout is 53% (when the Dems won in '96) or 60% (when they lost in '16).

It's also worth remembing that many of the swing states have low numbers of African Americans. Iowa, Arizona and Wisconsin are well below average levels, while Michigan and Florida are only just above.

Most states with the highest proportions of African Americans are either very Red (Mississipi, Louisiana, Georgia) or very Blue (like Delaware or DC). The only exceptions are North Carolina (which Obama won), and Virginia (which Hillary took by five percentage points.)

Ultiamtely, the question is whether having a young fresh faced moderate will benefit the Democrats more in the white suburbs, than they lose in other places. I think the answer is yes, but I may be wrong.

nichomar said:

peter_from_putney said:

There's been a marked shift in the GE Seats Spread-betting markets over recent weeks with Sporting Index showing their Tory quote having increased by 21 seats from a mid-spread of 306 in late September to 327 currently. Feeling the pain on the other side of the equation, Labour's mid-spread has fallen by 12 seats from 224 to 212 seats and the Lib-Dems, despite all the recent optimistic bally-hoo are down by 9 seats from a mid-spread of 50.5 seats to 41.5 seats.

41 would be brilliant, I can see 30-35 but I’m not in the loop, it’s not the lib dems who are ramping

As ever, money moves markets.

SirBenjamin said:

AndyJS said:

This headline is interesting because in 2001 a 9 point lead for Labour delivering them a 167 seat majority with 413 seats.

"Tory general election majority in doubt as Telegraph poll shows lead of just eight points"

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/11/02/tory-majority-doubt-telegraph-poll-shows-lead-just-eight-points/

Partly explained by the prevalence of Toryphobic tactical voting, but mainly because the 1997-2005 boundaries (1997-2001 in Scotland) were *extremely* favourable to Labour. The disparity in electorates was quite something.

Indeed. Of course the current boundaries are almost 20 years out of date but they haven't aged quite as badly as the previous ones.

Luckyguy1983 said:

rcs1000 said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

nichomar said:

sirclive said:

nichomar said:

sirclive said:

nichomar said:

sirclive said:

nichomar said:

blueblue said:

Pulpstar said:

blueblue said:

What shape do we think the Tory campaign is going to take? I kept waiting for it to start last time and the only bits of news that broke through were the terrible missteps. When will we be able to form an impression about whether or not things will be different this time?

More schools, hospitals and police. I expect there'll be lots of occasions when some left wing activists start heckling Johnson and that along with selacious Arcuri rumours/allegations will be the extent of the negative publicity.

I only hope that's the worst of it. But they also need to dismantle things like the 2030 carbon-neutral plan in an effective way - there'll probably be half a dozen similar boondoggles that need puncturing. Who are the front men / women / attack dogs other than Boris himself?

Why would they want to do that?

Because its economic suicide. Like emptying a bath with a teacup, whilst others fill it with a hosepipe.

So no need to do anything then all will be fine?

Whatever the UK does or doesn't do will make no difference to total emissions. You do realise that we have already massively reduced co2 and contribute 1% of world output?

So not our problem then let the rest of the world sort it out and if it goes tits up it’s the other buggers fault

Pure posturing for no benefit whilst the country will throw billions down the drain. Utter madness.

So what are you proposing?

I think we should start mining for coal again.

In the UK? Coal from the UK is (largely) fantastically uneconomic. Unlike in Germany, where they have massive open pit mine, the UK is almost all deep, expensive mines. And, I would note, deep, expensive mines where the best seams have already been mined.

If you wanted to use British coal reserves in an economic way, pretty much the only thing that makes sense is in situ gasification, which could then be used to power turbines (and make electricity) at the tops of mine shafts.

Yes, in the UK. I'd build big clean coal power stations. I have a friend who is a geologist who claims we can somehow capture the carbon by pumping it beneath the earth again.

You've clearly researched this carefully!

rcs1000 said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

nichomar said:

sirclive said:

nichomar said:

sirclive said:

nichomar said:

sirclive said:

nichomar said:

blueblue said:

Pulpstar said:

blueblue said:

What shape do we think the Tory campaign is going to take? I kept waiting for it to start last time and the only bits of news that broke through were the terrible missteps. When will we be able to form an impression about whether or not things will be different this time?

More schools, hospitals and police. I expect there'll be lots of occasions when some left wing activists start heckling Johnson and that along with selacious Arcuri rumours/allegations will be the extent of the negative publicity.

I only hope that's the worst of it. But they also need to dismantle things like the 2030 carbon-neutral plan in an effective way - there'll probably be half a dozen similar boondoggles that need puncturing. Who are the front men / women / attack dogs other than Boris himself?

Why would they want to do that?

Because its economic suicide. Like emptying a bath with a teacup, whilst others fill it with a hosepipe.

So no need to do anything then all will be fine?

Whatever the UK does or doesn't do will make no difference to total emissions. You do realise that we have already massively reduced co2 and contribute 1% of world output?

So not our problem then let the rest of the world sort it out and if it goes tits up it’s the other buggers fault

Pure posturing for no benefit whilst the country will throw billions down the drain. Utter madness.

So what are you proposing?

I think we should start mining for coal again.

In the UK? Coal from the UK is (largely) fantastically uneconomic. Unlike in Germany, where they have massive open pit mine, the UK is almost all deep, expensive mines. And, I would note, deep, expensive mines where the best seams have already been mined.

If you wanted to use British coal reserves in an economic way, pretty much the only thing that makes sense is in situ gasification, which could then be used to power turbines (and make electricity) at the tops of mine shafts.

I really like the idea of using mine shafts for gravity based renewable energy storage.

Noo said:

GIN1138 said:

ydoethur said:

GIN1138 said:

kle4 said:

GIN1138 said:

Is the election of a new Speaker still happening tomorrow?

Yes

If it's Harriet followed by a Conservative majority government she could be the shortest reigned Speaker in history?

No former party leader has ever become Speaker.

If they've got any sense it'll be Lindsay... *IF* they've got any sense.

Why?

Because both him and Laing have been well regarded impartial deputy speakers.

I think Laing made a mistake playing for Brexit support.

Harman or someone else would be political

Benpointer said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

rcs1000 said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

nichomar said:

sirclive said:

nichomar said:

sirclive said:

nichomar said:

sirclive said:

nichomar said:

blueblue said:

Pulpstar said:

blueblue said:

What shape do we think the Tory campaign is going to take? I kept waiting for it to start last time and the only bits of news that broke through were the terrible missteps. When will we be able to form an impression about whether or not things will be different this time?

More schools, hospitals and police. I expect there'll be lots of occasions when some left wing activists start heckling Johnson and that along with selacious Arcuri rumours/allegations will be the extent of the negative publicity.

I only hope that's the worst of it. But they also need to dismantle things like the 2030 carbon-neutral plan in an effective way - there'll probably be half a dozen similar boondoggles that need puncturing. Who are the front men / women / attack dogs other than Boris himself?

Why would they want to do that?

Because its economic suicide. Like emptying a bath with a teacup, whilst others fill it with a hosepipe.

So no need to do anything then all will be fine?

Whatever the UK does or doesn't do will make no difference to total emissions. You do realise that we have already massively reduced co2 and contribute 1% of world output?

So not our problem then let the rest of the world sort it out and if it goes tits up it’s the other buggers fault

Pure posturing for no benefit whilst the country will throw billions down the drain. Utter madness.

So what are you proposing?

I think we should start mining for coal again.

In the UK? Coal from the UK is (largely) fantastically uneconomic. Unlike in Germany, where they have massive open pit mine, the UK is almost all deep, expensive mines. And, I would note, deep, expensive mines where the best seams have already been mined.

If you wanted to use British coal reserves in an economic way, pretty much the only thing that makes sense is in situ gasification, which could then be used to power turbines (and make electricity) at the tops of mine shafts.

Yes, in the UK. I'd build big clean coal power stations. I have a friend who is a geologist who claims we can somehow capture the carbon by pumping it beneath the earth again.

You've clearly researched this carefully!

I have no reason to disbelieve him!

Luckyguy1983 said:

Yes, in the UK. I'd build big clean coal power stations. I have a friend who is a geologist who claims we can somehow capture the carbon by pumping it beneath the earth again.

But that doesn't solve the problem that extracting the coal is going to cost $150-200/tonne, which would make UK electricity even more expensive. (Seaborne coal is $63/tonne, albeit with shipping cost of $3-5 to be added)

There's a reason we moved from burning our own coal to importing it.

Alistair said:

Wasn't the benefits freeze always due to end in 2020?

But worth reminding us. Next week something on Trident renewal?

peter_from_putney said:

nichomar said:

peter_from_putney said:

There's been a marked shift in the GE Seats Spread-betting markets over recent weeks with Sporting Index showing their Tory quote having increased by 21 seats from a mid-spread of 306 in late September to 327 currently. Feeling the pain on the other side of the equation, Labour's mid-spread has fallen by 12 seats from 224 to 212 seats and the Lib-Dems, despite all the recent optimistic bally-hoo are down by 9 seats from a mid-spread of 50.5 seats to 41.5 seats.

41 would be brilliant, I can see 30-35 but I’m not in the loop, it’s not the lib dems who are ramping

As ever, money moves markets.

I thought that the first rule of betting is that, overall, the bookies make more than you do.

So all those bets on seat numbers will, largely, be wrong and not in the punters' favour?

rcs1000 said:

DavidL said:

rcs1000 said:

(Completely separately, I would rather see Trump re-elected. Because it should be him who has to deal with the economic consequences of tariffs and reigniting the US debt and consumption bubble.)

Are you not mistaking him for someone who would care?

If someone else takes over, they will be blamed for the economic consequences of Trump's policies. It therefore increases the chance that the problem will be misdiagnosed.

Won’t they just blame Trump and the media will support them?

Gabs2 said:

Roger said:

Floater said:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/columnists/article-7643695/DAN-HODGES-One-grotesque-acts-appeasement-British-history.html


He has a point

I can say that in the last six months I have met dozens of Jews and I haven't heard any conversations about leaving the country because of Labour's anti semitism. I'd be curious if anyone else has? According to Hodges the actual number considering moving is 47% so anyone with a reasonable circle of Jewish friends or relatives should be well aware of this forthcoming exodus.

If it is just Hodges earning a crust by giving the Mail the kind of story they want to hear then he really ought to consider what he's doing.

My experience is about half of Jewish family and friends have discussed emigrating. Of those that are, maybe half again are considering it seriously. It varies a lot by how religious you are or by how much cultural identity you attach to being Jewish, and of course by what family connections or professional opportunities you have abroad.

This isn't purely due to Corbyn, but a general feeling that the increasing rise of white nationalism, conservative Islam and an anti-Semitic far left is a noxious combination for us. The election of someone that frequently allies with anti-Semites, does nothing to stop anti-Semitism unless forced into it, and had done anti-Semitic things himself, as PM would be the next leap major stepping stone to embolden the various strands of anti-Jewish hatred. Allusions to 1930s Germany feel overblown, but 1920s Germany may be nearer the mark. The liberal democratic consensus is shaking, anti-Semitic strands are openly spreading their message, and people you would hope to be allies are keeping quiet because it harms their other political causes.

A good post. I don't particularly feel like debating this with you now but it's refreshing to have someone with a genuine knowledge of the complex question of Jewish identity particularly in these days where marrying out is as high as 50%. I have no particular love for Corbyn but the attacks on him offend my sense of natural justice and certain of those attacks on him are so vitriolic and the language so vile that they edge towards being anti semitic themselves.

rcs1000 said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

rcs1000 said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

most of our success in eliminating them has been due to industry moving overseas

Is that true? Industrial emissions of greenhouse gases were fairly modest even in 1990.

I would have thought that the biggest drivers of lower emissions are (in order):

1. The rise of natural gas as a competitive method of electrical generation
2. Greater energy efficiency (in both vehicles, homes and offices)
3. Renewable electricity generation
...
12. Reduced industrial output

Well, Google result number one (will admit I have no idea how reliable this source is) suggests you're wrong. This says (as of 2017) 36% contribution from gas and renewables, 31% from reduced fuel consumption by business and industry, and 18% reduced electricity use from industrial and residential. If we divide the latter by half, that's 40% vs. 36%.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-why-the-uks-co2-emissions-have-fallen-38-since-1990/amp

That is why, as I understand it, Germany has not been as successful in reducing its emissions. It's not because we're more efficient than they are, it's because they still make stuff.

Industrial co2 emissions were only about 20% of the total in 1990, so I can't see how those numbers match.

It would only take a couple of different ways of measuring things for the two figures to be entirely consistent with one another.

StuartDickson said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

JBriskinindyref2 said:

"Some people will be unionists before anything else, there's nothing wrong with that anymore than someone being nationalists first. Can't say I'd expect much of it though."

I'd expect tory gains in Scotland - Kezia here telling it like it is.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/jeremy-corbyns-indyref2-stance-makes-election-harder-for-scottish-labour-kezia-dugdale/ar-AAJLAKA?ocid=spartanntp

I live in Scotland. I got a targeted Scot Tory Instagram advert telling me all about Corbyn's Indyref 2 stance and that the Scottish Tories were the only ones standing up to the SNP. Not strictly true (aren't the Lib Dems standing up to them too?), but very, very good targeting.

Lying, and preaching to the converted. Aye, that’ll be the Scottish Tories right enough.

Ok, I laughed.

Luckyguy1983 said:

rcs1000 said:

blueblue said:

Pulpstar said:

blueblue said:

What shape do we think the Tory campaign is going to take? I kept waiting for it to start last time and the only bits of news that broke through were the terrible missteps. When will we be able to form an impression about whether or not things will be different this time?

More schools, hospitals and police. I expect there'll be lots of occasions when some left wing activists start heckling Johnson and that along with selacious Arcuri rumours/allegations will be the extent of the negative publicity.

I only hope that's the worst of it. But they also need to dismantle things like the 2030 carbon-neutral plan in an effective way - there'll probably be half a dozen similar boondoggles that need puncturing. Who are the front men / women / attack dogs other than Boris himself?

Why would they want to do tha

Because its economic suicide. Like emptying a bath with a teacup, whilst others fill it with a hosepipe.

So no need to do anything then all will be fine?

Whatever the other buggers fault

Pure posturing for no benefit whilst the country will throw billions down the drain. Utter madness.

So what are you proposin

I think we should start mining for coal again.

In the UK? Coal from the UK is (largely) fantastically uneconomic. Unlike in Germany, where they have massive open pit mine, the UK is almost all deep, expensive mines. And, I would note, deep, expensive mines where the best seams have already been mined.

If you wanted to use British coal reserves in an economic way, pretty much the only thing that makes sense is in situ gasification, which could then be used to power turbines (and make electricity) at the tops of mine shafts.



Yes, in the UK. I'd build big clean coal power stations. I have a friend who is a geologist who claims we can somehow capture the carbon by pumping it beneath the earth again.

That's how you store it. You capture it by absorbing it from the power station flue gas into an amine solvent and then regenerating the solvent to give a pure stream of CO2 to compress and transport to the offshore storage site.

Other capture technologies are also available. (I work on this stuff, btw)

Luckyguy1983 said:

rcs1000 said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Yes, in the UK. I'd build big clean coal power stations. I have a friend who is a geologist who claims we can somehow capture the carbon by pumping it beneath the earth again.

But that doesn't solve the problem that extracting the coal is going to cost $150-200/tonne, which would make UK electricity even more expensive. (Seaborne coal is $63/tonne, albeit with shipping cost of $3-5 to be added)

There's a reason we moved from burning our own coal to importing it.

One would only open the most profitable mines. Those shipping costs look low, I wish I could find a courier who would deliver a tonne of anything for £5.

So none of them then?

None of them are profitable compared to the alternatives. Which is why there are none.

Benpointer said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Yes, in the UK. I'd build big clean coal power stations. I have a friend who is a geologist who claims we can somehow capture the carbon by pumping it beneath the earth again.

You've clearly researched this carefully!

Not to the extent of researching who the poor sods are who will have to go down the things. We haven't had a mining culture in the UK for donkey's years. If you think mining is fine and dandy, you send your kids down a mine. See how far you get.

SandyRentool said:

Other capture technologies are also available. (I work on this stuff, btw)

It makes more sense not to generate the stuff in the first place, then there is no need to get rid of it.

rcs1000 said:

Roger said:

Floater said:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/columnists/article-7643695/DAN-HODGES-One-grotesque-acts-appeasement-British-history.html


He has a point

I can say that in the last six months I have met dozens of Jews and I haven't heard any conversations about leaving the country because of Labour's anti semitism. I'd be curious if anyone else has? According to Hodges the actual number considering moving is 47% so anyone with a reasonable circle of Jewish friends or relatives should be well aware of this forthcoming exodus.

If it is just Hodges earning a crust by giving the Mail the kind of story they want to hear then he really ought to consider what he's doing.

I know one Jew who is considering emigrating.

But that's nothing to do with Corbyn. It's because I'm offering him an awesome job in California.

Give us a job! Last time I worked in California you were hard put to find a gentile.

Beibheirli_C said:

SandyRentool said:

Other capture technologies are also available. (I work on this stuff, btw)

It makes more sense not to generate the stuff in the first place, then there is no need to get rid of it.

A fair point. And for power generation other technologies are of course available. However, most alternatives do not provide despatchability - nuclear is base load and renewables are intermittent. Fossil with CCS offers low carbon, despatchable power.

For industrial emissions, for many sectors CCS is the only meaningful way to tackle them. Take cement, two-thirds of the emissions come from the calcination of limestone rather than from combusting fuel.

Then there is the proposed hydrogen economy. The bulk of the hydrogen will have to come from natural gas reforming with CCS.

Philip_Thompson said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

rcs1000 said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Yes, in the UK. I'd build big clean coal power stations. I have a friend who is a geologist who claims we can somehow capture the carbon by pumping it beneath the earth again.

But that doesn't solve the problem that extracting the coal is going to cost $150-200/tonne, which would make UK electricity even more expensive. (Seaborne coal is $63/tonne, albeit with shipping cost of $3-5 to be added)

There's a reason we moved from burning our own coal to importing it.

One would only open the most profitable mines. Those shipping costs look low, I wish I could find a courier who would deliver a tonne of anything for £5.

So none of them then?

None of them are profitable compared to the alternatives. Which is why there are none.

I don't believe you know that to be the case. However, I am not beholden to the idea anyway.

Beibheirli_C said:

SandyRentool said:

Other capture technologies are also available. (I work on this stuff, btw)

It makes more sense not to generate the stuff in the first place, then there is no need to get rid of it.

Biomass still generates it. It just happens to have been a plant more recently. The net effect is the same.

SandyRentool said:

Beibheirli_C said:

SandyRentool said:

Other capture technologies are also available. (I work on this stuff, btw)

It makes more sense not to generate the stuff in the first place, then there is no need to get rid of it.

A fair point. And for power generation other technologies are of course available. However, most alternatives do not provide despatchability - nuclear is base load and renewables are intermittent. Fossil with CCS offers low carbon, despatchable power.

For industrial emissions, for many sectors CCS is the only meaningful way to tackle them. Take cement, two-thirds of the emissions come from the calcination of limestone rather than from combusting fuel.

Then there is the proposed hydrogen economy. The bulk of the hydrogen will have to come from natural gas reforming with CCS.

SandyRentool said:

End of the benefits freeze: Tories ease up on stamping on the faces of the poor, and expect to receive thanks and gratitude.

How much do you think we can borrow every month ?

I mean, even Labour must have a limit right?