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

Luckyguy1983 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.

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

There are several issues regarding the use of biomass.

One is land use change which can make biomass more environmentally damaging than fossil.

Another is the time factor - replant trees to replace those that are chopped down and burnt and it will take 40 or more years to extract the CO2 back out of the atmosphere. It is over those 40 years that the climate and the earth will be fecked.

Floater said:

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?

Bozo and the Saj don't seem to have a limit. Their forest of magic money trees gets bigger by the day.

SandyRentool said:

Luckyguy1983 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.

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

There are several issues regarding the use of biomass.

One is land use change which can make biomass more environmentally damaging than fossil.

Another is the time factor - replant trees to replace those that are chopped down and burnt and it will take 40 or more years to extract the CO2 back out of the atmosphere. It is over those 40 years that the climate and the earth will be fecked.

I am not advocating biomass because of the landuse issues you highlight but in terms of CO2 most biomass species, including corn, switchgrass, miscanthus, hemp, sorghum, sugarcane, and bamboo, operate on very short CO2 cycles - i.e. they release back into the atmosphere CO2 they absorbed within the last 1-5 years.

In that sense they are in effect a source of (inefficient) solar power.

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

Out of curiosity, was Labour as critical of the comments made by their former MZp from Sheffield?

They were remarks made some years ago I believe

Philip_Thompson said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

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.

I do believe the market knows that to be the case which is why they closed in the first place.

"Woodhouse Colliery: First UK deep coal mine in decades to go ahead"

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-50274212

Benpointer said:

SandyRentool said:

Luckyguy1983 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.

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

There are several issues regarding the use of biomass.

One is land use change which can make biomass more environmentally damaging than fossil.

Another is the time factor - replant trees to replace those that are chopped down and burnt and it will take 40 or more years to extract the CO2 back out of the atmosphere. It is over those 40 years that the climate and the earth will be fecked.

I am not advocating biomass because of the landuse issues you highlight but in terms of CO2 most biomass species, including corn, switchgrass, miscanthus, hemp, sorghum, sugarcane, and bamboo, opertate on very short CO2 cycles.

In that sense they are in effect a source of (inefficient) solar power.

All of the biomass burnt at Drax is in the form of wood pellets, mostly from North American forests. It takes decades for those trees to regrow.

By some magic trick the CO2 coming out of the stack in Yorkshire is considered to be CO2 released in the US where the trees were felled. Go figure.

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.

Thanksgiving?

Beibheirli_C said:

Floater said:

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?

No.

As govts have clearly shown, if they need more money then they will "print" it and call it "Quantitative Easing"

Can someone who understands economics better than me explain the impact of printing more money or QE on the following simple equation (which you can restate in various ways):

Spending = Tax take + Borrowing

With this equation I have always understood that if we want decent public services and wish to keep borrowing under control we need to tax sufficiently. Others may frame it as if you want to reduce borrowing without raising taxes you need to cut public spending.

In either case, how does QE affect this?

ydoethur said:

Charles said:

ydoethur said:

Noo said:

ydoethur said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Noo, although it's doomed, MacBeth has some great lines.

I especially like "Give me mine armour, I'll fight till from my bones my flesh be hack'd".

Reminds me I need to return to the Complete Works. Only got a couple of comedies left, then it's tragedies, I think.

Who among political observers needs fictitious tragedies at this moment?

It does rather feel like we are in two separate parts of two tragic arcz with Trump and Boris. Trump atop the castle watching suspiciously as Birnam Wood appears to be advancing towards Dunsinane. Meanwhile, Boris is in the Hamlet-feigning-madness stage.
That's probably better news for the Dems than the opposition in the UK, since Macbeth gets him comeuppance relatively cleanly, in Hamlet basically everyone ends up dead. Or perhaps Jo Swinson is Fortinbras?

The kingmaker and sole surviving major character was Horatio. If we're looking for people with brief walk-on parts and distant connections to events who went mental before coming back heroes then the correct parallel is Nigel Dodds.

I really hope that isn't a parallel that comes to pass...

I always liked Rosencrantz and Guildenstern... fans of probability might like the fact that Rosencrantz has a run of 92 “heads” in a coin tossing game...

Rosencrantz and Guildenstern were undoubtedly great tossers.

Since they are dead it is right to refer to them in the past tense

https://twitter.com/ce_pickles/status/1191047835967463424

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/christopherhope/status/1191107697531408385

That is an amazing wide mouthed frog impression they have caught.

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.

Business and industry is a larger category than industrial. It might include non-electric heat for offices, shops, etc. for example.

ydoethur said:

viewcode 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.

You first. Mine aren't going within 100ft of a pit. Mining is very romantic but has this habit of killing its employees in various sadistic ways.

It has always puzzled me that the Labour left is so keen on environmental issues and yet so romanticizes the coal industry and the Miners’ Strike - which was, after all, about the insistence that no pit capable of producing coal, even if it was never used, should be closed.

As they have provided ample evidence of being fecking clueless on other matters, your puzzlement puzzles me somewhat.

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.

Well at least we're having these people flagged up in advance, unlike him!

ydoethur said:

viewcode said:

You first. Mine aren't going within 100ft of a pit. Mining is very romantic but has this habit of killing its employees in various sadistic ways.

It has always puzzled me that the Labour left is so keen on environmental issues and yet so romanticizes the coal industry and the Miners’ Strike - which was, after all, about the insistence that no pit capable of producing coal, even if it was never used, should be closed.

There's nothing odd about it. People in most mining areas had very little relatively well-paid employment available except mining, so whole communities developed unhealthily dependent on it but not seeing any way out. I've met plenty of ex-miners and a number who did see the strike as a heroic last stand for their livelihoods but who were adamant that it was a filthy, dangerous job and they hoped their kids would do anything else.

What happened in the end is that communities adjusted up to a point, but after 10-20 years of depression. If Thatcher had closed the pits gradually while at the same time bringing in alternative employment the resistance would have been much less, but Conservative governments don't do bringing in jobs - it's the free market, innit?

Nigelb said:

ydoethur said:

viewcode 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.

You first. Mine aren't going within 100ft of a pit. Mining is very romantic but has this habit of killing its employees in various sadistic ways.

It has always puzzled me that the Labour left is so keen on environmental issues and yet so romanticizes the coal industry and the Miners’ Strike - which was, after all, about the insistence that no pit capable of producing coal, even if it was never used, should be closed.

As they have provided ample evidence of being fecking clueless on other matters, your puzzlement puzzles me somewhat.

Fair answer.

kle4 said:

rottenborough said:

https://twitter.com/ce_pickles/status/1191047835967463424

It mean's whatever people want it to mean - privitisation is bad, so appearing as tough on it as possible must be good.

I tell you what it is. It’s the only way Labour could lose the BMA.....

Edit - I’m personally massively in favour of nationalising GPs (this Gvt is doing in on the sky anyway as older, practice owning, GPS step down) but they have an insanely powerful pressure group to hand, and threatening to take away the existing GP owned practices and/or private work for consultants will anger the BMA.

kle4 said:

rottenborough said:

https://twitter.com/ce_pickles/status/1191047835967463424

It mean's whatever people want it to mean - privitisation is bad, so appearing as tough on it as possible must be good.

Bevan, when forced to leave GP practices in the doctors’ hands (as otherwise the NHS would have had no GPs and therefore would have been a somewhat meaningless exercise) commented that he was ‘stuffing their mouths with gold.’

I do not suppose Corbyn and Macdonnell feel much different.

NickPalmer said:

ydoethur said:

viewcode said:

You first. Mine aren't going within 100ft of a pit. Mining is very romantic but has this habit of killing its employees in various sadistic ways.

It has always puzzled me that the Labour left is so keen on environmental issues and yet so romanticizes the coal industry and the Miners’ Strike - which was, after all, about the insistence that no pit capable of producing coal, even if it was never used, should be closed.

There's nothing odd about it. People in most mining areas had very little relatively well-paid employment available except mining, so whole communities developed unhealthily dependent on it but not seeing any way out. I've met plenty of ex-miners and a number who did see the strike as a heroic last stand for their livelihoods but who were adamant that it was a filthy, dangerous job and they hoped their kids would do anything else.

What happened in the end is that communities adjusted up to a point, but after 10-20 years of depression. If Thatcher had closed the pits gradually while at the same time bringing in alternative employment the resistance would have been much less, but Conservative governments don't do bringing in jobs - it's the free market, innit?

Arthur Scargill, who said that the strike was about the right of miners’ sons to be miners themselves, would disagree with you.

Alistair said:

===Awesome Betting Analysis Post===

Interesting. Having a look at what happened to vote shares in Ross, Skye and Lochaber vs what happened in West Aberdeen and Kincardine and they are intriguing a shows my issues in trying to eyeball data.

The Lab vote share from 2005 to 2017 goes through an identical pattern

RSL 14.9/15.1/4.9/12.2
WAK 13.1/13.6/4.5/11.1

Eyeballing the Lib Dem Data I thought it looked quite different

RSL 58.7/52.6/35.9/20.9
WAK 46.3/38.4/21.4/8.6

But in actuality it is almost lock step changes between the two constituencies - a slight smaller 2015-2017 drop in WAK

And even the Con data which looks dramatically different is basically the same

RSL 10.1/12.2/6.2/24.8
WAK 28.4/30.3/28.8/47.9

A 19.1% rise in WAK vs a 18.6% rise in RSL.

I'm going to dig into this further and look at various other basic numbers (turnout and SNP vote) plus other 2010 Lid Dem owned seats with Con in 2nd place. To see if this holds as an iron law.

If so this would make some excellent constituency betting base once we had some idea where the national numbers are.

I don't understand it but it sounds interesting. Please continue with the good work.

BenPointer said:

I take your point. However, burning fossil fuels releases carbon that was captured underground over 300m years ago when C02 levels were at 800ppm (3 x pre-industrial levels). It's releasing that fossil fuel carbon that has driven CO2 levels up from 280ppm to 410ppm, not burning biomass.

When it was stored as carbon is irrelevant. The result is the same. The fact that new biomass crops are grown in its place and draw carbon from the atmosphere once again is more relevant, but it is entirely possible that burning oil and planting a forest would result in less CO2 than burning sugar cane and replanting sugar cane.

Charles 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

Out of curiosity, was Labour as critical of the comments made by their former MZp from Sheffield?

They were remarks made some years ago I believe

Out of curiosity, do you mean was Labour as critical of the comments made by their mp from Sheffield as Tories are currently of Ms O'Brien's comments? I'd guess yes.

ydoethur said:

NickPalmer said:

ydoethur said:

viewcode said:

You first. Mine aren't going within 100ft of a pit. Mining is very romantic but has this habit of killing its employees in various sadistic ways.

It has always puzzled me that the Labour left is so keen on environmental issues and yet so romanticizes the coal industry and the Miners’ Strike - which was, after all, about the insistence that no pit capable of producing coal, even if it was never used, should be closed.

There's nothing odd about it. People in most mining areas had very little relatively well-paid employment available except mining, so whole communities developed unhealthily dependent on it but not seeing any way out. I've met plenty of ex-miners and a number who did see the strike as a heroic last stand for their livelihoods but who were adamant that it was a filthy, dangerous job and they hoped their kids would do anything else.

What happened in the end is that communities adjusted up to a point, but after 10-20 years of depression. If Thatcher had closed the pits gradually while at the same time bringing in alternative employment the resistance would have been much less, but Conservative governments don't do bringing in jobs - it's the free market, innit?

Arthur Scargill, who said that the strike was about the right of miners’ sons to be miners themselves, would disagree with you.

He would. He did. He lost. Romance, romance, it's always romance...

Richard_Tyndall said:

NickPalmer said:

ydoethur said:

viewcode said:

You first. Mine aren't going within 100ft of a pit. Mining is very romantic but has this habit of killing its employees in various sadistic ways.

It has always puzzled me that the Labour left is so keen on environmental issues and yet so romanticizes the coal industry and the Miners’ Strike - which was, after all, about the insistence that no pit capable of producing coal, even if it was never used, should be closed.

There's nothing odd about it. People in most mining areas had very little relatively well-paid employment available except mining, so whole communities developed unhealthily dependent on it but not seeing any way out. I've met plenty of ex-miners and a number who did see the strike as a heroic last stand for their livelihoods but who were adamant that it was a filthy, dangerous job and they hoped their kids would do anything else.

What happened in the end is that communities adjusted up to a point, but after 10-20 years of depression. If Thatcher had closed the pits gradually while at the same time bringing in alternative employment the resistance would have been much less, but Conservative governments don't do bringing in jobs - it's the free market, innit?

And yet the previous governments of the 1960s and 70s shut more pits and got rid of far more jobs - and faster - than Thatcher did.

Similarly, the Tories 1970-74 closed more grammar schools (many when Mrs T was in charge of education) than the Labour government that followed, yet because Labour and Shirley Williams were managing the end game, they got more of the blame.

IanB2 said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

NickPalmer said:

ydoethur said:

viewcode said:

You first. Mine aren't going within 100ft of a pit. Mining is very romantic but has this habit of killing its employees in various sadistic ways.

It has always puzzled me that the Labour left is so keen on environmental issues and yet so romanticizes the coal industry and the Miners’ Strike - which was, after all, about the insistence that no pit capable of producing coal, even if it was never used, should be closed.

There's nothing odd about it. People in most mining areas had very little relatively well-paid employment available except mining, so whole communities developed unhealthily dependent on it but not seeing any way out. I've met plenty of ex-miners and a number who did see the strike as a heroic last stand for their livelihoods but who were adamant that it was a filthy, dangerous job and they hoped their kids would do anything else.

What happened in the end is that communities adjusted up to a point, but after 10-20 years of depression. If Thatcher had closed the pits gradually while at the same time bringing in alternative employment the resistance would have been much less, but Conservative governments don't do bringing in jobs - it's the free market, innit?

And yet the previous governments of the 1960s and 70s shut more pits and got rid of far more jobs - and faster - than Thatcher did.

Similarly, the Tories 1970-74 closed more grammar schools (many when Mrs T was in charge of education) than the Labour government that followed, yet because Labour and Shirley Williams were managing the end game, they got more of the blame.

Immaterial. It puts the lie to Nick's claims.

You must be shitting me

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/11/03/labour-mp-chris-bryant-backed-senior-tories-including-michael/

kle4 said:

rottenborough said:

https://twitter.com/ce_pickles/status/1191047835967463424

It mean's whatever people want it to mean - privitisation is bad, so appearing as tough on it as possible must be good.

Whilst forgetting who did a lot of the outsourcing.....

If a settlement grows up in a specific location due to a specific industry at that location does it not make sense that the settlement might shrink or disappear once that industry ceases to exist?

Floater said:

You must be shitting me

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/11/03/labour-mp-chris-bryant-backed-senior-tories-including-michael/

The only thing stopping the tories from winning a crushing defeat over Labour are themselves.

What is wrong with them.

PagetVC said:

https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1191116642920603648?s=21

'The West Midlands rather than the North is now emerging as the most important battleground for the December 12 poll.

'On top of Mr Watson’s, Tory chiefs have identified as many as 20 Labour seats there that could be vulnerable because of disenchantment with Jeremy Corbyn and his party’s confusion over Brexit.
It has also emerged that Boris will head straight to the Midlands to launch the Tories' election campaign on Wednesday after going to see the Queen to ask her to dissolve Parliament that morning.....An MP ally of Jeremy Corbyn, Lloyd Russell-Moyle, slammed Labour’s Leave voters for having racist views as he accused them of being “dangerous” nationalists. Two high profile other candidates are also standing against Mr Watson in a bid to hurt his vote – leftwing firebrand George Galloway, and ex-Tory MP Harvey Proctor, who wants to highlight Mr Watson’s disastrors role in helping to instigate the flawed child abuse witch hunt, Operation Midland.
Furthermore, Mr Watson is expected to get no help from Labour HQ and Mr Corbyn’s pressure group Momentum because of his furious battles with the Labour leader.'
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/10271765/tory-oust-labours-tom-watson/

Theuniondivvie said:

Alistair said:

viewcode said:

Alistair said:

===Awesome Betting Analysis Post===

Interesting. Having a look at what happened to vote shares in Ross, Skye and Lochaber vs what happened in West Aberdeen and Kincardine and they are intriguing a shows my issues in trying to eyeball data.

The Lab vote share from 2005 to 2017 goes through an identical pattern

RSL 14.9/15.1/4.9/12.2
WAK 13.1/13.6/4.5/11.1

Eyeballing the Lib Dem Data I thought it looked quite different

RSL 58.7/52.6/35.9/20.9
WAK 46.3/38.4/21.4/8.6

But in actuality it is almost lock step changes between the two constituencies - a slight smaller 2015-2017 drop in WAK

And even the Con data which looks dramatically different is basically the same

RSL 10.1/12.2/6.2/24.8
WAK 28.4/30.3/28.8/47.9

A 19.1% rise in WAK vs a 18.6% rise in RSL.

I'm going to dig into this further and look at various other basic numbers (turnout and SNP vote) plus other 2010 Lid Dem owned seats with Con in 2nd place. To see if this holds as an iron law.

If so this would make some excellent constituency betting base once we had some idea where the national numbers are.

I don't understand it but it sounds interesting. Please continue with the good work.

The party vote shares in "Ross, Sky and Lochaber" and "West Aberdeenshire and Kimcaedine" varied together almost prefectly. Given the results from one you'd have been able to get the results of the other within a couple of percent.

Given the Lib Dems are flapping their gums about being within 7 points of Ian Balckfowd in RSL then that has strong implications for how all the parties are doing in WAK.

Is your thesis that if the SLDs are getting back their votes that were temporarily lent to the SCons in RS&L, they'll also be getting them back in WA&K?

Yes, exscrlt. That's why it's important to see the other NE seats as well.

I am playing the SCon total seats market and if a rising tide is (based on historical info) raising all boats then the SCons could be in for a truly disastrous night as they leak votes to Lib Dems and let the static SNP through the middle.

But if this is just a one off coincidence then SCons could still keep the bulk of their seats and I would need to consider reconfiguring my money.

GIN1138 said:

Floater said:

You must be shitting me

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/11/03/labour-mp-chris-bryant-backed-senior-tories-including-michael/

Wonder what they're up to? If Gove's involved its got to be something devious...

Dunno. But he was 40/1 half an hour ago.

OblitusSumMe said:

If a settlement grows up in a specific location due to a specific industry at that location does it not make sense that the settlement might shrink or disappear once that industry ceases to exist?

It makes sense economically.
However people invest time, money and sentiment in living in a place and cannot easily move from it. Their kids can and do, but they cannot, and you end up with hollowed-out communities of old people and unemployed, getting sicker and poorer.

viewcode said:

OblitusSumMe said:

If a settlement grows up in a specific location due to a specific industry at that location does it not make sense that the settlement might shrink or disappear once that industry ceases to exist?

It makes sense economically.
However people invest time, money and sentiment in living in a place and cannot easily move from it. Their kids can and do, but they cannot, and you end up with hollowed-out communities of old people and unemployed, getting sicker and poorer.

When a new settlement is built there's a lot of planning in ensuring that all the utilities and services required are provided. It shouldn't be beyond us to manage the end-of-life of a community in a better way, rather than just to abandon people there with no work and no prospect of work.

GIN1138 said:

HYUFD said:

PagetVC said:

https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1191116642920603648?s=21

'The West Midlands rather than the North is now emerging as the most important battleground for the December 12 poll.

'On top of Mr Watson’s, Tory chiefs have identified as many as 20 Labour seats there that could be vulnerable because of disenchantment with Jeremy Corbyn and his party’s confusion over Brexit.
It has also emerged that Boris will head straight to the Midlands to launch the Tories' election campaign on Wednesday after going to see the Queen to ask her to dissolve Parliament that morning.....An MP ally of Jeremy Corbyn, Lloyd Russell-Moyle, slammed Labour’s Leave voters for having racist views as he accused them of being “dangerous” nationalists. Two high profile other candidates are also standing against Mr Watson in a bid to hurt his vote – leftwing firebrand George Galloway, and ex-Tory MP Harvey Proctor, who wants to highlight Mr Watson’s disastrors role in helping to instigate the flawed child abuse witch hunt, Operation Midland..'
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/10271765/tory-oust-labours-tom-watson/

According to Wiki the Tories were just a 200 away votes from winning West Bromwich East in 1983 and less than 1000 away from winning it in 1987, so if it really is in play it implies a big Con majority is a possibility IMO.

West Bromwich East is 119th on the Tory target list and now requires a smaller swing after the 2017 GE for the Tories to win than some seats Cameron won like Brentford and Isleworth, Brighton Kemptown, Enfield North, Ealing Central and Acton and Hove


http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/targets/conservative

Reality check: the average Tory lead at the moment is 12%.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2019_United_Kingdom_general_election#2019

HYUFD said:

GIN1138 said:

HYUFD said:

PagetVC said:

https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1191116642920603648?s=21

'The West Midlands rather than the North is now emerging as the most important battleground for the December 12 poll.

'On top of Mr Watson’s, Tory chiefs have identified as many as 20 Labour seats there that could be vulnerable because of disenchantment with Jeremy Corbyn and his party’s confusion over Brexit.
It has also emerged that Boris will head straight to the Midlands to launch the Tories' election campaign on Wednesday after going to see the Queen to ask her to dissolve Parliament that morning.....An MP ally of Jeremy Corbyn, Lloyd Russell-Moyle, slammed Labour’s Leave voters for having racist views as he accused them of being “dangerous” nationalists. Two high profile other candidates are also standing against Mr Watson in a bid to hurt his vote – leftwing firebrand George Galloway, and ex-Tory MP Harvey Proctor, who wants to highlight Mr Watson’s disastrors role in helping to instigate the flawed child abuse witch hunt, Operation Midland..'
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/10271765/tory-oust-labours-tom-watson/

According to Wiki the Tories were just a 200 away votes from winning West Bromwich East in 1983 and less than 1000 away from winning it in 1987, so if it really is in play it implies a big Con majority is a possibility IMO.

West Bromwich East is 119th on the Tory target list and now requires a smaller swing after the 2017 GE for the Tories to win than some seats Cameron won like Brentford and Isleworth, Brighton Kemptown, Enfield North, Ealing Central and Acton and Hove


http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/targets/conservative

2017 Redux

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.

The day rate for a 170,000 dwt vessel is just $4,000/day. If the power station is by the sea, it'll be cheaper to get coal there from South Africa or South America than by road from a mine in the UK.

Mysticrose said:

HYUFD said:

GIN1138 said:

HYUFD said:

PagetVC said:

https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1191116642920603648?s=21

'The West Midlands rather than the North is now emerging as the most important battleground for the December 12 poll.

'On top of Mr Watson’s, Tory chiefs have identified as many as 20 Labour seats there that could be vulnerable because of disenchantment with Jeremy Corbyn and his party’s confusion over Brexit.
It has also emerged that Boris will head straight to the Midlands to launch the Tories' election campaign on Wednesday after going to see the Queen to ask her to dissolve Parliament that morning.....An MP ally of Jeremy Corbyn, Lloyd Russell-Moyle, slammed Labour’s Leave voters for having racist views as he accused them of being “dangerous” nationalists. Two high profile other candidates are also standing against Mr Watson in a bid to hurt his vote – leftwing firebrand George Galloway, and ex-Tory MP Harvey Proctor, who wants to highlight Mr Watson’s disastrors role in helping to instigate the flawed child abuse witch hunt, Operation Midland..'
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/10271765/tory-oust-labours-tom-watson/

According to Wiki the Tories were just a 200 away votes from winning West Bromwich East in 1983 and less than 1000 away from winning it in 1987, so if it really is in play it implies a big Con majority is a possibility IMO.

West Bromwich East is 119th on the Tory target list and now requires a smaller swing after the 2017 GE for the Tories to win than some seats Cameron won like Brentford and Isleworth, Brighton Kemptown, Enfield North, Ealing Central and Acton and Hove


http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/targets/conservative

2017 Redux

No as if they win those Leave seats the Brexit Party taking Labour votes will be a key factor, that was not the case in 2017.

See Workington for example where there is a small swing from Labour to the Tories but a bigger swing from Labour to the Brexit Party, putting the Tories in front.

https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1190402686828580865?s=20

Plus
https://twitter.com/OpiniumResearch/status/1190963601462484992?s=20

Artist said:

Think the Tories will do well in the West Midlands but a 20% gap to close in West Bromwich East is too much.

It's possible the Tory vote could stand still and Labour could drop 20%, putting the seat on a knife-edge. Also, George Galloway and Harvey Proctor are both standing as independents in the seat, which muddies the waters still further.

OblitusSumMe said:

viewcode said:

OblitusSumMe said:

If a settlement grows up in a specific location due to a specific industry at that location does it not make sense that the settlement might shrink or disappear once that industry ceases to exist?

It makes sense economically.
However people invest time, money and sentiment in living in a place and cannot easily move from it. Their kids can and do, but they cannot, and you end up with hollowed-out communities of old people and unemployed, getting sicker and poorer.

When a new settlement is built there's a lot of planning in ensuring that all the utilities and services required are provided. It shouldn't be beyond us to manage the end-of-life of a community in a better way, rather than just to abandon people there with no work and no prospect of work.

Should there be?
Yes.
Can there be?
Yes.
Will there be?
No.
There never is.

New Spanish poll ahead of next Sunday's general election

https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/1191107198354706432?s=20

HYUFD said:

PagetVC said:

https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1191116642920603648?s=21

'The West Midlands rather than the North is now emerging as the most important battleground for the December 12 poll.

'On top of Mr Watson’s, Tory chiefs have identified as many as 20 Labour seats there that could be vulnerable because of disenchantment with Jeremy Corbyn and his party’s confusion over Brexit.
It has also emerged that Boris will head straight to the Midlands to launch the Tories' election campaign on Wednesday after going to see the Queen to ask her to dissolve Parliament that morning.....An MP ally of Jeremy Corbyn, Lloyd Russell-Moyle, slammed Labour’s Leave voters for having racist views as he accused them of being “dangerous” nationalists. Two high profile other candidates are also standing against Mr Watson in a bid to hurt his vote – leftwing firebrand George Galloway, and ex-Tory MP Harvey Proctor, who wants to highlight Mr Watson’s disastrors role in helping to instigate the flawed child abuse witch hunt, Operation Midland.
Furthermore, Mr Watson is expected to get no help from Labour HQ and Mr Corbyn’s pressure group Momentum because of his furious battles with the Labour leader.'
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/10271765/tory-oust-labours-tom-watson/

I imagine there will be some in Momentum who wouldn't shed a tear at Watson's seat going Tory - they probably wouldn't see a difference lol.

nunu2 said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/christopherhope/status/1191107697531408385

That is an amazing wide mouthed frog impression they have caught.

The grinch who stole Brexit!

Am I right in thinking Steve Baker, once a Spartan, is now a Snowflake?

And what news of Corporal Francois?

YBarddCwsc said:

Apparently, a general election deal between Lib Dems and Plaid Cymru has been agreed.

PC won't field a candidate in Brecon and Radnorshire or Montgomeryshire (probably the only constituencies the LibDems care about)

In return, LDs stand down in constituencies including Ynys Môn, Arfon, Dwyfor Meirionnydd, Carmarthen East, Llanelli.

Fury on the Plaid Cymru blogs. There are hardly any LibDems in these seats, and almost all of them will never vote Plaid Cymru anyhow.

This pernicious alliance means I will canvass actively against the (former Tory) Londoner who the LibDems have parachuted into Montgomeryshire. It will be a pleasure to see him lose.

The LibDems really do turn everything to ordure ...

Who have they parachuted in

Big_G_NorthWales said:

YBarddCwsc said:

Apparently, a general election deal between Lib Dems and Plaid Cymru has been agreed.

PC won't field a candidate in Brecon and Radnorshire or Montgomeryshire (probably the only constituencies the LibDems care about)

In return, LDs stand down in constituencies including Ynys Môn, Arfon, Dwyfor Meirionnydd, Carmarthen East, Llanelli.

Fury on the Plaid Cymru blogs. There are hardly any LibDems in these seats, and almost all of them will never vote Plaid Cymru anyhow.

This pernicious alliance means I will canvass actively against the (former Tory) Londoner who the LibDems have parachuted into Montgomeryshire. It will be a pleasure to see him lose.

The LibDems really do turn everything to ordure ...

Who have they parachuted in

Deleted - wrong constituency - oops!