politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Nine days before Iowa and the top 5 contenders are within 12 p
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Nine days before Iowa and the top 5 contenders are within 12 points of each other
Chart from Fivethirtyeight.com
Comments
-
Iowa is pivotal, if Sanders wins Iowa he likely wins New Hampshire and the momentum carries him to the nomination. If Biden wins Iowa that and South Carolina should set him on the way to the nomination, if Buttigieg wins Iowa then the moderate vote shifts from Biden to him0
-
With the exception of Buttigieg, that is correct.HYUFD said:Iowa is pivotal, if Sanders wins Iowa he likely wins New Hampshire and the momentum carries him to the nomination. If Biden wins Iowa that and South Carolina should set him on the way to the nomination, if Buttigieg wins Iowa then the moderate vote shifts from Biden to him
1 -
Does anyone know what is behind the sudden Sanders surge? There doesn't seem to be an event or policy that caused it.0
-
The Warren vote has collapsed in his favour and none of the moderate candidates have a strong enough message or charismatic enough personality to counter his populist rhetoricGabs3 said:Does anyone know what is behind the sudden Sanders surge? There doesn't seem to be an event or policy that caused it.
0 -
In part it seems like just his turn - these american primaries, before the votes, seem to give any halfway credible candidate with at least some time in the sun. Biden was always the major figure at the start, and we've had periods where Warren, then Buttegieg and now Sanders seem to be rising and getting the most attention. Add to that Sanders having, apparently, a very committed core of support and I'd assume he was always better placed for the long haul and that would show through at some point.Gabs3 said:Does anyone know what is behind the sudden Sanders surge? There doesn't seem to be an event or policy that caused it.
0 -
In six weeks time we'll probably be falling about laughing. "Remember that "Sanders surge"? Hahahahaha....".kle4 said:
In part it seems like just his turn - these american primaries, before the votes, seem to give any halfway credible candidate with at least some time in the sun. Biden was always the major figure at the start, and we've had periods where Warren, then Buttegieg and now Sanders seem to be rising and getting the most attention. Add to that Sanders having, apparently, a very committed core of support and I'd assume he was always better placed for the long haul and that would show through at some point.Gabs3 said:Does anyone know what is behind the sudden Sanders surge? There doesn't seem to be an event or policy that caused it.
0 -
Are the yank Left about to disappear down the toilet with Sanders as the Brits did here for over 4 years with Corbyn?
You'd think they'd take a look and learn some lessons from their cousins across the pond.4 -
From the previous thread.
If Kicorse is correct that would mean that if the arctic ice was more stable global warming would be non-existent bellow latitudes 20N.0 -
There has to be a non-trivial chance that Sanders doesn't last the course due to health reasons.HYUFD said:Iowa is pivotal, if Sanders wins Iowa he likely wins New Hampshire and the momentum carries him to the nomination. If Biden wins Iowa that and South Carolina should set him on the way to the nomination, if Buttigieg wins Iowa then the moderate vote shifts from Biden to him
1 -
No, because Sanders is not the frothing loon that Corbyn is.Casino_Royale said:Are the yank Left about to disappear down the toilet with Sanders as the Brits did here for over 4 years with Corbyn?
You'd think they'd take a look and learn some lessons from their cousins across the pond.0 -
Same thing about Biden, and you can see Biden's mental deterioration.Casino_Royale said:
There has to be a non-trivial chance that Sanders doesn't last the course due to health reasons.HYUFD said:Iowa is pivotal, if Sanders wins Iowa he likely wins New Hampshire and the momentum carries him to the nomination. If Biden wins Iowa that and South Carolina should set him on the way to the nomination, if Buttigieg wins Iowa then the moderate vote shifts from Biden to him
Unfortunately it looks like a Soviet Politburo.0 -
Maybe not but he would still be the most left-wing Democratic nominee since George McGovern took on President Nixon in 1972Omnium said:
No, because Sanders is not the frothing loon that Corbyn is.Casino_Royale said:Are the yank Left about to disappear down the toilet with Sanders as the Brits did here for over 4 years with Corbyn?
You'd think they'd take a look and learn some lessons from their cousins across the pond.0 -
Same for Trump, both are well over 70Casino_Royale said:
There has to be a non-trivial chance that Sanders doesn't last the course due to health reasons.HYUFD said:Iowa is pivotal, if Sanders wins Iowa he likely wins New Hampshire and the momentum carries him to the nomination. If Biden wins Iowa that and South Carolina should set him on the way to the nomination, if Buttigieg wins Iowa then the moderate vote shifts from Biden to him
0 -
Bernie could have been backed at a very big price immediately post heart attack.
On which point, it must be of greater than average interest who his running mate is if he gets the nomination.0 -
It helps that half the primary voters have voted for Sanders before, so it's not that much of a mental leap.kle4 said:
In part it seems like just his turn - these american primaries, before the votes, seem to give any halfway credible candidate with at least some time in the sun. Biden was always the major figure at the start, and we've had periods where Warren, then Buttegieg and now Sanders seem to be rising and getting the most attention. Add to that Sanders having, apparently, a very committed core of support and I'd assume he was always better placed for the long haul and that would show through at some point.Gabs3 said:Does anyone know what is behind the sudden Sanders surge? There doesn't seem to be an event or policy that caused it.
That's why those who ran before and did well, always have an advantage when running again.0 -
Many people on the right deny global warming because they know that many on the Left want to launch a full-scale assault on their way of life off the back of it. So if the science is vindicated it leaves them little place to go given the two movements are currently wholly interlinked.speedy2 said:From the previous thread.
If Kicorse is correct that would mean that if the arctic ice was more stable global warming would be non-existent bellow latitudes 20N.
As long as that remains the case, and people refuse to depoliticise the science and the solutions, that will continue to be the case.1 -
He pretty much is. Distance makes him seem less bizarre.Omnium said:
No, because Sanders is not the frothing loon that Corbyn is.Casino_Royale said:Are the yank Left about to disappear down the toilet with Sanders as the Brits did here for over 4 years with Corbyn?
You'd think they'd take a look and learn some lessons from their cousins across the pond.0 -
That last debate was indeed pivotal, I was correct in thinking that the Sanders-Warren clash would move their voters towards one side or the other.HYUFD said:
The Warren vote has collapsed in his favour and none of the moderate candidates have a strong enough message or charismatic enough personality to counter his populist rhetoricGabs3 said:Does anyone know what is behind the sudden Sanders surge? There doesn't seem to be an event or policy that caused it.
In the end Warren was the one who lost because no one believed that Sanders was a sexist.1 -
Um. He is.Omnium said:
No, because Sanders is not the frothing loon that Corbyn is.Casino_Royale said:Are the yank Left about to disappear down the toilet with Sanders as the Brits did here for over 4 years with Corbyn?
You'd think they'd take a look and learn some lessons from their cousins across the pond.
And it doesn't end there. He also shares much of Corbyn's personal unpopularity and issues. Witness Hillary Clinton's comments about him the other day.0 -
Also over 70 are Warren, Biden and Bloomberg. I've got sneaky feeling that Klobuchar might pull off a surprisingly good result. She's 59 so 22 years older than Buttigieg and 19 years younger than BernieHYUFD said:
Same for Trump, both are well over 70Casino_Royale said:
There has to be a non-trivial chance that Sanders doesn't last the course due to health reasons.HYUFD said:Iowa is pivotal, if Sanders wins Iowa he likely wins New Hampshire and the momentum carries him to the nomination. If Biden wins Iowa that and South Carolina should set him on the way to the nomination, if Buttigieg wins Iowa then the moderate vote shifts from Biden to him
0 -
If it's only the arctic then the solution is at hand.Casino_Royale said:
Many people on the right deny global warming because they know that many on the Left want to launch a full-scale assault on their way of life off the back of it. So if the science is vindicated it leaves them little place to go given the two movements are currently wholly interlinked.speedy2 said:From the previous thread.
If Kicorse is correct that would mean that if the arctic ice was more stable global warming would be non-existent bellow latitudes 20N.
As long as that remains the case, and people refuse to depoliticise the science and the solutions, that will continue to be the case.
It doesn't require world wide radical changes, but climate change is too often used as a vehicle for those seeking or holding power through radical change.
1 -
It's not Klobuchar, Mike.MikeSmithson said:
Also over 70 are Warren, Biden and Bloomberg. I've got sneaky feeling that Klobuchar might pull off a surprisingly good result. She's 59 so 22 years older than Buttigieg and 19 years younger than BernieHYUFD said:
Same for Trump, both are well over 70Casino_Royale said:
There has to be a non-trivial chance that Sanders doesn't last the course due to health reasons.HYUFD said:Iowa is pivotal, if Sanders wins Iowa he likely wins New Hampshire and the momentum carries him to the nomination. If Biden wins Iowa that and South Carolina should set him on the way to the nomination, if Buttigieg wins Iowa then the moderate vote shifts from Biden to him
It's KLOBUCHAR.1 -
My last bet was £50 on Sanders at 7.6 for the presidency.
I'll have to sell a kidney if Bloomberg somehow does it.1 -
Maybe, though note the last candidate to beat an incumbent president after only one term of his party in the White House was 69, Reagan when he beat Carter in 1980MikeSmithson said:
Also over 70 are Warren, Biden and Bloomberg. I've got sneaky feeling that Klobuchar might pull off a surprisingly good result. She's 59 so 22 years older than Buttigieg and 19 years younger than BernieHYUFD said:
Same for Trump, both are well over 70Casino_Royale said:
There has to be a non-trivial chance that Sanders doesn't last the course due to health reasons.HYUFD said:Iowa is pivotal, if Sanders wins Iowa he likely wins New Hampshire and the momentum carries him to the nomination. If Biden wins Iowa that and South Carolina should set him on the way to the nomination, if Buttigieg wins Iowa then the moderate vote shifts from Biden to him
0 -
If the Democrats manage to put forward someone as their candidate who isn’t even a member of their party, who then goes on to lose against Trump because they are too left wing for the American electorate, what will the fallout be? Could it bring down the existing party system?1
-
Yes. I spent most of PT saying this in different ways. I would like to see the Right accept the problem and get in there swinging on the solutions.Casino_Royale said:Many people on the right deny global warming because they know that many on the Left want to launch a full-scale assault on their way of life off the back of it. So if the science is vindicated it leaves them little place to go given the two movements are currently wholly interlinked.
As long as that remains the case, and people refuse to depoliticise the science and the solutions, that will continue to be the case.2 -
-
Me too. But current coverage is based on various forms of self-flagellation: no cars, reduced heating, less travel, limiting holidays and no meat.kinabalu said:
Yes. I spent most of PT saying this in different ways. I would like to see the Right accept the problem and get in there swinging on the solutions.Casino_Royale said:Many people on the right deny global warming because they know that many on the Left want to launch a full-scale assault on their way of life off the back of it. So if the science is vindicated it leaves them little place to go given the two movements are currently wholly interlinked.
As long as that remains the case, and people refuse to depoliticise the science and the solutions, that will continue to be the case.
It's proper hair-shirt guilt and hypocrisy stuff.
Solutions the Right need to get behind is on new renewable tech/tax breaks, and jobs to go with them, nuclear fusion, carbon capture, subsidising electric vehicle infrastructures and development, engineering animal feed and/or making grass-fed only, electric or renewables-based slower aircraft, council tax incentives for airpumps/groundpumps in the home, and market payments for keeping ecological reserves preserved etc.
I rarely critique the BBC (it's become a bit of a cliché) but they've become really myopic on this recently and thought putting on George Monboit the other day versus a Government climate change academic panelist who wants us to cut meat consumption constituted "balance" seemingly being wholly unaware they represented the moderate and extreme view from the same side of the argument.2 -
I think OGH is quite right that the current crop of front-runners are ludicrously old, but I fear very few American voters feel the same way. Hence them being, for the entire 'invisible primary' period, the frontrunners.MikeSmithson said:
Also over 70 are Warren, Biden and Bloomberg. I've got sneaky feeling that Klobuchar might pull off a surprisingly good result. She's 59 so 22 years older than Buttigieg and 19 years younger than BernieHYUFD said:
Same for Trump, both are well over 70Casino_Royale said:
There has to be a non-trivial chance that Sanders doesn't last the course due to health reasons.HYUFD said:Iowa is pivotal, if Sanders wins Iowa he likely wins New Hampshire and the momentum carries him to the nomination. If Biden wins Iowa that and South Carolina should set him on the way to the nomination, if Buttigieg wins Iowa then the moderate vote shifts from Biden to him
Great bet on Sanders. I'll join you at the back-alley clinic if Bloomberg comes through.Pulpstar said:My last bet was £50 on Sanders at 7.6 for the presidency.
I'll have to sell a kidney if Bloomberg somehow does it.0 -
What's the other "side"? Carry on flying and eating beef and drinking milk, and hope for the techno best, and if it fails, _shrugs*?Casino_Royale said:
Me too. But current coverage is based on various forms of self-flagellation: no cars, reduced heating, less travel, limiting holidays and no meat.kinabalu said:
Yes. I spent most of PT saying this in different ways. I would like to see the Right accept the problem and get in there swinging on the solutions.Casino_Royale said:Many people on the right deny global warming because they know that many on the Left want to launch a full-scale assault on their way of life off the back of it. So if the science is vindicated it leaves them little place to go given the two movements are currently wholly interlinked.
As long as that remains the case, and people refuse to depoliticise the science and the solutions, that will continue to be the case.
It's proper hair-shirt guilt and hypocrisy stuff.
Solutions the Right need to get behind is on new renewable tech/tax breaks, and jobs to go with them, nuclear fusion, carbon capture, subsidising electric vehicle infrastructures and development, engineering animal feed and/or making grass-fed only, electric or renewables-based slower aircraft, council tax incentives for airpumps/groundpumps in the home, and market payments for keeping ecological reserves preserved etc.
I rarely critique the BBC (it's become a bit of a cliché) but they've become really myopic on this recently and thought putting on George Monboit the other day versus a Government climate change academic panelist who wants us to cut meat consumption constituted "balance" seemingly being wholly unaware they represented the moderate and extreme view from the same side of the argument.0 -
In homage to Mrs.T.kinabalu said:
Yes. I spent most of PT saying this in different ways. I would like to see the Right accept the problem and get in there swinging on the solutions.Casino_Royale said:Many people on the right deny global warming because they know that many on the Left want to launch a full-scale assault on their way of life off the back of it. So if the science is vindicated it leaves them little place to go given the two movements are currently wholly interlinked.
As long as that remains the case, and people refuse to depoliticise the science and the solutions, that will continue to be the case.1 -
Austin Powers puts the "grrr" in Swinger, baby, yeah!kinabalu said:
Yes. I spent most of PT saying this in different ways. I would like to see the Right accept the problem and get in there swinging on the solutions.Casino_Royale said:Many people on the right deny global warming because they know that many on the Left want to launch a full-scale assault on their way of life off the back of it. So if the science is vindicated it leaves them little place to go given the two movements are currently wholly interlinked.
As long as that remains the case, and people refuse to depoliticise the science and the solutions, that will continue to be the case.1 -
Without subscribing to your terminology, I think Sanders has given fewer specific hostages to fortune. He'll obviously get attacked as a socialist, but numerous polls show that that'd not the killer argument for most Americans that it once was. I do worry that he's vulnerable - I'm sure Trump will call him a "commie" - but he's not quite as easy to target.matt said:
He pretty much is. Distance makes him seem less bizarre.Omnium said:
No, because Sanders is not the frothing loon that Corbyn is.Casino_Royale said:Are the yank Left about to disappear down the toilet with Sanders as the Brits did here for over 4 years with Corbyn?
You'd think they'd take a look and learn some lessons from their cousins across the pond.0 -
I sometimes think that if technology were created to reverse climate change the liberal elite would never let it see the light of day as then they would lose one of the major pieces of fear to control Western society. It's why the right needs to get into the argument and pose solutions, Boris has a huge opportunity here to help combat climate change and at the same time ensure it is done in a way that doesn't have everyone subsisting on algae paste and living in caves.Casino_Royale said:
Me too. But current coverage is based on various forms of self-flagellation: no cars, reduced heating, less travel, limiting holidays and no meat.kinabalu said:
Yes. I spent most of PT saying this in different ways. I would like to see the Right accept the problem and get in there swinging on the solutions.Casino_Royale said:Many people on the right deny global warming because they know that many on the Left want to launch a full-scale assault on their way of life off the back of it. So if the science is vindicated it leaves them little place to go given the two movements are currently wholly interlinked.
As long as that remains the case, and people refuse to depoliticise the science and the solutions, that will continue to be the case.
It's proper hair-shirt guilt and hypocrisy stuff.
Solutions the Right need to get behind is on new renewable tech/tax breaks, and jobs to go with them, nuclear fusion, carbon capture, subsidising electric vehicle infrastructures and development, engineering animal feed and/or making grass-fed only, electric or renewables-based slower aircraft, council tax incentives for airpumps/groundpumps in the home, and market payments for keeping ecological reserves preserved etc.
I rarely critique the BBC (it's become a bit of a cliché) but they've become really myopic on this recently and thought putting on George Monboit the other day versus a Government climate change academic panelist who wants us to cut meat consumption constituted "balance" seemingly being wholly unaware they represented the moderate and extreme view from the same side of the argument.0 -
That it's a pointless distraction. That alternatives to meat can be worse for the environment. That a balanced omnivorous diet is both healthy and natural. That we should support British farmers. And that we need to innovate in the sustainability of our animal husbandry and welfare, and less intensive farming, but it's otherwise fine.EPG said:
What's the other "side"? Carry on flying and eating beef and drinking milk, and hope for the techno best, and if it fails, _shrugs*?Casino_Royale said:
Me too. But current coverage is based on various forms of self-flagellation: no cars, reduced heating, less travel, limiting holidays and no meat.kinabalu said:
Yes. I spent most of PT saying this in different ways. I would like to see the Right accept the problem and get in there swinging on the solutions.Casino_Royale said:Many people on the right deny global warming because they know that many on the Left want to launch a full-scale assault on their way of life off the back of it. So if the science is vindicated it leaves them little place to go given the two movements are currently wholly interlinked.
As long as that remains the case, and people refuse to depoliticise the science and the solutions, that will continue to be the case.
It's proper hair-shirt guilt and hypocrisy stuff.
Solutions the Right need to get behind is on new renewable tech/tax breaks, and jobs to go with them, nuclear fusion, carbon capture, subsidising electric vehicle infrastructures and development, engineering animal feed and/or making grass-fed only, electric or renewables-based slower aircraft, council tax incentives for airpumps/groundpumps in the home, and market payments for keeping ecological reserves preserved etc.
I rarely critique the BBC (it's become a bit of a cliché) but they've become really myopic on this recently and thought putting on George Monboit the other day versus a Government climate change academic panelist who wants us to cut meat consumption constituted "balance" seemingly being wholly unaware they represented the moderate and extreme view from the same side of the argument.0 -
Exactly.MaxPB said:
I sometimes think that if technology were created to reverse climate change the liberal elite would never let it see the light of day as then they would lose one of the major pieces of fear to control Western society. It's why the right needs to get into the argument and pose solutions, Boris has a huge opportunity here to help combat climate change and at the same time ensure it is done in a way that doesn't have everyone subsisting on algae paste and living in caves.Casino_Royale said:
Me too. But current coverage is based on various forms of self-flagellation: no cars, reduced heating, less travel, limiting holidays and no meat.kinabalu said:
Yes. I spent most of PT saying this in different ways. I would like to see the Right accept the problem and get in there swinging on the solutions.Casino_Royale said:Many people on the right deny global warming because they know that many on the Left want to launch a full-scale assault on their way of life off the back of it. So if the science is vindicated it leaves them little place to go given the two movements are currently wholly interlinked.
As long as that remains the case, and people refuse to depoliticise the science and the solutions, that will continue to be the case.
It's proper hair-shirt guilt and hypocrisy stuff.
Solutions the Right need to get behind is on new renewable tech/tax breaks, and jobs to go with them, nuclear fusion, carbon capture, subsidising electric vehicle infrastructures and development, engineering animal feed and/or making grass-fed only, electric or renewables-based slower aircraft, council tax incentives for airpumps/groundpumps in the home, and market payments for keeping ecological reserves preserved etc.
I rarely critique the BBC (it's become a bit of a cliché) but they've become really myopic on this recently and thought putting on George Monboit the other day versus a Government climate change academic panelist who wants us to cut meat consumption constituted "balance" seemingly being wholly unaware they represented the moderate and extreme view from the same side of the argument.
It's another (more promising) front for them to have another crack at socialism.0 -
In fact, I feel so strongly about meat and the right to maintain a traditional balanced human diet I could see it changing a lot of my other longstanding views if it came down to it.
For example, if veganism got democratic traction in the UK (or meat shaming became widespread) I could see myself supporting immigration from very conservative and/or religious overseas areas to overturn white liberal numbers here, and (at the risk of giving William Glenn a heart attack) its possibly one thing that could turn me into a Rejoiner if an ideological delta opened up between the UK and EU on it.
I feel that strongly about it.0 -
But does CLOUD-BOOT-JAR beat BOOT-EDGE-EDGE?Casino_Royale said:
It's not Klobuchar, Mike.MikeSmithson said:
Also over 70 are Warren, Biden and Bloomberg. I've got sneaky feeling that Klobuchar might pull off a surprisingly good result. She's 59 so 22 years older than Buttigieg and 19 years younger than BernieHYUFD said:
Same for Trump, both are well over 70Casino_Royale said:
There has to be a non-trivial chance that Sanders doesn't last the course due to health reasons.HYUFD said:Iowa is pivotal, if Sanders wins Iowa he likely wins New Hampshire and the momentum carries him to the nomination. If Biden wins Iowa that and South Carolina should set him on the way to the nomination, if Buttigieg wins Iowa then the moderate vote shifts from Biden to him
It's KLOBUCHAR.
1 -
What’s wrong with algae paste? Fine old Mexica dish.MaxPB said:
I sometimes think that if technology were created to reverse climate change the liberal elite would never let it see the light of day as then they would lose one of the major pieces of fear to control Western society. It's why the right needs to get into the argument and pose solutions, Boris has a huge opportunity here to help combat climate change and at the same time ensure it is done in a way that doesn't have everyone subsisting on algae paste and living in caves.Casino_Royale said:
Me too. But current coverage is based on various forms of self-flagellation: no cars, reduced heating, less travel, limiting holidays and no meat.kinabalu said:
Yes. I spent most of PT saying this in different ways. I would like to see the Right accept the problem and get in there swinging on the solutions.Casino_Royale said:Many people on the right deny global warming because they know that many on the Left want to launch a full-scale assault on their way of life off the back of it. So if the science is vindicated it leaves them little place to go given the two movements are currently wholly interlinked.
As long as that remains the case, and people refuse to depoliticise the science and the solutions, that will continue to be the case.
It's proper hair-shirt guilt and hypocrisy stuff.
Solutions the Right need to get behind is on new renewable tech/tax breaks, and jobs to go with them, nuclear fusion, carbon capture, subsidising electric vehicle infrastructures and development, engineering animal feed and/or making grass-fed only, electric or renewables-based slower aircraft, council tax incentives for airpumps/groundpumps in the home, and market payments for keeping ecological reserves preserved etc.
I rarely critique the BBC (it's become a bit of a cliché) but they've become really myopic on this recently and thought putting on George Monboit the other day versus a Government climate change academic panelist who wants us to cut meat consumption constituted "balance" seemingly being wholly unaware they represented the moderate and extreme view from the same side of the argument.0 -
I have £8 at 760/1 on Amy Klobuchar for the White House. I've traded a bit in but do really rather nicely if she makes it. It does mean I'm all green on the next president.Quincel said:
I think OGH is quite right that the current crop of front-runners are ludicrously old, but I fear very few American voters feel the same way. Hence them being, for the entire 'invisible primary' period, the frontrunners.MikeSmithson said:
Also over 70 are Warren, Biden and Bloomberg. I've got sneaky feeling that Klobuchar might pull off a surprisingly good result. She's 59 so 22 years older than Buttigieg and 19 years younger than BernieHYUFD said:
Same for Trump, both are well over 70Casino_Royale said:
There has to be a non-trivial chance that Sanders doesn't last the course due to health reasons.HYUFD said:Iowa is pivotal, if Sanders wins Iowa he likely wins New Hampshire and the momentum carries him to the nomination. If Biden wins Iowa that and South Carolina should set him on the way to the nomination, if Buttigieg wins Iowa then the moderate vote shifts from Biden to him
Great bet on Sanders. I'll join you at the back-alley clinic if Bloomberg comes through.Pulpstar said:My last bet was £50 on Sanders at 7.6 for the presidency.
I'll have to sell a kidney if Bloomberg somehow does it.1 -
Laughable post casino. The politics and the money comes from the right to try and keep the truth of science from the people.Casino_Royale said:
Many people on the right deny global warming because they know that many on the Left want to launch a full-scale assault on their way of life off the back of it. So if the science is vindicated it leaves them little place to go given the two movements are currently wholly interlinked.speedy2 said:From the previous thread.
If Kicorse is correct that would mean that if the arctic ice was more stable global warming would be non-existent bellow latitudes 20N.
As long as that remains the case, and people refuse to depoliticise the science and the solutions, that will continue to be the case.0 -
Hopefully a few deaths will winnow down a gerontocracy who have not had an original thought in 50 years.Quincel said:
I think OGH is quite right that the current crop of front-runners are ludicrously old, but I fear very few American voters feel the same way. Hence them being, for the entire 'invisible primary' period, the frontrunners.MikeSmithson said:
Also over 70 are Warren, Biden and Bloomberg. I've got sneaky feeling that Klobuchar might pull off a surprisingly good result. She's 59 so 22 years older than Buttigieg and 19 years younger than BernieHYUFD said:
Same for Trump, both are well over 70Casino_Royale said:
There has to be a non-trivial chance that Sanders doesn't last the course due to health reasons.HYUFD said:Iowa is pivotal, if Sanders wins Iowa he likely wins New Hampshire and the momentum carries him to the nomination. If Biden wins Iowa that and South Carolina should set him on the way to the nomination, if Buttigieg wins Iowa then the moderate vote shifts from Biden to him
Great bet on Sanders. I'll join you at the back-alley clinic if Bloomberg comes through.Pulpstar said:My last bet was £50 on Sanders at 7.6 for the presidency.
I'll have to sell a kidney if Bloomberg somehow does it.0 -
On topic : Sanders is very different from Corbyn. More brains, a lot less socialism and no history of hard core negative nationalism.
On the environment (and other things) :
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/367/6476/348 - The UK government is going to move away from the EU model of agricultural subsidies to ones that provide environmental benefits. So bonus points for reductions in chemicals that kill (useful) insects etc.
On the subject of useful divergence from the EU - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-51240785.0 -
O/T
"Canary Wharf’s Winter Lights Festival has become a firm fixture in the post-festive calendars of many Londoners – providing as it does a welcome opportunity to wrap up against the cold and enjoy a rare dose of the outdoors in these dark deep winter days."
https://laterthanyouthink.org/2020/01/25/winter-lights2020/0 -
One of the good things to come out of the Cold Fusion comedy was the list of people for whom fixing climate change without tearing down the existing order was a disaster. There was quite a number of them.MaxPB said:
I sometimes think that if technology were created to reverse climate change the liberal elite would never let it see the light of day as then they would lose one of the major pieces of fear to control Western society. It's why the right needs to get into the argument and pose solutions, Boris has a huge opportunity here to help combat climate change and at the same time ensure it is done in a way that doesn't have everyone subsisting on algae paste and living in caves.Casino_Royale said:
Me too. But current coverage is based on various forms of self-flagellation: no cars, reduced heating, less travel, limiting holidays and no meat.kinabalu said:
Yes. I spent most of PT saying this in different ways. I would like to see the Right accept the problem and get in there swinging on the solutions.Casino_Royale said:Many people on the right deny global warming because they know that many on the Left want to launch a full-scale assault on their way of life off the back of it. So if the science is vindicated it leaves them little place to go given the two movements are currently wholly interlinked.
As long as that remains the case, and people refuse to depoliticise the science and the solutions, that will continue to be the case.
It's proper hair-shirt guilt and hypocrisy stuff.
Solutions the Right need to get behind is on new renewable tech/tax breaks, and jobs to go with them, nuclear fusion, carbon capture, subsidising electric vehicle infrastructures and development, engineering animal feed and/or making grass-fed only, electric or renewables-based slower aircraft, council tax incentives for airpumps/groundpumps in the home, and market payments for keeping ecological reserves preserved etc.
I rarely critique the BBC (it's become a bit of a cliché) but they've become really myopic on this recently and thought putting on George Monboit the other day versus a Government climate change academic panelist who wants us to cut meat consumption constituted "balance" seemingly being wholly unaware they represented the moderate and extreme view from the same side of the argument.1 -
Burger King's "Rebel Whopper" is rather niceCasino_Royale said:
Me too. But current coverage is based on various forms of self-flagellation: no cars, reduced heating, less travel, limiting holidays and no meat.kinabalu said:
Yes. I spent most of PT saying this in different ways. I would like to see the Right accept the problem and get in there swinging on the solutions.Casino_Royale said:Many people on the right deny global warming because they know that many on the Left want to launch a full-scale assault on their way of life off the back of it. So if the science is vindicated it leaves them little place to go given the two movements are currently wholly interlinked.
As long as that remains the case, and people refuse to depoliticise the science and the solutions, that will continue to be the case.
0 -
Why's the USA apparently less ageist than the UK political class and electorate?MikeSmithson said:
I have £8 at 760/1 on Amy Klobuchar for the White House. I've traded a bit in but do really rather nicely if she makes it. It does mean I'm all green on the next president.Quincel said:
I think OGH is quite right that the current crop of front-runners are ludicrously old, but I fear very few American voters feel the same way. Hence them being, for the entire 'invisible primary' period, the frontrunners.MikeSmithson said:
Also over 70 are Warren, Biden and Bloomberg. I've got sneaky feeling that Klobuchar might pull off a surprisingly good result. She's 59 so 22 years older than Buttigieg and 19 years younger than BernieHYUFD said:
Same for Trump, both are well over 70Casino_Royale said:
There has to be a non-trivial chance that Sanders doesn't last the course due to health reasons.HYUFD said:Iowa is pivotal, if Sanders wins Iowa he likely wins New Hampshire and the momentum carries him to the nomination. If Biden wins Iowa that and South Carolina should set him on the way to the nomination, if Buttigieg wins Iowa then the moderate vote shifts from Biden to him
Great bet on Sanders. I'll join you at the back-alley clinic if Bloomberg comes through.Pulpstar said:My last bet was £50 on Sanders at 7.6 for the presidency.
I'll have to sell a kidney if Bloomberg somehow does it.
Imagine a UK election (presumably a PR one to have so much choice) featuring as party leaders Ken Clarke, Bill Cash, Vince Cable, Jeremy Corbyn, Hilary Benn and as token 'youngsters' Nicola Sturgeon and Adam Price.
Plus a speaker who's nearly 80 ... our ex-speaker is only 56.
Plus a candidate who's had a heart attack mid-campaign. A heart attack was the end of Michael Heseltine's career.0 -
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51233444
Rolls Royce this week confirmed that it is to go ahead and manufacture mini-nukes. Seeing as this project has been done with the aid of Govt money i.e Tory Govt money then the right is providing and supporting solutions.1 -
Ooops, didn't realise it ended today, I was thinking of going tomorrow...Andy_JS said:O/T
"Canary Wharf’s Winter Lights Festival has become a firm fixture in the post-festive calendars of many Londoners – providing as it does a welcome opportunity to wrap up against the cold and enjoy a rare dose of the outdoors in these dark deep winter days."
https://laterthanyouthink.org/2020/01/25/winter-lights2020/0 -
They talk of moving them around on lorries.ralphmalph said:https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51233444
Rolls Royce this week confirmed that it is to go ahead and manufacture mini-nukes. Seeing as this project has been done with the aid of Govt money i.e Tory Govt money then the right is providing and supporting solutions.
What could possibly go wrong?0 -
In the 1970s many claimed that Reagan was far too rightwing to be elected.NickPalmer said:
Without subscribing to your terminology, I think Sanders has given fewer specific hostages to fortune. He'll obviously get attacked as a socialist, but numerous polls show that that'd not the killer argument for most Americans that it once was. I do worry that he's vulnerable - I'm sure Trump will call him a "commie" - but he's not quite as easy to target.matt said:
He pretty much is. Distance makes him seem less bizarre.Omnium said:
No, because Sanders is not the frothing loon that Corbyn is.Casino_Royale said:Are the yank Left about to disappear down the toilet with Sanders as the Brits did here for over 4 years with Corbyn?
You'd think they'd take a look and learn some lessons from their cousins across the pond.0 -
This idea has substantial problems...ralphmalph said:https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51233444
Rolls Royce this week confirmed that it is to go ahead and manufacture mini-nukes. Seeing as this project has been done with the aid of Govt money i.e Tory Govt money then the right is providing and supporting solutions.
It is leveraging submarine power plant technology, particularly the natural circulation technology given to us by the US. For those who don't know, the noise a nuclear sub makes is a function of the noise made by the pumps for cooling the reactor. A reactor can generally run at lower power with the coolant being moved by the natural convection in the cooling circuit So "silent" speed for a nuclear sub means the speed at which the sub can run its reactor without pumps. in the case of the old Polaris subs this was 2-3 knots - slow walking speed. The new designs based on the American breakthroughs can achieve much more - the Seawolf class can run at 20+ knots without turning on the pumps....
When applied to land based reactors, this means among other things, that they are much safer, since they only use the pumps for a maximum power operations.
Where are the "substantial problems"? Well, by using a standardised design, that means only one enquiry into the design of the reactor. For all installations. Which in turn means a huge diminution of lawyers earnings per GW installed.1 -
If you had the intelligence to dissect my post you might realise why they do that.egg said:
Laughable post casino. The politics and the money comes from the right to try and keep the truth of science from the people.Casino_Royale said:
Many people on the right deny global warming because they know that many on the Left want to launch a full-scale assault on their way of life off the back of it. So if the science is vindicated it leaves them little place to go given the two movements are currently wholly interlinked.speedy2 said:From the previous thread.
If Kicorse is correct that would mean that if the arctic ice was more stable global warming would be non-existent bellow latitudes 20N.
As long as that remains the case, and people refuse to depoliticise the science and the solutions, that will continue to be the case.0 -
No, they talk of moving chunks around on lorries to be commissioned into a working nuke on site.ydoethur said:
They talk of moving them around on lorries.ralphmalph said:https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51233444
Rolls Royce this week confirmed that it is to go ahead and manufacture mini-nukes. Seeing as this project has been done with the aid of Govt money i.e Tory Govt money then the right is providing and supporting solutions.
What could possibly go wrong?0 -
This tech is perhaps more interesting:Malmesbury said:
This idea has substantial problems...ralphmalph said:https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51233444
Rolls Royce this week confirmed that it is to go ahead and manufacture mini-nukes. Seeing as this project has been done with the aid of Govt money i.e Tory Govt money then the right is providing and supporting solutions.
It is leveraging submarine power plant technology, particularly the natural circulation technology given to us by the US. For those who don't know, the noise a nuclear sub makes is a function of the noise made by the pumps for cooling the reactor. A reactor can generally run at lower power with the coolant being moved by the natural convection in the cooling circuit So "silent" speed for a nuclear sub means the speed at which the sub can run its reactor without pumps. in the case of the old Polaris subs this was 2-3 knots - slow walking speed. The new designs based on the American breakthroughs can achieve much more - the Seawolf class can run at 20+ knots without turning on the pumps....
When applied to land based reactors, this means among other things, that they are much safer, since they only use the pumps for a maximum power operations.
Where are the "substantial problems"? Well, by using a standardised design, that means only one enquiry into the design of the reactor. For all installations. Which in turn means a huge diminution of lawyers earnings per GW installed.
https://www.moltexenergy.com/0 -
Do you know if the Govt funds this company?Nigelb said:
This tech is perhaps more interesting:Malmesbury said:
This idea has substantial problems...ralphmalph said:https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51233444
Rolls Royce this week confirmed that it is to go ahead and manufacture mini-nukes. Seeing as this project has been done with the aid of Govt money i.e Tory Govt money then the right is providing and supporting solutions.
It is leveraging submarine power plant technology, particularly the natural circulation technology given to us by the US. For those who don't know, the noise a nuclear sub makes is a function of the noise made by the pumps for cooling the reactor. A reactor can generally run at lower power with the coolant being moved by the natural convection in the cooling circuit So "silent" speed for a nuclear sub means the speed at which the sub can run its reactor without pumps. in the case of the old Polaris subs this was 2-3 knots - slow walking speed. The new designs based on the American breakthroughs can achieve much more - the Seawolf class can run at 20+ knots without turning on the pumps....
When applied to land based reactors, this means among other things, that they are much safer, since they only use the pumps for a maximum power operations.
Where are the "substantial problems"? Well, by using a standardised design, that means only one enquiry into the design of the reactor. For all installations. Which in turn means a huge diminution of lawyers earnings per GW installed.
https://www.moltexenergy.com/0 -
It could be more mundane. Follow the money. Much of the American right, including many think tanks, has long been funded by Koch Industries (big coal miners with some oil interests).Casino_Royale said:
If you had the intelligence to dissect my post you might realise why they do that.egg said:
Laughable post casino. The politics and the money comes from the right to try and keep the truth of science from the people.Casino_Royale said:
Many people on the right deny global warming because they know that many on the Left want to launch a full-scale assault on their way of life off the back of it. So if the science is vindicated it leaves them little place to go given the two movements are currently wholly interlinked.speedy2 said:From the previous thread.
If Kicorse is correct that would mean that if the arctic ice was more stable global warming would be non-existent bellow latitudes 20N.
As long as that remains the case, and people refuse to depoliticise the science and the solutions, that will continue to be the case.0 -
Well you started off solid on this - accepting GW and fizzing off all those rightish wingish ideas for fixing it - but you've gone a bit wild again here IMO. Meat is surely not worth that sort of devotion. You sound almost philosophically wedded to it.Casino_Royale said:In fact, I feel so strongly about meat and the right to maintain a traditional balanced human diet I could see it changing a lot of my other longstanding views if it came down to it.
For example, if veganism got democratic traction in the UK (or meat shaming became widespread) I could see myself supporting immigration from very conservative and/or religious overseas areas to overturn white liberal numbers here, and (at the risk of giving William Glenn a heart attack) its possibly one thing that could turn me into a Rejoiner if an ideological delta opened up between the UK and EU on it.
I feel that strongly about it.0 -
It's not a philosophy. It's natural. If you want an ideology turn to the vegans, who want to afford their zealotry religious protection.kinabalu said:
Well you started off solid on this - accepting GW and fizzing off all those rightish wingish ideas for fixing it - but you've gone a bit wild again here IMO. Meat is surely not worth that sort of devotion. You sound almost philosophically wedded to it.Casino_Royale said:In fact, I feel so strongly about meat and the right to maintain a traditional balanced human diet I could see it changing a lot of my other longstanding views if it came down to it.
For example, if veganism got democratic traction in the UK (or meat shaming became widespread) I could see myself supporting immigration from very conservative and/or religious overseas areas to overturn white liberal numbers here, and (at the risk of giving William Glenn a heart attack) its possibly one thing that could turn me into a Rejoiner if an ideological delta opened up between the UK and EU on it.
I feel that strongly about it.
I want to eat meat. Forever. I love it. I am very concerned by the geometric growth of this fad over the last couple of years and it's starting to impinge on mainstream politics.
If it comes down to it I will align myself politically with anything or anyone that protects that. End of.1 -
Surely you mean, he has a large steak in it?kinabalu said:
Well you started off solid on this - accepting GW and fizzing off all those rightish wingish ideas for fixing it - but you've gone a bit wild again here IMO. Meat is surely not worth that sort of devotion. You sound almost philosophically wedded to it.Casino_Royale said:In fact, I feel so strongly about meat and the right to maintain a traditional balanced human diet I could see it changing a lot of my other longstanding views if it came down to it.
For example, if veganism got democratic traction in the UK (or meat shaming became widespread) I could see myself supporting immigration from very conservative and/or religious overseas areas to overturn white liberal numbers here, and (at the risk of giving William Glenn a heart attack) its possibly one thing that could turn me into a Rejoiner if an ideological delta opened up between the UK and EU on it.
I feel that strongly about it.1 -
I'm also a big fan of Gregg's vegan sausage rollCasino_Royale said:In fact, I feel so strongly about meat and the right to maintain a traditional balanced human diet I could see it changing a lot of my other longstanding views if it came down to it.
For example, if veganism got democratic traction in the UK (or meat shaming became widespread) I could see myself supporting immigration from very conservative and/or religious overseas areas to overturn white liberal numbers here, and (at the risk of giving William Glenn a heart attack) its possibly one thing that could turn me into a Rejoiner if an ideological delta opened up between the UK and EU on it.
I feel that strongly about it. 0 -
He's just a carni-borekinabalu said:
Well you started off solid on this - accepting GW and fizzing off all those rightish wingish ideas for fixing it - but you've gone a bit wild again here IMO. Meat is surely not worth that sort of devotion. You sound almost philosophically wedded to it.Casino_Royale said:In fact, I feel so strongly about meat and the right to maintain a traditional balanced human diet I could see it changing a lot of my other longstanding views if it came down to it.
For example, if veganism got democratic traction in the UK (or meat shaming became widespread) I could see myself supporting immigration from very conservative and/or religious overseas areas to overturn white liberal numbers here, and (at the risk of giving William Glenn a heart attack) its possibly one thing that could turn me into a Rejoiner if an ideological delta opened up between the UK and EU on it.
I feel that strongly about it.
0 -
Meat-eating snowflakeCasino_Royale said:
It's not a philosophy. It's natural. If you want an ideology turn to the vegans, who want to afford their zealotry religious protection.kinabalu said:
Well you started off solid on this - accepting GW and fizzing off all those rightish wingish ideas for fixing it - but you've gone a bit wild again here IMO. Meat is surely not worth that sort of devotion. You sound almost philosophically wedded to it.Casino_Royale said:In fact, I feel so strongly about meat and the right to maintain a traditional balanced human diet I could see it changing a lot of my other longstanding views if it came down to it.
For example, if veganism got democratic traction in the UK (or meat shaming became widespread) I could see myself supporting immigration from very conservative and/or religious overseas areas to overturn white liberal numbers here, and (at the risk of giving William Glenn a heart attack) its possibly one thing that could turn me into a Rejoiner if an ideological delta opened up between the UK and EU on it.
I feel that strongly about it.
I want to eat meat. Forever. I love it. I am very concerned by the geometric growth of this fad over the last couple of years and it's starting to impinge on mainstream politics.
If it comes down to it I will align myself politically with anything or anyone that protects that. End of. 0 -
Yes, you're a vegetarian Sunil. We know.Sunil_Prasannan said:
I'm also a big fan of Gregg's vegan sausage rollCasino_Royale said:In fact, I feel so strongly about meat and the right to maintain a traditional balanced human diet I could see it changing a lot of my other longstanding views if it came down to it.
For example, if veganism got democratic traction in the UK (or meat shaming became widespread) I could see myself supporting immigration from very conservative and/or religious overseas areas to overturn white liberal numbers here, and (at the risk of giving William Glenn a heart attack) its possibly one thing that could turn me into a Rejoiner if an ideological delta opened up between the UK and EU on it.
I feel that strongly about it.
I have no beef with you (ha ha) personal or religions vegetarians have been around for decades. They've always been tolerant of ominvores and never tried to leverage mainstream politics to impose their views on others.
The neo-vegans are zealots on a crusade and on totally another level.0 -
I've yet to sample KFC's new vegan burger, mind.Casino_Royale said:
Yes, you're a vegetarian Sunil. We know.Sunil_Prasannan said:
I'm also a big fan of Gregg's vegan sausage rollCasino_Royale said:In fact, I feel so strongly about meat and the right to maintain a traditional balanced human diet I could see it changing a lot of my other longstanding views if it came down to it.
For example, if veganism got democratic traction in the UK (or meat shaming became widespread) I could see myself supporting immigration from very conservative and/or religious overseas areas to overturn white liberal numbers here, and (at the risk of giving William Glenn a heart attack) its possibly one thing that could turn me into a Rejoiner if an ideological delta opened up between the UK and EU on it.
I feel that strongly about it.
I have no beef with you (ha ha) personal or religions vegetarians have been around for decades. They've always been tolerant of ominvores and never tried to leverage mainstream politics to impose their views on others.
The neo-vegans are zealots on a crusade and on totally another level.0 -
Well they’ve had grants from the US and Canadian governments...ralphmalph said:
Do you know if the Govt funds this company?Nigelb said:
This tech is perhaps more interesting:Malmesbury said:
This idea has substantial problems...ralphmalph said:https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51233444
Rolls Royce this week confirmed that it is to go ahead and manufacture mini-nukes. Seeing as this project has been done with the aid of Govt money i.e Tory Govt money then the right is providing and supporting solutions.
It is leveraging submarine power plant technology, particularly the natural circulation technology given to us by the US. For those who don't know, the noise a nuclear sub makes is a function of the noise made by the pumps for cooling the reactor. A reactor can generally run at lower power with the coolant being moved by the natural convection in the cooling circuit So "silent" speed for a nuclear sub means the speed at which the sub can run its reactor without pumps. in the case of the old Polaris subs this was 2-3 knots - slow walking speed. The new designs based on the American breakthroughs can achieve much more - the Seawolf class can run at 20+ knots without turning on the pumps....
When applied to land based reactors, this means among other things, that they are much safer, since they only use the pumps for a maximum power operations.
Where are the "substantial problems"? Well, by using a standardised design, that means only one enquiry into the design of the reactor. For all installations. Which in turn means a huge diminution of lawyers earnings per GW installed.
https://www.moltexenergy.com/0 -
One reason for that (having now got a family) is that almost all other cars don't have the spaces for kids and luggage.Pulpstar said:
Estate cars with roofracks used to be a big alternative in the 90s but these seem to have now largely disappeared from the roads.0 -
Molten salt reactors... ah, that one. Why not pebble bed reactors? or gaseous core reactors*? The problem is that that they are attempts to fix technical problems which require political solutions.ralphmalph said:
Do you know if the Govt funds this company?Nigelb said:
This tech is perhaps more interesting:Malmesbury said:
This idea has substantial problems...ralphmalph said:https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51233444
Rolls Royce this week confirmed that it is to go ahead and manufacture mini-nukes. Seeing as this project has been done with the aid of Govt money i.e Tory Govt money then the right is providing and supporting solutions.
It is leveraging submarine power plant technology, particularly the natural circulation technology given to us by the US. For those who don't know, the noise a nuclear sub makes is a function of the noise made by the pumps for cooling the reactor. A reactor can generally run at lower power with the coolant being moved by the natural convection in the cooling circuit So "silent" speed for a nuclear sub means the speed at which the sub can run its reactor without pumps. in the case of the old Polaris subs this was 2-3 knots - slow walking speed. The new designs based on the American breakthroughs can achieve much more - the Seawolf class can run at 20+ knots without turning on the pumps....
When applied to land based reactors, this means among other things, that they are much safer, since they only use the pumps for a maximum power operations.
Where are the "substantial problems"? Well, by using a standardised design, that means only one enquiry into the design of the reactor. For all installations. Which in turn means a huge diminution of lawyers earnings per GW installed.
https://www.moltexenergy.com/
The RR design above uses existing reactor technology - and in turn supports the industrial base for making submarine reactors (brownie points!). It envisages a production line of small, identical reactors.
So instead of using your first, test reactor as a production item, you have a developed design before you deploy it. A developed design that will require certification once (brownie points!)
You can then deploy them to existing nuclear power station sites. Where they simply plug into the existing grid infrastructure. So it is very hard to hold them up at the planning stage (brownie points!).
In contrast, MSRs and the rest require a development program for a new design - no, there are no off the shelf designs. Then you have the whole nuclear planning enquiry comedy to go through....1 -
It's something I'd take up arms for.Sunil_Prasannan said:
Meat-eating snowflakeCasino_Royale said:
It's not a philosophy. It's natural. If you want an ideology turn to the vegans, who want to afford their zealotry religious protection.kinabalu said:
Well you started off solid on this - accepting GW and fizzing off all those rightish wingish ideas for fixing it - but you've gone a bit wild again here IMO. Meat is surely not worth that sort of devotion. You sound almost philosophically wedded to it.Casino_Royale said:In fact, I feel so strongly about meat and the right to maintain a traditional balanced human diet I could see it changing a lot of my other longstanding views if it came down to it.
For example, if veganism got democratic traction in the UK (or meat shaming became widespread) I could see myself supporting immigration from very conservative and/or religious overseas areas to overturn white liberal numbers here, and (at the risk of giving William Glenn a heart attack) its possibly one thing that could turn me into a Rejoiner if an ideological delta opened up between the UK and EU on it.
I feel that strongly about it.
I want to eat meat. Forever. I love it. I am very concerned by the geometric growth of this fad over the last couple of years and it's starting to impinge on mainstream politics.
If it comes down to it I will align myself politically with anything or anyone that protects that. End of.0 -
Crossrail's probably still a year or two away from opening, but almost all the stations between Stratford and Shenfield have new purple "roundel" signs in the style of London Underground. Only Romford doesn't at time of writing.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?search=Sunil060902+Crossrail+roundel&title=Special:Search&go=Go&ns0=1&ns6=1&ns12=1&ns14=1&ns100=1&ns106=10 -
The carnivorous rump is a substantial one.ydoethur said:
Surely you mean, he has a large steak in it?kinabalu said:
Well you started off solid on this - accepting GW and fizzing off all those rightish wingish ideas for fixing it - but you've gone a bit wild again here IMO. Meat is surely not worth that sort of devotion. You sound almost philosophically wedded to it.Casino_Royale said:In fact, I feel so strongly about meat and the right to maintain a traditional balanced human diet I could see it changing a lot of my other longstanding views if it came down to it.
For example, if veganism got democratic traction in the UK (or meat shaming became widespread) I could see myself supporting immigration from very conservative and/or religious overseas areas to overturn white liberal numbers here, and (at the risk of giving William Glenn a heart attack) its possibly one thing that could turn me into a Rejoiner if an ideological delta opened up between the UK and EU on it.
I feel that strongly about it.0 -
Whether or not there was bullying involved, and that can be a high bar to reach, it is pretty notable that there are no shortage of people who worked closely with Bercow who wish to make clear that he is apparently a pretty nasty man. And that is actually pretty unusual.CarlottaVance said:3 -
Stop ribbing me.Nigelb said:
The carnivorous rump is a substantial one.ydoethur said:
Surely you mean, he has a large steak in it?kinabalu said:
Well you started off solid on this - accepting GW and fizzing off all those rightish wingish ideas for fixing it - but you've gone a bit wild again here IMO. Meat is surely not worth that sort of devotion. You sound almost philosophically wedded to it.Casino_Royale said:In fact, I feel so strongly about meat and the right to maintain a traditional balanced human diet I could see it changing a lot of my other longstanding views if it came down to it.
For example, if veganism got democratic traction in the UK (or meat shaming became widespread) I could see myself supporting immigration from very conservative and/or religious overseas areas to overturn white liberal numbers here, and (at the risk of giving William Glenn a heart attack) its possibly one thing that could turn me into a Rejoiner if an ideological delta opened up between the UK and EU on it.
I feel that strongly about it.0 -
Thorium is a waste of time and money, the technology isn't developing fast enough and it still carries a lot of the negative connotations of nuclear. I used to be a huge proponent in favour of nuclear but the facts have changed since then, renewables are so much cheaper and the mineshaft power storage idea has a lot of potential to solve the problems of peak usage etc...Nigelb said:
This tech is perhaps more interesting:Malmesbury said:
This idea has substantial problems...ralphmalph said:https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51233444
Rolls Royce this week confirmed that it is to go ahead and manufacture mini-nukes. Seeing as this project has been done with the aid of Govt money i.e Tory Govt money then the right is providing and supporting solutions.
It is leveraging submarine power plant technology, particularly the natural circulation technology given to us by the US. For those who don't know, the noise a nuclear sub makes is a function of the noise made by the pumps for cooling the reactor. A reactor can generally run at lower power with the coolant being moved by the natural convection in the cooling circuit So "silent" speed for a nuclear sub means the speed at which the sub can run its reactor without pumps. in the case of the old Polaris subs this was 2-3 knots - slow walking speed. The new designs based on the American breakthroughs can achieve much more - the Seawolf class can run at 20+ knots without turning on the pumps....
When applied to land based reactors, this means among other things, that they are much safer, since they only use the pumps for a maximum power operations.
Where are the "substantial problems"? Well, by using a standardised design, that means only one enquiry into the design of the reactor. For all installations. Which in turn means a huge diminution of lawyers earnings per GW installed.
https://www.moltexenergy.com/1 -
He was a bit saucy.Casino_Royale said:
Stop ribbing me.Nigelb said:
The carnivorous rump is a substantial one.ydoethur said:
Surely you mean, he has a large steak in it?kinabalu said:
Well you started off solid on this - accepting GW and fizzing off all those rightish wingish ideas for fixing it - but you've gone a bit wild again here IMO. Meat is surely not worth that sort of devotion. You sound almost philosophically wedded to it.Casino_Royale said:In fact, I feel so strongly about meat and the right to maintain a traditional balanced human diet I could see it changing a lot of my other longstanding views if it came down to it.
For example, if veganism got democratic traction in the UK (or meat shaming became widespread) I could see myself supporting immigration from very conservative and/or religious overseas areas to overturn white liberal numbers here, and (at the risk of giving William Glenn a heart attack) its possibly one thing that could turn me into a Rejoiner if an ideological delta opened up between the UK and EU on it.
I feel that strongly about it.0 -
Are mandatory car seats a factor here by requiring mum to lift the child awkwardly which is easier if the seat is higher up (as well as taking more room)?Casino_Royale said:
One reason for that (having now got a family) is that almost all other cars don't have the spaces for kids and luggage.Pulpstar said:
Estate cars with roofracks used to be a big alternative in the 90s but these seem to have now largely disappeared from the roads.0 -
Doing a YouGov survey, and someone's testing out names.
"For the following question, you will be shown a series of proposed names for a new rail organisation covering England, Scotland and Wales. This would be a single organisation responsible for maintaining the track, managing contracts with train companies, and dealing directly with passengers."
Then about 20 follow-up questions. Options are British Rail, Rail for Britain, UK Rail, Rail UK0 -
More meat on a leg, surely?Casino_Royale said:
It's something I'd take up arms for.Sunil_Prasannan said:
Meat-eating snowflakeCasino_Royale said:
It's not a philosophy. It's natural. If you want an ideology turn to the vegans, who want to afford their zealotry religious protection.kinabalu said:
Well you started off solid on this - accepting GW and fizzing off all those rightish wingish ideas for fixing it - but you've gone a bit wild again here IMO. Meat is surely not worth that sort of devotion. You sound almost philosophically wedded to it.Casino_Royale said:In fact, I feel so strongly about meat and the right to maintain a traditional balanced human diet I could see it changing a lot of my other longstanding views if it came down to it.
For example, if veganism got democratic traction in the UK (or meat shaming became widespread) I could see myself supporting immigration from very conservative and/or religious overseas areas to overturn white liberal numbers here, and (at the risk of giving William Glenn a heart attack) its possibly one thing that could turn me into a Rejoiner if an ideological delta opened up between the UK and EU on it.
I feel that strongly about it.
I want to eat meat. Forever. I love it. I am very concerned by the geometric growth of this fad over the last couple of years and it's starting to impinge on mainstream politics.
If it comes down to it I will align myself politically with anything or anyone that protects that. End of.0 -
They’re not thorium reactors (though that, I suppose, is feasible). The first models are proposed to burn nuclear waste products:MaxPB said:
Thorium is a waste of time and money, the technology isn't developing fast enough and it still carries a lot of the negative connotations of nuclear. I used to be a huge proponent in favour of nuclear but the facts have changed since then, renewables are so much cheaper and the mineshaft power storage idea has a lot of potential to solve the problems of peak usage etc...Nigelb said:
This tech is perhaps more interesting:Malmesbury said:
This idea has substantial problems...ralphmalph said:https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51233444
Rolls Royce this week confirmed that it is to go ahead and manufacture mini-nukes. Seeing as this project has been done with the aid of Govt money i.e Tory Govt money then the right is providing and supporting solutions.
It is leveraging submarine power plant technology, particularly the natural circulation technology given to us by the US. For those who don't know, the noise a nuclear sub makes is a function of the noise made by the pumps for cooling the reactor. A reactor can generally run at lower power with the coolant being moved by the natural convection in the cooling circuit So "silent" speed for a nuclear sub means the speed at which the sub can run its reactor without pumps. in the case of the old Polaris subs this was 2-3 knots - slow walking speed. The new designs based on the American breakthroughs can achieve much more - the Seawolf class can run at 20+ knots without turning on the pumps....
When applied to land based reactors, this means among other things, that they are much safer, since they only use the pumps for a maximum power operations.
Where are the "substantial problems"? Well, by using a standardised design, that means only one enquiry into the design of the reactor. For all installations. Which in turn means a huge diminution of lawyers earnings per GW installed.
https://www.moltexenergy.com/
https://www.moltexenergy.com/stablesaltreactors/
I tend to agree with your general point about nuclear, but this is likely a more economic way of dealing with our high level nuclear waste problem long term than the alternatives.0 -
Most so-called SUVs are pretty much estate cars repackaged as shorter and higher (to get the volume). Take most of them round a 4x4 trial course..... ha!DecrepiterJohnL said:
Are mandatory car seats a factor here by requiring mum to lift the child awkwardly which is easier if the seat is higher up (as well as taking more room)?Casino_Royale said:
One reason for that (having now got a family) is that almost all other cars don't have the spaces for kids and luggage.Pulpstar said:
Estate cars with roofracks used to be a big alternative in the 90s but these seem to have now largely disappeared from the roads.0 -
I should spare you?Casino_Royale said:
Stop ribbing me.Nigelb said:
The carnivorous rump is a substantial one.ydoethur said:
Surely you mean, he has a large steak in it?kinabalu said:
Well you started off solid on this - accepting GW and fizzing off all those rightish wingish ideas for fixing it - but you've gone a bit wild again here IMO. Meat is surely not worth that sort of devotion. You sound almost philosophically wedded to it.Casino_Royale said:In fact, I feel so strongly about meat and the right to maintain a traditional balanced human diet I could see it changing a lot of my other longstanding views if it came down to it.
For example, if veganism got democratic traction in the UK (or meat shaming became widespread) I could see myself supporting immigration from very conservative and/or religious overseas areas to overturn white liberal numbers here, and (at the risk of giving William Glenn a heart attack) its possibly one thing that could turn me into a Rejoiner if an ideological delta opened up between the UK and EU on it.
I feel that strongly about it.0 -
I'd just like you to keep a breast of things.Sunil_Prasannan said:
I should spare you?Casino_Royale said:
Stop ribbing me.Nigelb said:
The carnivorous rump is a substantial one.ydoethur said:
Surely you mean, he has a large steak in it?kinabalu said:
Well you started off solid on this - accepting GW and fizzing off all those rightish wingish ideas for fixing it - but you've gone a bit wild again here IMO. Meat is surely not worth that sort of devotion. You sound almost philosophically wedded to it.Casino_Royale said:In fact, I feel so strongly about meat and the right to maintain a traditional balanced human diet I could see it changing a lot of my other longstanding views if it came down to it.
For example, if veganism got democratic traction in the UK (or meat shaming became widespread) I could see myself supporting immigration from very conservative and/or religious overseas areas to overturn white liberal numbers here, and (at the risk of giving William Glenn a heart attack) its possibly one thing that could turn me into a Rejoiner if an ideological delta opened up between the UK and EU on it.
I feel that strongly about it.0 -
The year was 1986, my parents, my sister and I head off to Cornwall for two weeks. With us the dog, duvets, pillows and suitcases for the four of us.Casino_Royale said:
One reason for that (having now got a family) is that almost all other cars don't have the spaces for kids and luggage.Pulpstar said:
Estate cars with roofracks used to be a big alternative in the 90s but these seem to have now largely disappeared from the roads.
In a classic mini.
I remember helping my dad force the boot shut. We didn’t need airbags. The pillows did that.2 -
Yet my old Impreza with a low range gearbox....Malmesbury said:
Most so-called SUVs are pretty much estate cars repackaged as shorter and higher (to get the volume). Take most of them round a 4x4 trial course..... ha!DecrepiterJohnL said:
Are mandatory car seats a factor here by requiring mum to lift the child awkwardly which is easier if the seat is higher up (as well as taking more room)?Casino_Royale said:
One reason for that (having now got a family) is that almost all other cars don't have the spaces for kids and luggage.Pulpstar said:
Estate cars with roofracks used to be a big alternative in the 90s but these seem to have now largely disappeared from the roads.0 -
The wonderful enrichment of Swedish life
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jan/25/bombs-blood-feuds-malmo-explosions-rocking-swedens-cities
And people wonder why Sweden's leading party, in the polls, is on the Hard Right, and descended from pukka Fascists.0 -
-
Lol - from that well known right wing rag, the Grauniad tooByronic said:The wonderful enrichment of Swedish life
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jan/25/bombs-blood-feuds-malmo-explosions-rocking-swedens-cities
And people wonder why Sweden's leading party, in the polls, is on the Hard Right, and descended from pukka Fascists.0 -
Reading the article, they obviously strained every editorial muscle not to mention the ethnicity of those involved in the bombings.Pulpstar said:
Lol - from that well known right wing rag, the Grauniad tooByronic said:The wonderful enrichment of Swedish life
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jan/25/bombs-blood-feuds-malmo-explosions-rocking-swedens-cities
And people wonder why Sweden's leading party, in the polls, is on the Hard Right, and descended from pukka Fascists.0 -
I now have a mental image of Donald Trump having sex with all those people...Gabs3 said:0 -
I know. It's kind of impressive, in its own way. A whole story about a wave of terrible violence centred very much on one "community", and they still manage to avoid explicitly identifying it.Fishing said:
Reading the article, they obviously strained every editorial muscle not to mention the ethnicity of those involved in the bombings.Pulpstar said:
Lol - from that well known right wing rag, the Grauniad tooByronic said:The wonderful enrichment of Swedish life
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jan/25/bombs-blood-feuds-malmo-explosions-rocking-swedens-cities
And people wonder why Sweden's leading party, in the polls, is on the Hard Right, and descended from pukka Fascists.
Heroic.
0 -
Seriously - anyone? Communists? Neo-Nazis? IS supporters wishing to abolish democracy and impose sharia law? Really?Casino_Royale said:
It's not a philosophy. It's natural. If you want an ideology turn to the vegans, who want to afford their zealotry religious protection.kinabalu said:
Well you started off solid on this - accepting GW and fizzing off all those rightish wingish ideas for fixing it - but you've gone a bit wild again here IMO. Meat is surely not worth that sort of devotion. You sound almost philosophically wedded to it.Casino_Royale said:In fact, I feel so strongly about meat and the right to maintain a traditional balanced human diet I could see it changing a lot of my other longstanding views if it came down to it.
For example, if veganism got democratic traction in the UK (or meat shaming became widespread) I could see myself supporting immigration from very conservative and/or religious overseas areas to overturn white liberal numbers here, and (at the risk of giving William Glenn a heart attack) its possibly one thing that could turn me into a Rejoiner if an ideological delta opened up between the UK and EU on it.
I feel that strongly about it.
I want to eat meat. Forever. I love it. I am very happy concerned by the geometric growth of this fad over the last couple of years and it's starting to impinge on mainstream politics.
If it comes down to it I will align myself politically with anything or anyone that protects that. End of.
I like meat, though I eat much less than I used to - preferring quality over quantity - but I would not make it more important than democracy or avoiding an illiberal theocracy.0 -
Er, Meat-eaters? Tories? Um, Brexiteers?Byronic said:
I know. It's kind of impressive, in its own way. A whole story about a wave of terrible violence centred very much on one "community", and they still manage to avoid explicitly identifying it.Fishing said:
Reading the article, they obviously strained every editorial muscle not to mention the ethnicity of those involved in the bombings.Pulpstar said:
Lol - from that well known right wing rag, the Grauniad tooByronic said:The wonderful enrichment of Swedish life
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jan/25/bombs-blood-feuds-malmo-explosions-rocking-swedens-cities
And people wonder why Sweden's leading party, in the polls, is on the Hard Right, and descended from pukka Fascists.
Heroic.0 -
Inshallah.Sunil_Prasannan said:
Er, Meat-eaters? Tories? Um, Brexiteers?Byronic said:
I know. It's kind of impressive, in its own way. A whole story about a wave of terrible violence centred very much on one "community", and they still manage to avoid explicitly identifying it.Fishing said:
Reading the article, they obviously strained every editorial muscle not to mention the ethnicity of those involved in the bombings.Pulpstar said:
Lol - from that well known right wing rag, the Grauniad tooByronic said:The wonderful enrichment of Swedish life
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jan/25/bombs-blood-feuds-malmo-explosions-rocking-swedens-cities
And people wonder why Sweden's leading party, in the polls, is on the Hard Right, and descended from pukka Fascists.
Heroic.0 -
No, it is more likely because Sweden does not officially record ethnicity, so I guess the Guardian were simply reporting the facts as they had themFishing said:
Reading the article, they obviously strained every editorial muscle not to mention the ethnicity of those involved in the bombings.Pulpstar said:
Lol - from that well known right wing rag, the Grauniad tooByronic said:The wonderful enrichment of Swedish life
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jan/25/bombs-blood-feuds-malmo-explosions-rocking-swedens-cities
And people wonder why Sweden's leading party, in the polls, is on the Hard Right, and descended from pukka Fascists.
The quote which includes ‘inshallah’ is hardly straining your imaginary editorial muscle...
0 -
The roof rack is overdue a return. If you strap the children to it then you don't have to listen to their moaning and bickering all the time, nor do you have to stop every few miles for wee-wee or risk spoiling the interior of the vehicle, and all the insects flying into their mouths will provide good nutrition and reduce the requirement to feed them. I mean, what's not to like?Casino_Royale said:
One reason for that (having now got a family) is that almost all other cars don't have the spaces for kids and luggage.Pulpstar said:
Estate cars with roofracks used to be a big alternative in the 90s but these seem to have now largely disappeared from the roads.3
