Has anyone opined on the NPT implications of the Alliance of Awesome? Because delivering large quantities of highly enriched uranium to one of Adelaide's less salubrious suburbs definitely violates it. Is Frosty going to "renegotiate" it?
A question about that: will the Australians actually need to handle the fissionable material? With modern reactors having a 25+ year life, might they just send the boats back to the manufacturer for refuelling when the time comes?
Only the French have nuclear submarines that need to be refuelled. The US (and UK) designs place enough fuel in the reactors to begin with to ensure they are fuelled for the expected life of the sub...
There's a strain of commentary on here 'use the vaccines in kids already, it's a no brainer' and abandon all expert committee advice (The UK's JCVI is seen as too cautious).
Better cautious, than blowing parental trust because of rushed decisions.
Between the two poles of 'COVID is killing children, give them the vaccine' and 'COVID causes hardly any harm in children, don't use the vaccine" is a process of MHRA/JCVI/CMOs oversight (all with differing remits), which comes to a balanced decision. We should trust it.
And trust parents with open transparent communications about risks and benefits, including when the benefits are about wider societal benefits rather than direct benefits to children, and about the safety systems we have to detect harms of vaccines. We should trust them.
I find the idea that the JCVI is too cautious amusing, given they were considered reckless at the start of the vaccination campaign in the UK by extending the dosing interval. When in fact, they making judicious decisions based on best evidence and known science.
Has anyone opined on the NPT implications of the Alliance of Awesome? Because delivering large quantities of highly enriched uranium to one of Adelaide's less salubrious suburbs definitely violates it. Is Frosty going to "renegotiate" it?
A question about that: will the Australians actually need to handle the fissionable material? With modern reactors having a 25+ year life, might they just send the boats back to the manufacturer for refuelling when the time comes?
Only the French have nuclear submarines that need to be refuelled. The US (and UK) designs place enough fuel in the reactors to begin with to ensure they are fuelled for the expected life of the sub...
HMS Vanguard (PWR2) has been hacked up into bits for 5 years and counting while they try to refuel it.
Mr. Divvie, question is, if the lights go out for us, do they go out for the PM?
I know Callaghan never actually uttered the words ‘Crisis? What crisis?’ but it’s just the sort of twattish thing Sunny Boris might say.
I imagine Boris has been too busy these past few weeks brushing up his CV to hand to Jeff Bezos along with some vague position papers about global tax liabilities.
Has anyone opined on the NPT implications of the Alliance of Awesome? Because delivering large quantities of highly enriched uranium to one of Adelaide's less salubrious suburbs definitely violates it. Is Frosty going to "renegotiate" it?
A question about that: will the Australians actually need to handle the fissionable material? With modern reactors having a 25+ year life, might they just send the boats back to the manufacturer for refuelling when the time comes?
Who the fuck knows? Delivering a completed reactor would still be an NPT violation I think.
It's all been left purposefully vague, like Brexit in 2016, so that all manner of hopes, dreams and fantasies (like building the submarines in the UK) can be projected onto its tabula rasa.
The economist says there is a submarine sized loophole in the treaty - as it's used for propulsion not as a weapon itself
Has anyone opined on the NPT implications of the Alliance of Awesome? Because delivering large quantities of highly enriched uranium to one of Adelaide's less salubrious suburbs definitely violates it. Is Frosty going to "renegotiate" it?
A question about that: will the Australians actually need to handle the fissionable material? With modern reactors having a 25+ year life, might they just send the boats back to the manufacturer for refuelling when the time comes?
Who the fuck knows? Delivering a completed reactor would still be an NPT violation I think.
It's all been left purposefully vague, like Brexit in 2016, so that all manner of hopes, dreams and fantasies (like building the submarines in the UK) can be projected onto its tabula rasa.
Hmmm.. Delivering nuclear reactors to non-nuclear weapon states happens all the time.
TRIGA and similar reactors are all over the place.
Non-nuclear weapons states such as Japan have tons of plutonium and, at one stage they were planning on shipping the stuff round the world to the UK for reprocessing and back again.
Pence is from the loony religious Right. He has no power base. These are the two reasons that Trump elevated him - he had the right background, but no actual supporters, money or power.
Since Jan 6th - the Trumpets hate Pence. The non-fundies despise him.
Plenty of loony religious right amongst the primary voters surely?
The fundies either see him as The Traitor (boo hisss) who allowed the Coup Against His Trumpness to succeed, or as the scumbag who cooperated with the Trumpstain.
He didn't have friends, money or power when he became VP. He probably has *less* now.
So the CCP somehow contrived to INCREASE their inefficiency. They have a big problem here.
It also looks like Trudeau has been astonishingly efficient in getting Liberal seats for votes in BC while the Conservatives have been astonishingly inefficient.
In the popular vote in BC the Conservatives lead on 33.5% with the NDP second on 29% and the Liberals 3rd on just 26.8% but in seats the Liberals lead in BC on 15 with the Conservatives on 13 and the NDP also on 13
So glad I didn't stay up all night to see the same-again result. I do think FPTP is rubbish, in a totally non-partisan way. There are several ways that democracy doesn't really work (while being better than the alternatives), and this is one of them. (The others? Depending on the country - ineffective spending limits, media bias dictated by a tiny handful of owners, obstacles to registration and voting, gerrymandering...)
Whoever says FPTP only benefits conservatives and the right better reassess this morning.
With 97% of votes in it looks like the Canadian Conservatives have comfortably won the popular vote for the second consecutive federal election with 34.1% to just 31.9% for Trudeau's Liberals.
However Trudeau's Liberals have equally comfortably still won most seats with 156 to just 121 for O'Toole's Conservatives
FPTP certainly seems to benefit the Conservatives in UK. However, that on this occasion it has worked to the benefit of a different party only underlines the fact that it isn't (ahem) by any means the best system.
At least Trudeau has considered changing it! In this country we're apparently going to see it brought in for elections where 'your lot' think they'll benefit from it.
The problem is, the opposition to FPTP in this country is based on the fact that the Tories are currently winning.
It is to a degree, but it is also a feature of fragmentation of political parties. FPTP only really works effectively where it is a 2 party system. Unless strongly regionalised such as SNP or BQ other parties have little chance.
I voted Ukip in 2015 and it didn't bother me that they only got one seat for 12.6% of the vote. Ultimately FPTP got us the referendum. Cameron and Osborne had nowhere to hide.
Has anyone opined on the NPT implications of the Alliance of Awesome? Because delivering large quantities of highly enriched uranium to one of Adelaide's less salubrious suburbs definitely violates it. Is Frosty going to "renegotiate" it?
A question about that: will the Australians actually need to handle the fissionable material? With modern reactors having a 25+ year life, might they just send the boats back to the manufacturer for refuelling when the time comes?
Who the fuck knows? Delivering a completed reactor would still be an NPT violation I think.
It's all been left purposefully vague, like Brexit in 2016, so that all manner of hopes, dreams and fantasies (like building the submarines in the UK) can be projected onto its tabula rasa.
Somehow i knew that was your post even before I looked.
Pence is from the loony religious Right. He has no power base. These are the two reasons that Trump elevated him - he had the right background, but no actual supporters, money or power.
Since Jan 6th - the Trumpets hate Pence. The non-fundies despise him.
Plenty of loony religious right amongst the primary voters surely?
The fundies either see him as The Traitor (boo hisss) who allowed the Coup Against His Trumpness to succeed, or as the scumbag who cooperated with the Trumpstain.
He didn't have friends, money or power when he became VP. He probably has *less* now.
There seems to be something for absolutely everybody to detest in "Electric" Pence. It's quite an achievement.
The submarine contract was a centerpiece of Paris’s strategy for the 21st century. Building on its military strength, diplomatic acumen and technological sophistication to defeat Japan in the original competition for the Australian submarine contract, France felt it had established a position of lasting influence in the heart of the Indo-Pacific. Better still, it had outmaneuvered Britain and broken into the Anglophone world of the Five Eyes to become a privileged defense partner of Australia.
The collapse of this glorious dream hits the French hard and triggers deep-seated fears of decline. With Germany ever more dominant in the European Union, and the Anglophone countries marginalizing French influence in much of the rest of the world, what role is left for France?
I think that slightly overstates the case: the reason the Australians went with the French was because the Americans weren't willing to sell nuclear powered subs to the Aussies, and didn't have a diesel electric design.
Frankly, the French were the only game in town. (Snip)
I'm unsure that's fully correct. The Australian government at the time (2009-2016 timeframe) didn't want nuclear power.
Their main requirements appear to have been As much as possible constructed in Aussie shipyard(s). Conventional powerplant Very large range. Modern, western weapons systems.
They talked to Japan about their existing Soryu class, but the deal broke down (I think mainly because of the amount of work that would be done in Oz)....
I'm pretty sure that's right - though the idea of Australia kickstarting a submarine building industry from scratch was a pretty crazy one at the time, as events have born out. If they intend to try to do the same with these nuclear subs, the same massive delays are likely to happen. It might make more sense for us to build them, given how little work we'll have after we finish building ours. AFAIK, the US doesn't have much in the way of spare capacity ?
They already have an industry. The existing Australian Collins class were built at Australian Submarine Corporation, in South Australia. They really want to keep that capability, even if it is assembling componentware than constructing the full system. Having said that, apparently it took them decades to get the Collins class working correctly.
Someone (Dura-Ace?) suggested that the nuclear section might be built for them, and they build the rest of the hull and vessel. Or they might have decided to abandon the idea of constructing them.
"One of the main criteria of the project was that Australian industries contribute to at least 60% of the work; by the conclusion of the project 70% of the construction and 45% of the software preparation had been completed by Australian-owned companies"
That link has an interesting paragraph. Why go to the cost of constructing them yourself, when it's cheaper to buy? The answer is that it can kickstart industry:
"The project prompted major increases in quality control standards across Australian industries: in 1980, only 35 Australian companies possessed the appropriate quality control certifications for Defence projects, but by 1998 this had increased to over 1,500."
Yes, I could be talking nonsense. But the unanswered questions around this deal do encourage that.
Even the optimists in are saying that the first boat might be in the water before the end of the 2030s, so it's all going to take rather a long time.
There's a strain of commentary on here 'use the vaccines in kids already, it's a no brainer' and abandon all expert committee advice (The UK's JCVI is seen as too cautious).
Better cautious, than blowing parental trust because of rushed decisions.
Between the two poles of 'COVID is killing children, give them the vaccine' and 'COVID causes hardly any harm in children, don't use the vaccine" is a process of MHRA/JCVI/CMOs oversight (all with differing remits), which comes to a balanced decision. We should trust it.
And trust parents with open transparent communications about risks and benefits, including when the benefits are about wider societal benefits rather than direct benefits to children, and about the safety systems we have to detect harms of vaccines. We should trust them.
I find the idea that the JCVI is too cautious amusing, given they were considered reckless at the start of the vaccination campaign in the UK by extending the dosing interval. When in fact, they making judicious decisions based on best evidence and known science.
JCVI decided against vaccinating under 18 and boosters, then went shopping for reasons why. It was fairly clear why - they believe that the vaccine doses should be sent abroad to developing countries.
When the evidence about 16-16 became too strong, they gave way on that. I believe we can see the result in the following. The 15-19 dives down to join the other vaccinated groups.
In all of this they didn't follow best evidence - strange contortions to avoid evidence from millions of vaccinations of 12-17 around the world.
There's a strain of commentary on here 'use the vaccines in kids already, it's a no brainer' and abandon all expert committee advice (The UK's JCVI is seen as too cautious).
Better cautious, than blowing parental trust because of rushed decisions.
Between the two poles of 'COVID is killing children, give them the vaccine' and 'COVID causes hardly any harm in children, don't use the vaccine" is a process of MHRA/JCVI/CMOs oversight (all with differing remits), which comes to a balanced decision. We should trust it.
And trust parents with open transparent communications about risks and benefits, including when the benefits are about wider societal benefits rather than direct benefits to children, and about the safety systems we have to detect harms of vaccines. We should trust them.
I find the idea that the JCVI is too cautious amusing, given they were considered reckless at the start of the vaccination campaign in the UK by extending the dosing interval. When in fact, they making judicious decisions based on best evidence and known science.
Whoever says FPTP only benefits conservatives and the right better reassess this morning.
With 97% of votes in it looks like the Canadian Conservatives have comfortably won the popular vote for the second consecutive federal election with 34.1% to just 31.9% for Trudeau's Liberals.
However Trudeau's Liberals have equally comfortably still won most seats with 156 to just 121 for O'Toole's Conservatives
FPTP certainly seems to benefit the Conservatives in UK. However, that on this occasion it has worked to the benefit of a different party only underlines the fact that it isn't (ahem) by any means the best system.
At least Trudeau has considered changing it! In this country we're apparently going to see it brought in for elections where 'your lot' think they'll benefit from it.
The problem is, the opposition to FPTP in this country is based on the fact that the Tories are currently winning.
It should also be pointed out FPTP does not always benefit the Tories here either.
Eg in February 1974 Heath's Tories won the popular vote but Wilson's Labour won most seats.
In 2005 too Howard's Tories won the popular vote in England with 35.7% to 35.4% for Blair's Labour but Blair's Labour still comfortably won most seats in England with 286 to just 194 for Howard's Tories
Our HY is absolutely right on this. The present voting system is unfair to Conservatives as well.
How many Conservatives councillors are there today in Liverpool, for example, or Manchester? And how many would we expect is the number of councillors more or less corresponded to the overall Conservative vote? For that matter, when was a Conservative voice last heard in the council chambers of Liverpool and Manchester?
The fact is that the Conservatives represent a significant point of view, and it is outrageous that this is not reflected in the political discussions in certain parts of the country.
An electoral system is a machine for turning inputs into governments. The question is, what inputs do we care to measure? In FPTP, one of the most important inputs is how spread out / concentrated your voters are. I don't understand why anyone would think it's necessary to have that reflected in the result.
My proposal would be for an electoral system that better reflects how many ACTUAL votes there are for a party. Wild, I know.
Even the optimists in are saying that the first boat might be in the water before the end of the 2030s, so it's all going to take rather a long time.
What became the Astute program was already underway when I joined the Royal Navy in1988. When I left, almost 20 years later, the first boat hadn't been launched yet and wouldn't be commissioned for another 5 years.
These programs take a very long time and the limiting factor isn't money or facilities or technology but availability of appropriately educated and experienced people in engineering and leadership roles on both sides of the military/civvie fence.
"The project prompted major increases in quality control standards across Australian industries: in 1980, only 35 Australian companies possessed the appropriate quality control certifications for Defence projects, but by 1998 this had increased to over 1,500."
As a cynic about QC certification, I wonder how much that indicates an actual increase in quality control standards and how much it merely indicates that with more defence money sloshing around more companies found it worthwhile to jump through the bureaucratic hoops to get the necessary merit badges to submit bids...
Whoever says FPTP only benefits conservatives and the right better reassess this morning.
With 97% of votes in it looks like the Canadian Conservatives have comfortably won the popular vote for the second consecutive federal election with 34.1% to just 31.9% for Trudeau's Liberals.
However Trudeau's Liberals have equally comfortably still won most seats with 156 to just 121 for O'Toole's Conservatives
FPTP certainly seems to benefit the Conservatives in UK. However, that on this occasion it has worked to the benefit of a different party only underlines the fact that it isn't (ahem) by any means the best system.
At least Trudeau has considered changing it! In this country we're apparently going to see it brought in for elections where 'your lot' think they'll benefit from it.
The problem is, the opposition to FPTP in this country is based on the fact that the Tories are currently winning.
It should also be pointed out FPTP does not always benefit the Tories here either.
Eg in February 1974 Heath's Tories won the popular vote but Wilson's Labour won most seats.
In 2005 too Howard's Tories won the popular vote in England with 35.7% to 35.4% for Blair's Labour but Blair's Labour still comfortably won most seats in England with 286 to just 194 for Howard's Tories
Our HY is absolutely right on this. The present voting system is unfair to Conservatives as well.
How many Conservatives councillors are there today in Liverpool, for example, or Manchester? And how many would we expect is the number of councillors more or less corresponded to the overall Conservative vote? For that matter, when was a Conservative voice last heard in the council chambers of Liverpool and Manchester?
The fact is that the Conservatives represent a significant point of view, and it is outrageous that this is not reflected in the political discussions in certain parts of the country.
Who cares which political party it's "fair" to - surely the point of an electoral system is to be fair to the voters ?
An electoral system is a machine for turning inputs into governments. The question is, what inputs do we care to measure? In FPTP, one of the most important inputs is how spread out / concentrated your voters are. I don't understand why anyone would think it's necessary to have that reflected in the result.
My proposal would be for an electoral system that better reflects how many ACTUAL votes there are for a party. Wild, I know.
A comment which utterly misunderstands what people are actually voting for at an election.
"The project prompted major increases in quality control standards across Australian industries: in 1980, only 35 Australian companies possessed the appropriate quality control certifications for Defence projects, but by 1998 this had increased to over 1,500."
As a cynic about QC certification, I wonder how much that indicates an actual increase in quality control standards and how much it merely indicates that with more defence money sloshing around more companies found it worthwhile to jump through the bureaucratic hoops to get the necessary merit badges to submit bids...
In the US, that would mean companies that could submit a mountain of paperwork, itemising everything they have done to the nth degree. Coincidence with the reality of what actually was done, somewhat optional...
Whoever says FPTP only benefits conservatives and the right better reassess this morning.
With 97% of votes in it looks like the Canadian Conservatives have comfortably won the popular vote for the second consecutive federal election with 34.1% to just 31.9% for Trudeau's Liberals.
However Trudeau's Liberals have equally comfortably still won most seats with 156 to just 121 for O'Toole's Conservatives
FPTP certainly seems to benefit the Conservatives in UK. However, that on this occasion it has worked to the benefit of a different party only underlines the fact that it isn't (ahem) by any means the best system.
At least Trudeau has considered changing it! In this country we're apparently going to see it brought in for elections where 'your lot' think they'll benefit from it.
Trudeau didn't really consider changing it. He said he would until he won.
The submarine contract was a centerpiece of Paris’s strategy for the 21st century. Building on its military strength, diplomatic acumen and technological sophistication to defeat Japan in the original competition for the Australian submarine contract, France felt it had established a position of lasting influence in the heart of the Indo-Pacific. Better still, it had outmaneuvered Britain and broken into the Anglophone world of the Five Eyes to become a privileged defense partner of Australia.
The collapse of this glorious dream hits the French hard and triggers deep-seated fears of decline. With Germany ever more dominant in the European Union, and the Anglophone countries marginalizing French influence in much of the rest of the world, what role is left for France?
I think that slightly overstates the case: the reason the Australians went with the French was because the Americans weren't willing to sell nuclear powered subs to the Aussies, and didn't have a diesel electric design.
Frankly, the French were the only game in town. (Snip)
I'm unsure that's fully correct. The Australian government at the time (2009-2016 timeframe) didn't want nuclear power.
Their main requirements appear to have been As much as possible constructed in Aussie shipyard(s). Conventional powerplant Very large range. Modern, western weapons systems.
They talked to Japan about their existing Soryu class, but the deal broke down (I think mainly because of the amount of work that would be done in Oz). The Spanish sub is a literal joke, and the Germans' one is too small for their requirements.
Therefore they basically needed a bespoke sub - one with the latest tech, but with mahoosive range. Nuclear power is ideal for the latter requirement, but the Australians specifically did not want it. The Aussie who wrote the requirements spec want to work in France, and, lo and behold! - the French offer a conventional version of their Barracuda nuclear submarine. Which, to all intents and purposes, is a brand-new design.
The Aussies should either have dropped the no-nuclear requirement back around 2010, or gone with the Soryu deal and built a second sub base on another coast. It would have saved them a heck of a lot of time, money and anguish.
A submarine base on the northern coast would be simpler, but I don't think there are any suitable deep water harbours.
I have next to no idea about the geography, but I'd be staggered if a coast that length had none. Or is that northern coast all shallow water, like the northeastern reefs?
basing is a big issue that has not really been considered.... the enthusiasm for this deal among Asian neighbours/allies is the elephant in the room for Australia - I see virtually no evidence that Canberra's closest allies (NZ, Indonesia, E Timor, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore) have any enthusiasm at all for this project.... in effect there is nowhere to park these things up apart from US assets in Guam and maybe Japan. Audiences in SE Asia need to be won over as to how this initiative improves regional stabilty and cooperation (which is a big thing in ASEAN)...
Why does a submarine need to be parked up anywhere? The entire point of a submarine is that it's sat/submerged, hidden at sea, location unknown.
I think it was Tireless that spent 4 months moored up in Gibraltar much to Spain's horror about 20 years ago.... these things (basing etc) are quite important
Has anyone opined on the NPT implications of the Alliance of Awesome? Because delivering large quantities of highly enriched uranium to one of Adelaide's less salubrious suburbs definitely violates it. Is Frosty going to "renegotiate" it?
A question about that: will the Australians actually need to handle the fissionable material? With modern reactors having a 25+ year life, might they just send the boats back to the manufacturer for refuelling when the time comes?
Only the French have nuclear submarines that need to be refuelled. The US (and UK) designs place enough fuel in the reactors to begin with to ensure they are fuelled for the expected life of the sub...
Then the UK dump them in Scotland full of radioactive crap.
An electoral system is a machine for turning inputs into governments. The question is, what inputs do we care to measure? In FPTP, one of the most important inputs is how spread out / concentrated your voters are. I don't understand why anyone would think it's necessary to have that reflected in the result.
My proposal would be for an electoral system that better reflects how many ACTUAL votes there are for a party. Wild, I know.
A comment which utterly misunderstands what people are actually voting for at an election.
Does it, though? Listen to people talking on this forum. People vote for parties, party leaders, and yes, individual candidates. Perhaps in that order.
The idea that each constituency is an island competition between individuals is a charming fiction, but perhaps 200 years out of date, if it ever was true even then.
Take Canada. There's been a fair amount of talk today about parties, and two or three leaders. How many of you who have commented have said anything about local issues or candidates? As Canada, so us.
Big ‘the board has full confidence in lights and their ability to stay on this winter’ energy. Reassuring.
For those that can afford twice the price
Yep. Having a series of very comfortable Cons ministers (OE Kwasi this morning) say how everything will be ok and for no one to worry about a few hundred pounds more here or there might be the thing that clicks with the voting public.
Mr. Farooq, the reasoning behind a vote may be party-based, but the vote itself *is* cast for an individual.
Yes, but it doesnt have to be. The reasoning could match the process.
Now I go back and forth on exactly what type of hybrid arrangement I'd prefer, there are pluses and minuses to all options, it's why it can only be that on balance we prefer X not that it is the only fair option.
Why does a submarine need to be parked up anywhere? The entire point of a submarine is that it's sat/submerged, hidden at sea, location unknown.
They are massive dock queens and spend more than 50% of their lives in dock being fixed, maintained, rearmed, fumigated for the smell of jizz/WD40, etc.
Some interesting themes emerging on "Broken Heartlands" by Sebastian Payne - the fall of "the red wall" started well before 2019 - what pushed it over the edge was Labour's Brexit position "they're not listening to us, they think we're thick" and Boris' personal popularity. Some brutal observations - for example describing Mary Creagh (lost Wakefield) as "a household name, if your household is in North London..."
Mr. Farooq, the reasoning behind a vote may be party-based, but the vote itself *is* cast for an individual.
So we're back to my inputs -> government machine idea. People vote with X intention, but their vote is interpreted in Y way. Which might overlap or it might not.
There's a strain of commentary on here 'use the vaccines in kids already, it's a no brainer' and abandon all expert committee advice (The UK's JCVI is seen as too cautious).
Better cautious, than blowing parental trust because of rushed decisions.
Between the two poles of 'COVID is killing children, give them the vaccine' and 'COVID causes hardly any harm in children, don't use the vaccine" is a process of MHRA/JCVI/CMOs oversight (all with differing remits), which comes to a balanced decision. We should trust it.
And trust parents with open transparent communications about risks and benefits, including when the benefits are about wider societal benefits rather than direct benefits to children, and about the safety systems we have to detect harms of vaccines. We should trust them.
I find the idea that the JCVI is too cautious amusing, given they were considered reckless at the start of the vaccination campaign in the UK by extending the dosing interval. When in fact, they making judicious decisions based on best evidence and known science.
Lol - the idea that the likes of Adam Finn's equivocation on the Morning TV and radio shows will enhance take up is as big a fairytale as this thread header.
Big ‘the board has full confidence in lights and their ability to stay on this winter’ energy. Reassuring.
For those that can afford twice the price
Yep. Having a series of very comfortable Cons ministers (OE Kwasi this morning) say how everything will be ok and for no one to worry about a few hundred pounds more here or there might be the thing that clicks with the voting public.
What clicks ?
We've had over a decade of "climate change must be stopped" from the establishment.
Do people think that doesn't come without a price tag ?
"The project prompted major increases in quality control standards across Australian industries: in 1980, only 35 Australian companies possessed the appropriate quality control certifications for Defence projects, but by 1998 this had increased to over 1,500."
As a cynic about QC certification, I wonder how much that indicates an actual increase in quality control standards and how much it merely indicates that with more defence money sloshing around more companies found it worthwhile to jump through the bureaucratic hoops to get the necessary merit badges to submit bids...
That's a good point. But getting companies into such a mindset can be good as well.
I worked in consumer electronics for five years before I came across rigorous standards. We'd produce good products, and pick up most failures in the factory. It wasn't my area, but AIUI returns were manageable, and priced into the bottom line.
Then, after a year or so at another company, we got an automotive contract. The company (I won't mention which one) really screwed us down hard on quality, making us meet new-to-us standards and use new-to-us processes. In trying to meet these, we found little issues with our hardware and software stack that would cause problems. Most CE clients didn't care about them, but the automotive sector did.
It was a swine, but we produced a higher-quality produce because of it. And the mindset has certainly remained with me as well.
Incidentally, Sony was about the only CE company who had a similar mindset. They were really hard clients, but also fair and rewarding. I liked working with them; by working together, we got better products. Samsung were ... interesting. Apple were gits.
Big ‘the board has full confidence in lights and their ability to stay on this winter’ energy. Reassuring.
For those that can afford twice the price
Yep. Having a series of very comfortable Cons ministers (OE Kwasi this morning) say how everything will be ok and for no one to worry about a few hundred pounds more here or there might be the thing that clicks with the voting public.
What clicks ?
We've had over a decade of "climate change must be stopped" from the establishment.
Do people think that doesn't come without a price tag ?
Hitherto perhaps. It has previously meant sorting green and white glass for the council.
But more than what our green targets are costing us my point was that there is a confluence of price-rising events which will hit everyone and which might easily be blamed on HMG. No one really cares about much at all until it hits them in the pocket. This is about to be a big hit to the pocket.
Mr. Farooq, given how often PR leads to coalitions, whereby the political class rather than the electorate determines the formation of a government, I am not at all persuaded that system moves power to the electorate. Quite the reverse, in fact.
I've laid the shit out of Pence for the presidency
That said if you agree with the thread header and do think Pence can do it, 14-1 is a good price; I've got an average lay of 22.08 for the presidency which gives an implied 1.472 for a GOP presidency - which is far too short. Hence back Pence at 14-1 for the nomination rather than the presidency
Whoever says FPTP only benefits conservatives and the right better reassess this morning.
With 97% of votes in it looks like the Canadian Conservatives have comfortably won the popular vote for the second consecutive federal election with 34.1% to just 31.9% for Trudeau's Liberals.
However Trudeau's Liberals have equally comfortably still won most seats with 156 to just 121 for O'Toole's Conservatives
FPTP certainly seems to benefit the Conservatives in UK. However, that on this occasion it has worked to the benefit of a different party only underlines the fact that it isn't (ahem) by any means the best system.
At least Trudeau has considered changing it! In this country we're apparently going to see it brought in for elections where 'your lot' think they'll benefit from it.
The problem is, the opposition to FPTP in this country is based on the fact that the Tories are currently winning.
It should also be pointed out FPTP does not always benefit the Tories here either.
Eg in February 1974 Heath's Tories won the popular vote but Wilson's Labour won most seats.
In 2005 too Howard's Tories won the popular vote in England with 35.7% to 35.4% for Blair's Labour but Blair's Labour still comfortably won most seats in England with 286 to just 194 for Howard's Tories
Our HY is absolutely right on this. The present voting system is unfair to Conservatives as well.
How many Conservatives councillors are there today in Liverpool, for example, or Manchester? And how many would we expect is the number of councillors more or less corresponded to the overall Conservative vote? For that matter, when was a Conservative voice last heard in the council chambers of Liverpool and Manchester?
The fact is that the Conservatives represent a significant point of view, and it is outrageous that this is not reflected in the political discussions in certain parts of the country.
Who cares which political party it's "fair" to - surely the point of an electoral system is to be fair to the voters ?
True, but is it not effectively the same thing ie fptp is not fair to the conservative voters in Liverpool
I've laid the shit out of Pence for the presidency
That said if you agree with the thread header and do think Pence can do it, 14-1 is a good price; I've got an average lay of 22.08 for the presidency which gives an implied 1.472 for a GOP presidency - which is far too short. Hence back Pence at 14-1 for the nomination rather than the presidency
It's an implied 1.472 that of a GOP presidency if Pence is the GOP candidate... That does to me seem to be too low, I can almost see a way he wins the nomination but it's hard to see how he goes from nominee to president.
"The project prompted major increases in quality control standards across Australian industries: in 1980, only 35 Australian companies possessed the appropriate quality control certifications for Defence projects, but by 1998 this had increased to over 1,500."
As a cynic about QC certification, I wonder how much that indicates an actual increase in quality control standards and how much it merely indicates that with more defence money sloshing around more companies found it worthwhile to jump through the bureaucratic hoops to get the necessary merit badges to submit bids...
That's a good point. But getting companies into such a mindset can be good as well.
I worked in consumer electronics for five years before I came across rigorous standards. We'd produce good products, and pick up most failures in the factory. It wasn't my area, but AIUI returns were manageable, and priced into the bottom line.
Then, after a year or so at another company, we got an automotive contract. The company (I won't mention which one) really screwed us down hard on quality, making us meet new-to-us standards and use new-to-us processes. In trying to meet these, we found little issues with our hardware and software stack that would cause problems. Most CE clients didn't care about them, but the automotive sector did.
It was a swine, but we produced a higher-quality produce because of it. And the mindset has certainly remained with me as well.
Incidentally, Sony was about the only CE company who had a similar mindset. They were really hard clients, but also fair and rewarding. I liked working with them; by working together, we got better products. Samsung were ... interesting. Apple were gits.
I'm guessing
Sony cared about everything but were sane. Samsung care about some bits in too much detail and ignore other potential issues (as that's common in every samsung product I've ever had) Apple - just absolutely anal about everything and everything...
Mr. Farooq, the reasoning behind a vote may be party-based, but the vote itself *is* cast for an individual.
So we're back to my inputs -> government machine idea. People vote with X intention, but their vote is interpreted in Y way. Which might overlap or it might not.
Systems have to deal with a fundamental problem in democracy. A country has to be run somehow, you can't just leave stuff unsorted, but for massive numbers of issues there are no majorities for anything, only pluralities, and sometimes not even that. hence the merits of generally electing, on a minority of votes, a government in the hands of a centrist party (with some choice) who have at least some reasonably competent members and can't be swayed by a handful of extremists.
We could be better at this, but could be much worse. Filling the house with reps of tiny parties (Israel comes to mind) won't help much.
I see the notion that FPTP is unfair getting trotted out again by the usual suspects. No it's not.
I wanted Trudeau to lose and the Canadian Conservatives to win but I have to accept the result overnight is a fair result.
My family in Canada are Albertan Conservatives but quite frankly in order to get power the Canadian Tories need to stop piling up votes in Alberta and win more votes across the country. Until they do that, last night's result was (regrettably) a fair result.
Looks like Trudeau's gamble is going to be just about worth it - his term is extended for two years beyond his original 2019 victory and he's gained a err single seat. It's very very marginal and no UK Tory 2019 triumph but he's avoided doing a May.
A US politician who would ticks the requirements of a centre-right politician outside the USA is Joe Manchin, the WV Dem senator.
Which shows how different US politics can be.
Although Manchin is 20+ years too old for other countries.
Which also shows how different US politics can be.
He is also a Democrat senator in a Republican State due to its economics. WV is an interesting state when you look at it's politics (there is an article on Pete Buttigieg from earlier this year that touched on WV a number of times due to the relationship between Joe and Pete).
Big ‘the board has full confidence in lights and their ability to stay on this winter’ energy. Reassuring.
For those that can afford twice the price
Yep. Having a series of very comfortable Cons ministers (OE Kwasi this morning) say how everything will be ok and for no one to worry about a few hundred pounds more here or there might be the thing that clicks with the voting public.
What clicks ?
We've had over a decade of "climate change must be stopped" from the establishment.
Do people think that doesn't come without a price tag ?
There's a spike in the cost of a fossil fuel and it's the fault of people who want to stop using fossil fuels?
If the greenies had their way we wouldn't be burning fossil fuels for electricity and we'd be sitting pretty while the rest of the world struggled with a spike in gas prices.
Whoever says FPTP only benefits conservatives and the right better reassess this morning.
With 97% of votes in it looks like the Canadian Conservatives have comfortably won the popular vote for the second consecutive federal election with 34.1% to just 31.9% for Trudeau's Liberals.
However Trudeau's Liberals have equally comfortably still won most seats with 156 to just 121 for O'Toole's Conservatives
FPTP certainly seems to benefit the Conservatives in UK. However, that on this occasion it has worked to the benefit of a different party only underlines the fact that it isn't (ahem) by any means the best system.
At least Trudeau has considered changing it! In this country we're apparently going to see it brought in for elections where 'your lot' think they'll benefit from it.
The problem is, the opposition to FPTP in this country is based on the fact that the Tories are currently winning.
It should also be pointed out FPTP does not always benefit the Tories here either.
Eg in February 1974 Heath's Tories won the popular vote but Wilson's Labour won most seats.
In 2005 too Howard's Tories won the popular vote in England with 35.7% to 35.4% for Blair's Labour but Blair's Labour still comfortably won most seats in England with 286 to just 194 for Howard's Tories
Our HY is absolutely right on this. The present voting system is unfair to Conservatives as well.
How many Conservatives councillors are there today in Liverpool, for example, or Manchester? And how many would we expect is the number of councillors more or less corresponded to the overall Conservative vote? For that matter, when was a Conservative voice last heard in the council chambers of Liverpool and Manchester?
The fact is that the Conservatives represent a significant point of view, and it is outrageous that this is not reflected in the political discussions in certain parts of the country.
Who cares which political party it's "fair" to - surely the point of an electoral system is to be fair to the voters ?
Big ‘the board has full confidence in lights and their ability to stay on this winter’ energy. Reassuring.
For those that can afford twice the price
Yep. Having a series of very comfortable Cons ministers (OE Kwasi this morning) say how everything will be ok and for no one to worry about a few hundred pounds more here or there might be the thing that clicks with the voting public.
What clicks ?
We've had over a decade of "climate change must be stopped" from the establishment.
Do people think that doesn't come without a price tag ?
There's a spike in the cost of a fossil fuel and it's the fault of people who want to stop using fossil fuels?
If the greenies had their way we wouldn't be burning fossil fuels for electricity and we'd be sitting pretty while the rest of the world struggled with a spike in gas prices.
Not that I disagree completely with the principle of your point but a key factor in the current crisis is that the wind ain't blowing.
Whoever says FPTP only benefits conservatives and the right better reassess this morning.
With 97% of votes in it looks like the Canadian Conservatives have comfortably won the popular vote for the second consecutive federal election with 34.1% to just 31.9% for Trudeau's Liberals.
However Trudeau's Liberals have equally comfortably still won most seats with 156 to just 121 for O'Toole's Conservatives
FPTP certainly seems to benefit the Conservatives in UK. However, that on this occasion it has worked to the benefit of a different party only underlines the fact that it isn't (ahem) by any means the best system.
At least Trudeau has considered changing it! In this country we're apparently going to see it brought in for elections where 'your lot' think they'll benefit from it.
The problem is, the opposition to FPTP in this country is based on the fact that the Tories are currently winning.
It is to a degree, but it is also a feature of fragmentation of political parties. FPTP only really works effectively where it is a 2 party system. Unless strongly regionalised such as SNP or BQ other parties have little chance.
I voted Ukip in 2015 and it didn't bother me that they only got one seat for 12.6% of the vote. Ultimately FPTP got us the referendum. Cameron and Osborne had nowhere to hide.
FPTP looks great when it delivers what you want.
Any voting system looks great when it delivers what you want.
Big ‘the board has full confidence in lights and their ability to stay on this winter’ energy. Reassuring.
For those that can afford twice the price
Yep. Having a series of very comfortable Cons ministers (OE Kwasi this morning) say how everything will be ok and for no one to worry about a few hundred pounds more here or there might be the thing that clicks with the voting public.
What clicks ?
We've had over a decade of "climate change must be stopped" from the establishment.
Do people think that doesn't come without a price tag ?
Hitherto perhaps. It has previously meant sorting green and white glass for the council.
But more than what our green targets are costing us my point was that there is a confluence of price-rising events which will hit everyone and which might easily be blamed on HMG. No one really cares about much at all until it hits them in the pocket. This is about to be a big hit to the pocket.
Is separating the glass by colour really a thing in London ?
If people do get upset about increasing energy costs then climate change and costs becomes a much bigger political issue with differences between the parties as to what those costs should be and who should pay them.
The problem with FPTP is that what most people think they are voting for and what they are actually voting for is not the same.
Every election we get vox pops of voters agonising over this leader or that leader. "I can't vote for Jeremy Corbyn" was the endless refrain on Labour doorsteps, even in council elections.
In reality though you vote for the candidate named, not the party, not the leader, not a government. So not only is the electoral system disproportionate, it is also misleading.
Which is why I am a decades-long advocate for fully proportional voting. Vote for the party and candidate you want, not against the one you fear. Someone suggested that UKIP have been a success, but look how brutally unfairly they were treated. 4m votes and zero seats. I may disagree with UKIP politically but people should get who they vote for.
Whoever says FPTP only benefits conservatives and the right better reassess this morning.
With 97% of votes in it looks like the Canadian Conservatives have comfortably won the popular vote for the second consecutive federal election with 34.1% to just 31.9% for Trudeau's Liberals.
However Trudeau's Liberals have equally comfortably still won most seats with 156 to just 121 for O'Toole's Conservatives
FPTP certainly seems to benefit the Conservatives in UK. However, that on this occasion it has worked to the benefit of a different party only underlines the fact that it isn't (ahem) by any means the best system.
At least Trudeau has considered changing it! In this country we're apparently going to see it brought in for elections where 'your lot' think they'll benefit from it.
The problem is, the opposition to FPTP in this country is based on the fact that the Tories are currently winning.
It should also be pointed out FPTP does not always benefit the Tories here either.
Eg in February 1974 Heath's Tories won the popular vote but Wilson's Labour won most seats.
In 2005 too Howard's Tories won the popular vote in England with 35.7% to 35.4% for Blair's Labour but Blair's Labour still comfortably won most seats in England with 286 to just 194 for Howard's Tories
Our HY is absolutely right on this. The present voting system is unfair to Conservatives as well.
How many Conservatives councillors are there today in Liverpool, for example, or Manchester? And how many would we expect is the number of councillors more or less corresponded to the overall Conservative vote? For that matter, when was a Conservative voice last heard in the council chambers of Liverpool and Manchester?
The fact is that the Conservatives represent a significant point of view, and it is outrageous that this is not reflected in the political discussions in certain parts of the country.
Who cares which political party it's "fair" to - surely the point of an electoral system is to be fair to the voters ?
True, but is it not effectively the same thing ie fptp is not fair to the conservative voters in Liverpool
"The project prompted major increases in quality control standards across Australian industries: in 1980, only 35 Australian companies possessed the appropriate quality control certifications for Defence projects, but by 1998 this had increased to over 1,500."
As a cynic about QC certification, I wonder how much that indicates an actual increase in quality control standards and how much it merely indicates that with more defence money sloshing around more companies found it worthwhile to jump through the bureaucratic hoops to get the necessary merit badges to submit bids...
That's a good point. But getting companies into such a mindset can be good as well.
I worked in consumer electronics for five years before I came across rigorous standards. We'd produce good products, and pick up most failures in the factory. It wasn't my area, but AIUI returns were manageable, and priced into the bottom line.
Then, after a year or so at another company, we got an automotive contract. The company (I won't mention which one) really screwed us down hard on quality, making us meet new-to-us standards and use new-to-us processes. In trying to meet these, we found little issues with our hardware and software stack that would cause problems. Most CE clients didn't care about them, but the automotive sector did.
It was a swine, but we produced a higher-quality produce because of it. And the mindset has certainly remained with me as well.
Incidentally, Sony was about the only CE company who had a similar mindset. They were really hard clients, but also fair and rewarding. I liked working with them; by working together, we got better products. Samsung were ... interesting. Apple were gits.
I'm guessing
Sony cared about everything but were sane. Samsung care about some bits in too much detail and ignore other potential issues (as that's common in every samsung product I've ever had) Apple - just absolutely anal about everything and everything...
Sony (in fact, most Japanese companies) would screw you down on the contract. Everything would be in there. They would expect it to be delivered. If they wanted a change, they would renegotiate and pay for it (usually in a follow-on project). The people I interacted with were tough, but pleasant. They said thanks.
Samsung were very good; but it was sometimes clear they didn't know what the technology was doing. Surprisingly to me, at least) language issues abounded. The people I interacted with were nice.
Apple... I need to be careful here. Let's just say I think they promote by the weight of paperwork a manager produces, and that paperwork had to be produced by us. Much of it was, from our point of view, utterly worthless and obviously remained unread based on the questions they would ask months later.
One of the best foreign companies I worked with was a little-known Japanese one (over here) called Funai. Great clients and great people to work with. Utterly rewarding work.
Although with large companies, it can depend on which division you are interacting with.
Whoever says FPTP only benefits conservatives and the right better reassess this morning.
With 97% of votes in it looks like the Canadian Conservatives have comfortably won the popular vote for the second consecutive federal election with 34.1% to just 31.9% for Trudeau's Liberals.
However Trudeau's Liberals have equally comfortably still won most seats with 156 to just 121 for O'Toole's Conservatives
FPTP certainly seems to benefit the Conservatives in UK. However, that on this occasion it has worked to the benefit of a different party only underlines the fact that it isn't (ahem) by any means the best system.
At least Trudeau has considered changing it! In this country we're apparently going to see it brought in for elections where 'your lot' think they'll benefit from it.
The problem is, the opposition to FPTP in this country is based on the fact that the Tories are currently winning.
It should also be pointed out FPTP does not always benefit the Tories here either.
Eg in February 1974 Heath's Tories won the popular vote but Wilson's Labour won most seats.
In 2005 too Howard's Tories won the popular vote in England with 35.7% to 35.4% for Blair's Labour but Blair's Labour still comfortably won most seats in England with 286 to just 194 for Howard's Tories
Our HY is absolutely right on this. The present voting system is unfair to Conservatives as well.
How many Conservatives councillors are there today in Liverpool, for example, or Manchester? And how many would we expect is the number of councillors more or less corresponded to the overall Conservative vote? For that matter, when was a Conservative voice last heard in the council chambers of Liverpool and Manchester?
The fact is that the Conservatives represent a significant point of view, and it is outrageous that this is not reflected in the political discussions in certain parts of the country.
Isn't in swings and roundabouts? In 2005, in England, the Tories received 35.7% of the vote compared to Labour on 35.4%. Yet Labour received 286 seats compared to 194 for the Tories. I don't really remember many complaints back then. Of course this foreshadowed what would come for Labour. By having such a big discrepancy between votes and seats it meant that it was always going to be near a tipping point where a swing of a couple of percentage points would make a big difference. Maybe the same will happen to the Liberals in Canada the next time around?
The submarine contract was a centerpiece of Paris’s strategy for the 21st century. Building on its military strength, diplomatic acumen and technological sophistication to defeat Japan in the original competition for the Australian submarine contract, France felt it had established a position of lasting influence in the heart of the Indo-Pacific. Better still, it had outmaneuvered Britain and broken into the Anglophone world of the Five Eyes to become a privileged defense partner of Australia.
The collapse of this glorious dream hits the French hard and triggers deep-seated fears of decline. With Germany ever more dominant in the European Union, and the Anglophone countries marginalizing French influence in much of the rest of the world, what role is left for France?
I think that slightly overstates the case: the reason the Australians went with the French was because the Americans weren't willing to sell nuclear powered subs to the Aussies, and didn't have a diesel electric design.
Frankly, the French were the only game in town. (Snip)
I'm unsure that's fully correct. The Australian government at the time (2009-2016 timeframe) didn't want nuclear power.
Their main requirements appear to have been As much as possible constructed in Aussie shipyard(s). Conventional powerplant Very large range. Modern, western weapons systems.
They talked to Japan about their existing Soryu class, but the deal broke down (I think mainly because of the amount of work that would be done in Oz). The Spanish sub is a literal joke, and the Germans' one is too small for their requirements.
Therefore they basically needed a bespoke sub - one with the latest tech, but with mahoosive range. Nuclear power is ideal for the latter requirement, but the Australians specifically did not want it. The Aussie who wrote the requirements spec want to work in France, and, lo and behold! - the French offer a conventional version of their Barracuda nuclear submarine. Which, to all intents and purposes, is a brand-new design.
The Aussies should either have dropped the no-nuclear requirement back around 2010, or gone with the Soryu deal and built a second sub base on another coast. It would have saved them a heck of a lot of time, money and anguish.
A submarine base on the northern coast would be simpler, but I don't think there are any suitable deep water harbours.
I have next to no idea about the geography, but I'd be staggered if a coast that length had none. Or is that northern coast all shallow water, like the northeastern reefs?
basing is a big issue that has not really been considered.... the enthusiasm for this deal among Asian neighbours/allies is the elephant in the room for Australia - I see virtually no evidence that Canberra's closest allies (NZ, Indonesia, E Timor, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore) have any enthusiasm at all for this project.... in effect there is nowhere to park these things up apart from US assets in Guam and maybe Japan. Audiences in SE Asia need to be won over as to how this initiative improves regional stabilty and cooperation (which is a big thing in ASEAN)...
Why does a submarine need to be parked up anywhere? The entire point of a submarine is that it's sat/submerged, hidden at sea, location unknown.
Bill Gunston observed, in the case of modern military aircraft, that it was (effectively) purchasing fine Swiss watches. By the ton...
Warships are not quite so far down the same path. Full of bits that break and need fixing.
In a surface ship, pretty much the worst that can happen* is that you need to radio for a tug. In a submarine, the toilet going wrong can sink the ship, killing everyone on board.
Big ‘the board has full confidence in lights and their ability to stay on this winter’ energy. Reassuring.
For those that can afford twice the price
Yep. Having a series of very comfortable Cons ministers (OE Kwasi this morning) say how everything will be ok and for no one to worry about a few hundred pounds more here or there might be the thing that clicks with the voting public.
What clicks ?
We've had over a decade of "climate change must be stopped" from the establishment.
Do people think that doesn't come without a price tag ?
Hitherto perhaps. It has previously meant sorting green and white glass for the council.
But more than what our green targets are costing us my point was that there is a confluence of price-rising events which will hit everyone and which might easily be blamed on HMG. No one really cares about much at all until it hits them in the pocket. This is about to be a big hit to the pocket.
Is separating the glass by colour really a thing in London ?
If people do get upset about increasing energy costs then climate change and costs becomes a much bigger political issue with differences between the parties as to what those costs should be and who should pay them.
Not sure they will. A bit like lockdown. Where does an anti-lockdown voter go.
With green levies which party does a voter go to to minimise them?
But again, my point was not about that, it was about a confluence of measures hitting the pockets of all voters including Conservative ones.
There's a strain of commentary on here 'use the vaccines in kids already, it's a no brainer' and abandon all expert committee advice (The UK's JCVI is seen as too cautious).
Better cautious, than blowing parental trust because of rushed decisions.
Between the two poles of 'COVID is killing children, give them the vaccine' and 'COVID causes hardly any harm in children, don't use the vaccine" is a process of MHRA/JCVI/CMOs oversight (all with differing remits), which comes to a balanced decision. We should trust it.
And trust parents with open transparent communications about risks and benefits, including when the benefits are about wider societal benefits rather than direct benefits to children, and about the safety systems we have to detect harms of vaccines. We should trust them.
I find the idea that the JCVI is too cautious amusing, given they were considered reckless at the start of the vaccination campaign in the UK by extending the dosing interval. When in fact, they making judicious decisions based on best evidence and known science.
JCVI decided against vaccinating under 18 and boosters, then went shopping for reasons why. It was fairly clear why - they believe that the vaccine doses should be sent abroad to developing countries.
When the evidence about 16-16 became too strong, they gave way on that. I believe we can see the result in the following. The 15-19 dives down to join the other vaccinated groups.
In all of this they didn't follow best evidence - strange contortions to avoid evidence from millions of vaccinations of 12-17 around the world.
It's a disgrace. They are staffed by "global citizens", who don't put Britons first, and indeed reject the concept.
It's fine if they 'follow the science' - if they follow their own political compass then their decisions should be subject to political oversight and overruling.
Big ‘the board has full confidence in lights and their ability to stay on this winter’ energy. Reassuring.
For those that can afford twice the price
Yep. Having a series of very comfortable Cons ministers (OE Kwasi this morning) say how everything will be ok and for no one to worry about a few hundred pounds more here or there might be the thing that clicks with the voting public.
What clicks ?
We've had over a decade of "climate change must be stopped" from the establishment.
Do people think that doesn't come without a price tag ?
There's a spike in the cost of a fossil fuel and it's the fault of people who want to stop using fossil fuels?
If the greenies had their way we wouldn't be burning fossil fuels for electricity and we'd be sitting pretty while the rest of the world struggled with a spike in gas prices.
Not that I disagree completely with the principle of your point but a key factor in the current crisis is that the wind ain't blowing.
For which, blame a system that has embraced reliance on solar - with 50% obsolescence, more so when needed for heating in winter - and wind, which is buggered when there is a high pressure system over the country, which is often when we have the hardest cold snaps.
Meanwhile, the tides keep delivering power to our doorsteps, twice a day....Ain't no way an interconnector fire or a petulant Putin is going to stop that.
Even the optimists in are saying that the first boat might be in the water before the end of the 2030s, so it's all going to take rather a long time.
What became the Astute program was already underway when I joined the Royal Navy in1988. When I left, almost 20 years later, the first boat hadn't been launched yet and wouldn't be commissioned for another 5 years.
These programs take a very long time and the limiting factor isn't money or facilities or technology but availability of appropriately educated and experienced people in engineering and leadership roles on both sides of the military/civvie fence.
Big ‘the board has full confidence in lights and their ability to stay on this winter’ energy. Reassuring.
For those that can afford twice the price
Yep. Having a series of very comfortable Cons ministers (OE Kwasi this morning) say how everything will be ok and for no one to worry about a few hundred pounds more here or there might be the thing that clicks with the voting public.
What clicks ?
We've had over a decade of "climate change must be stopped" from the establishment.
Do people think that doesn't come without a price tag ?
There's a spike in the cost of a fossil fuel and it's the fault of people who want to stop using fossil fuels?
If the greenies had their way we wouldn't be burning fossil fuels for electricity and we'd be sitting pretty while the rest of the world struggled with a spike in gas prices.
Not that I disagree completely with the principle of your point but a key factor in the current crisis is that the wind ain't blowing.
For which, blame a system that has embraced reliance on solar - with 50% obsolescence, more so when needed for heating in winter - and wind, which is buggered when there is a high pressure system over the country, which is often when we have the hardest cold snaps.
Meanwhile, the tides keep delivering power to our doorsteps, twice a day....Ain't no way an interconnector fire or a petulant Putin is going to stop that.
Don't disagree.
But in addition to your first paragraph the blame for UK reserves being so low is perhaps easier to apportion.
I see the notion that FPTP is unfair getting trotted out again by the usual suspects. No it's not.
I wanted Trudeau to lose and the Canadian Conservatives to win but I have to accept the result overnight is a fair result.
My family in Canada are Albertan Conservatives but quite frankly in order to get power the Canadian Tories need to stop piling up votes in Alberta and win more votes across the country. Until they do that, last night's result was (regrettably) a fair result.
Canadian Conservatives have done a bit better in the Maritimes and in Ontario, and don't forget they are ahead on votes, but do have a bit of an image problem in certain circles - a bit Trumpy at times, and too wet in others.
They shouldn't have a problem getting from 33-34% of the vote up to 40% but they need to broaden their coalition with a distinctly Canadian appeal first. At present, it's too much of an English rural Canada vibe.
An electoral system is a machine for turning inputs into governments. The question is, what inputs do we care to measure? In FPTP, one of the most important inputs is how spread out / concentrated your voters are. I don't understand why anyone would think it's necessary to have that reflected in the result.
My proposal would be for an electoral system that better reflects how many ACTUAL votes there are for a party. Wild, I know.
A comment which utterly misunderstands what people are actually voting for at an election.
Does it, though? Listen to people talking on this forum. People vote for parties, party leaders, and yes, individual candidates. Perhaps in that order.
The idea that each constituency is an island competition between individuals is a charming fiction, but perhaps 200 years out of date, if it ever was true even then.
Take Canada. There's been a fair amount of talk today about parties, and two or three leaders. How many of you who have commented have said anything about local issues or candidates? As Canada, so us.
Nope. Legally you are voting for an individual representative. That is the fundamental basis of our system. And more than a few of us still operate on that basis. Who that representative is beholden to within their party does play a part but by no means the most important part. We may use the shorthand of voting for or against a party but some of us at least still vote according to the way the system is supposed to work. That is why we allow MPs to cross the floor. Anything else puts far to much power in the hands of the parties and we should be trying to reduce that power not increase it.
Big ‘the board has full confidence in lights and their ability to stay on this winter’ energy. Reassuring.
For those that can afford twice the price
Yep. Having a series of very comfortable Cons ministers (OE Kwasi this morning) say how everything will be ok and for no one to worry about a few hundred pounds more here or there might be the thing that clicks with the voting public.
What clicks ?
We've had over a decade of "climate change must be stopped" from the establishment.
Do people think that doesn't come without a price tag ?
There's a spike in the cost of a fossil fuel and it's the fault of people who want to stop using fossil fuels?
If the greenies had their way we wouldn't be burning fossil fuels for electricity and we'd be sitting pretty while the rest of the world struggled with a spike in gas prices.
To stop using fossil fuels the UK would have had to spend far, far more on developing alternative energy sources.
That would have come at a financial cost as well.
Not to mention it would have led to supply risks on those days when the wind doesn't blow.
Big ‘the board has full confidence in lights and their ability to stay on this winter’ energy. Reassuring.
For those that can afford twice the price
Yep. Having a series of very comfortable Cons ministers (OE Kwasi this morning) say how everything will be ok and for no one to worry about a few hundred pounds more here or there might be the thing that clicks with the voting public.
What clicks ?
We've had over a decade of "climate change must be stopped" from the establishment.
Do people think that doesn't come without a price tag ?
There's a spike in the cost of a fossil fuel and it's the fault of people who want to stop using fossil fuels?
If the greenies had their way we wouldn't be burning fossil fuels for electricity and we'd be sitting pretty while the rest of the world struggled with a spike in gas prices.
There's a spike in the cost because demand is way, way up and supply is down. Demand is up because various European countries with large wind power reliance have discovered it's an intermittent power source so have to cycle up OCGTs and CCGTs to keep the lights on. Supply is down because those same European countries have previously sought to make gas an uneconomic energy source to encourage investment in renewables.
That's the situation we're in. I don't even think we did anything particularly wrong, we should be encouraging renewables investment and we should be discouraging fossil fuel usage. We should also have ensured we had gas storage solutions and invested in backup power over the last 10 years as well as renewables given the intermittent nature of wind and solar.
Big ‘the board has full confidence in lights and their ability to stay on this winter’ energy. Reassuring.
For those that can afford twice the price
Yep. Having a series of very comfortable Cons ministers (OE Kwasi this morning) say how everything will be ok and for no one to worry about a few hundred pounds more here or there might be the thing that clicks with the voting public.
What clicks ?
We've had over a decade of "climate change must be stopped" from the establishment.
Do people think that doesn't come without a price tag ?
Hitherto perhaps. It has previously meant sorting green and white glass for the council.
But more than what our green targets are costing us my point was that there is a confluence of price-rising events which will hit everyone and which might easily be blamed on HMG. No one really cares about much at all until it hits them in the pocket. This is about to be a big hit to the pocket.
Is separating the glass by colour really a thing in London ?
If people do get upset about increasing energy costs then climate change and costs becomes a much bigger political issue with differences between the parties as to what those costs should be and who should pay them.
We've had sorting glass by colour until a couple of weeks ago, although the guys who worked on the lorries said that they put all the glass into the one skip, because the lorry which did have separate compartments had broken down and couldn't be fixed.
Big ‘the board has full confidence in lights and their ability to stay on this winter’ energy. Reassuring.
For those that can afford twice the price
Yep. Having a series of very comfortable Cons ministers (OE Kwasi this morning) say how everything will be ok and for no one to worry about a few hundred pounds more here or there might be the thing that clicks with the voting public.
What clicks ?
We've had over a decade of "climate change must be stopped" from the establishment.
Do people think that doesn't come without a price tag ?
There's a spike in the cost of a fossil fuel and it's the fault of people who want to stop using fossil fuels?
If the greenies had their way we wouldn't be burning fossil fuels for electricity and we'd be sitting pretty while the rest of the world struggled with a spike in gas prices.
Though we are needing to burn gas because the wind farms we built aren't working right now and gas does work. That's an issue.
There's a strain of commentary on here 'use the vaccines in kids already, it's a no brainer' and abandon all expert committee advice (The UK's JCVI is seen as too cautious).
Better cautious, than blowing parental trust because of rushed decisions.
Between the two poles of 'COVID is killing children, give them the vaccine' and 'COVID causes hardly any harm in children, don't use the vaccine" is a process of MHRA/JCVI/CMOs oversight (all with differing remits), which comes to a balanced decision. We should trust it.
And trust parents with open transparent communications about risks and benefits, including when the benefits are about wider societal benefits rather than direct benefits to children, and about the safety systems we have to detect harms of vaccines. We should trust them.
I find the idea that the JCVI is too cautious amusing, given they were considered reckless at the start of the vaccination campaign in the UK by extending the dosing interval. When in fact, they making judicious decisions based on best evidence and known science.
JCVI decided against vaccinating under 18 and boosters, then went shopping for reasons why. It was fairly clear why - they believe that the vaccine doses should be sent abroad to developing countries.
When the evidence about 16-16 became too strong, they gave way on that. I believe we can see the result in the following. The 15-19 dives down to join the other vaccinated groups.
In all of this they didn't follow best evidence - strange contortions to avoid evidence from millions of vaccinations of 12-17 around the world.
It's a disgrace. They are staffed by "global citizens", who don't put Britons first, and indeed reject the concept.
It's fine if they 'follow the science' - if they follow their own political compass then their decisions should be subject to political oversight and overruling.
What I understand to have happened is this - JCVI kept kicking the can down the road. Javid (and others) pointed out that their remit didn't include the international situation and after a lot of ugly pushing and shoving, JCVI passed the matter to the CMOs.
I'm making use of a Northern Delay Repay free ticket for a trip to the seaside.
Change at Wigan for Southport. I wonder if I'll actually be able to see the sea?
Haven't been to Southport in a long time but from what I remember the sea is a bloody long long way from the so-called prom.
I've been twice before and never seen the sea. Hopefully I'll be lucky with a high tide.
When I was very young Southport was our regular weekend away day and my father took me on the boating lake and taught me the basics of sailing and I was only 8- 9 (c1951)
Mr. Farooq, the reasoning behind a vote may be party-based, but the vote itself *is* cast for an individual.
So we're back to my inputs -> government machine idea. People vote with X intention, but their vote is interpreted in Y way. Which might overlap or it might not.
On the ballot paper you are given both candidate and party. I vote for the party. I don't give a shit who the candidate is, the Conservative will win anyway whether I vote for him or not. I vote for the party so at least the vote is added to the national pile.
Whoever says FPTP only benefits conservatives and the right better reassess this morning.
With 97% of votes in it looks like the Canadian Conservatives have comfortably won the popular vote for the second consecutive federal election with 34.1% to just 31.9% for Trudeau's Liberals.
However Trudeau's Liberals have equally comfortably still won most seats with 156 to just 121 for O'Toole's Conservatives
FPTP certainly seems to benefit the Conservatives in UK. However, that on this occasion it has worked to the benefit of a different party only underlines the fact that it isn't (ahem) by any means the best system.
At least Trudeau has considered changing it! In this country we're apparently going to see it brought in for elections where 'your lot' think they'll benefit from it.
The problem is, the opposition to FPTP in this country is based on the fact that the Tories are currently winning.
It is to a degree, but it is also a feature of fragmentation of political parties. FPTP only really works effectively where it is a 2 party system. Unless strongly regionalised such as SNP or BQ other parties have little chance.
I voted Ukip in 2015 and it didn't bother me that they only got one seat for 12.6% of the vote. Ultimately FPTP got us the referendum. Cameron and Osborne had nowhere to hide.
Yes, parties can influence without winning seats. The Greens are another example, but it is much weaker influence than a block in Parliament.
The choice of parties in Germany is more to my taste.
I'd say Ukip have been a lot more successful than the Lib Dems over the last 30 years.
And in Germany, they have a choice of parties, but do they have a choice of government? I guess we're about to find out.
It’s a shame FPTP went so badly for UKIP, as if we had won 10-15 seats, there’d have been a party in the commons outlining the case for Brexit, and the madness of 2016-2019 might have been avoided. More likely, if the Kipper MPs had been crap, or Leave associated solely with them, it could have been a factor in a Remain win.
I guess a narrow Remain win with 10-15 UKIP MPs already in the commons may have meant further electoral success for UKIP subsequently though
Big ‘the board has full confidence in lights and their ability to stay on this winter’ energy. Reassuring.
For those that can afford twice the price
Yep. Having a series of very comfortable Cons ministers (OE Kwasi this morning) say how everything will be ok and for no one to worry about a few hundred pounds more here or there might be the thing that clicks with the voting public.
What clicks ?
We've had over a decade of "climate change must be stopped" from the establishment.
Do people think that doesn't come without a price tag ?
Hitherto perhaps. It has previously meant sorting green and white glass for the council.
But more than what our green targets are costing us my point was that there is a confluence of price-rising events which will hit everyone and which might easily be blamed on HMG. No one really cares about much at all until it hits them in the pocket. This is about to be a big hit to the pocket.
Is separating the glass by colour really a thing in London ?
If people do get upset about increasing energy costs then climate change and costs becomes a much bigger political issue with differences between the parties as to what those costs should be and who should pay them.
We've had sorting glass by colour until a couple of weeks ago, although the guys who worked on the lorries said that they put all the glass into the one skip, because the lorry which did have separate compartments had broken down and couldn't be fixed.
My local council insists on colour separation. Then sends round lorries that tip it all in to one compartment.
An electoral system is a machine for turning inputs into governments. The question is, what inputs do we care to measure? In FPTP, one of the most important inputs is how spread out / concentrated your voters are. I don't understand why anyone would think it's necessary to have that reflected in the result.
My proposal would be for an electoral system that better reflects how many ACTUAL votes there are for a party. Wild, I know.
A comment which utterly misunderstands what people are actually voting for at an election.
Does it, though? Listen to people talking on this forum. People vote for parties, party leaders, and yes, individual candidates. Perhaps in that order.
The idea that each constituency is an island competition between individuals is a charming fiction, but perhaps 200 years out of date, if it ever was true even then.
Take Canada. There's been a fair amount of talk today about parties, and two or three leaders. How many of you who have commented have said anything about local issues or candidates? As Canada, so us.
Nope. Legally you are voting for an individual representative. That is the fundamental basis of our system. And more than a few of us still operate on that basis. Who that representative is beholden to within their party does play a part but by no means the most important part. We may use the shorthand of voting for or against a party but some of us at least still vote according to the way the system is supposed to work. That is why we allow MPs to cross the floor. Anything else puts far to much power in the hands of the parties and we should be trying to reduce that power not increase it.
We can retail the individualism of an MP or councillor able to cross the floor and elect them proportionately. As has just been pointed out FPTP wipes out the Tories in cities like Manchester which is absurd.
Up here I am about to start campaigning to become a LibDem councillor and we use STV for council elections. Its fair, it works, representatives are elected as individuals and are free to cross the floor (and often do).
Why does a submarine need to be parked up anywhere? The entire point of a submarine is that it's sat/submerged, hidden at sea, location unknown.
They are massive dock queens and spend more than 50% of their lives in dock being fixed, maintained, rearmed, fumigated for the smell of jizz/WD40, etc.
I imagine you haven't bothered watching BBC's submerged drama Vigil (if not, don't worry, it's overheated rubbish), but the sub interiors look incredibly sanitised, more like the shiny office of a tech company than a barrel for sweaty ratings. Is that representative of the modern Silent Service experience
I see the notion that FPTP is unfair getting trotted out again by the usual suspects. No it's not.
I wanted Trudeau to lose and the Canadian Conservatives to win but I have to accept the result overnight is a fair result.
My family in Canada are Albertan Conservatives but quite frankly in order to get power the Canadian Tories need to stop piling up votes in Alberta and win more votes across the country. Until they do that, last night's result was (regrettably) a fair result.
Just because you say it, doesn't make it right. Most measurable outcomes seem to say the opposite.
1) The winning party can often not get the most seats
2) Areas with a larger amount of supporters can swamp out any other representation (Alberta, BQ, Scotland, Northern Cities in England)
3) Very poor representation for smaller parties (NDP, LibDem, PC, Grn, RefUK, UKIP, Con/Lab/LDP in Scotland)
4) Massive majority and supreme power of Government for only 40%+,
5) Massively neutered parliament.
To be honest, Philip, I don't know why you don't push for an all-powerful president with no parliament, ie a dictatorship.
Big ‘the board has full confidence in lights and their ability to stay on this winter’ energy. Reassuring.
For those that can afford twice the price
Yep. Having a series of very comfortable Cons ministers (OE Kwasi this morning) say how everything will be ok and for no one to worry about a few hundred pounds more here or there might be the thing that clicks with the voting public.
What clicks ?
We've had over a decade of "climate change must be stopped" from the establishment.
Do people think that doesn't come without a price tag ?
There's a spike in the cost of a fossil fuel and it's the fault of people who want to stop using fossil fuels?
If the greenies had their way we wouldn't be burning fossil fuels for electricity and we'd be sitting pretty while the rest of the world struggled with a spike in gas prices.
Though we are needing to burn gas because the wind farms we built aren't working right now and gas does work. That's an issue.
That's a base load issue. The base needs to be consistent and green emission free (so nuclear) but that's got a different set of issues.
5 live were musing that as Boris was born in New York could he become POTUS
QTWAIN. He renounced his citizenship therefore he's no longer a natural born citizen.
If he wanted to become a US citizen again he'd need to be naturalized (sic) and therefore not a natural born citizen.
I'm not sure that's the case, if he were to get citizenship in the US it would be based on his birth certificate. Either way I don't see Americans voting for Boris as POTUS. It would be funny if he went for it though.
This post from Guido Gianasso (Professor of Leadership at HEC Paris in Qatar / Honorary Consul of Romania in Geneva) has flashed up in my feed and currently has over 103,000 likes and loves, with several across my network. There isn't a single critical comment beneath it.
Read it, and you'll see he's co-opted Emma - with a MASSIVE picture of her on the post- to support his own pre-existing political views. He manages to crowbar Brexit in and also has the audacity to say that Emma is not British and is evidence that national identities are fading, which he thinks is a good thing, as he feels they can only be ethnocentrically based. This is fairly typical of the views advertised on the professional networking site LinkedIn and the "global citizens" that inhabit it:
"EMMA RADUCANU AND THE ILLUSION OF NATIONS
A new tennis champion has emerged. It is fascinating to observe the dynamics taking place around this young lady.
Emma's father is Romanian. Her name is Romanian and she speaks Romanian fluently. Hence she is considered Romanian by millions of Romanians. But Emma has actually never lived in Romania.
Emma's mother is Chinese. She speaks fluent Chinese, as a recent video available on YouTube shows. Hence she is considered a Chinese hero by millions of Chinese, who seem to forget that the PRC discourages international marriages.
Emma was born in Canada but has lived most of her life and trained in the UK. Hence she is considered British by most Britons and was publicly congratulated by the Queen. But the British public that now celebrates her success is the same that voted Brexit with the very objective to make it difficult for East Europeans such as Emma and her father to live in the UK.
The reality is that Emma is not Romanian, Chinese or British. She is much more. She is the outstanding result of the combination of Romanian talent, Chinese work ethics and British openness and sport infrastructure.
At a time when many countries are going back to very ethnocentric models and policies, Emma is the best evidence that National identities are fading and we must embrace a geocentric mindset. Emma Raducanu is the future of humankind."
5 live were musing that as Boris was born in New York could he become POTUS
QTWAIN. He renounced his citizenship therefore he's no longer a natural born citizen.
If he wanted to become a US citizen again he'd need to be naturalized (sic) and therefore not a natural born citizen.
I'm not sure that's the case, if he were to get citizenship in the US it would be based on his birth certificate. Either way I don't see Americans voting for Boris as POTUS. It would be funny if he went for it though.
He can't get citizenship based on his birth certificate anymore can he? He renounced it.
Once you renounce your citizenship I don't think there's a do-over take back option to regain it.
This post from Guido Gianasso (Professor of Leadership at HEC Paris in Qatar / Honorary Consul of Romania in Geneva) has flashed up in my feed and currently has over 103,000 likes and loves, with several across my network. There isn't a single critical comment beneath it.
Read it, and you'll see he's co-opted Emma - with a MASSIVE picture of her on the post- to support his own pre-existing political views. He manages to crowbar Brexit in and also has the audacity to say that Emma is not British and is evidence that national identities are fading, which he thinks is a good thing, as he feels they can only be ethnocentrically based. This is fairly typical of the views advertised on the professional networking site LinkedIn and the "global citizens" that inhabit it:
"EMMA RADUCANU AND THE ILLUSION OF NATIONS
A new tennis champion has emerged. It is fascinating to observe the dynamics taking place around this young lady.
Emma's father is Romanian. Her name is Romanian and she speaks Romanian fluently. Hence she is considered Romanian by millions of Romanians. But Emma has actually never lived in Romania.
Emma's mother is Chinese. She speaks fluent Chinese, as a recent video available on YouTube shows. Hence she is considered a Chinese hero by millions of Chinese, who seem to forget that the PRC discourages international marriages.
Emma was born in Canada but has lived most of her life and trained in the UK. Hence she is considered British by most Britons and was publicly congratulated by the Queen. But the British public that now celebrates her success is the same that voted Brexit with the very objective to make it difficult for East Europeans such as Emma and her father to live in the UK.
The reality is that Emma is not Romanian, Chinese or British. She is much more. She is the outstanding result of the combination of Romanian talent, Chinese work ethics and British openness and sport infrastructure.
At a time when many countries are going back to very ethnocentric models and policies, Emma is the best evidence that National identities are fading and we must embrace a geocentric mindset. Emma Raducanu is the future of humankind."
It would be interesting to learn what Emma believes
An electoral system is a machine for turning inputs into governments. The question is, what inputs do we care to measure? In FPTP, one of the most important inputs is how spread out / concentrated your voters are. I don't understand why anyone would think it's necessary to have that reflected in the result.
My proposal would be for an electoral system that better reflects how many ACTUAL votes there are for a party. Wild, I know.
A comment which utterly misunderstands what people are actually voting for at an election.
Does it, though? Listen to people talking on this forum. People vote for parties, party leaders, and yes, individual candidates. Perhaps in that order.
The idea that each constituency is an island competition between individuals is a charming fiction, but perhaps 200 years out of date, if it ever was true even then.
Take Canada. There's been a fair amount of talk today about parties, and two or three leaders. How many of you who have commented have said anything about local issues or candidates? As Canada, so us.
Nope. Legally you are voting for an individual representative. That is the fundamental basis of our system. And more than a few of us still operate on that basis. Who that representative is beholden to within their party does play a part but by no means the most important part. We may use the shorthand of voting for or against a party but some of us at least still vote according to the way the system is supposed to work. That is why we allow MPs to cross the floor. Anything else puts far to much power in the hands of the parties and we should be trying to reduce that power not increase it.
We can retail the individualism of an MP or councillor able to cross the floor and elect them proportionately. As has just been pointed out FPTP wipes out the Tories in cities like Manchester which is absurd.
Up here I am about to start campaigning to become a LibDem councillor and we use STV for council elections. Its fair, it works, representatives are elected as individuals and are free to cross the floor (and often do).
The only way to do that is, as you say, with STV or with AV - something I voted for but which the public sadly rejected.
Any other PR system based on the proportion of votes gained by a party automatically gives the party the moral high ground in the claim that they can control MPs and that we are voting for a party not an individual representative. It gives more power to the parties rather than taking it away and is something that needs to be resisted. You can guess which systems the parties campaigning for electoral reform would prefer us to use.
Canadian politics anecdote. My wife's cousin's daughters in BC looked at me askance when I told them I would vote NDP. Some political reeducation is required next time they come to visit.
Another of her cousins in Ontario is a Liberal member. He tried to get himself selected as a parliamentary candidate a few years ago but wasn't successful.
Whoever says FPTP only benefits conservatives and the right better reassess this morning.
With 97% of votes in it looks like the Canadian Conservatives have comfortably won the popular vote for the second consecutive federal election with 34.1% to just 31.9% for Trudeau's Liberals.
However Trudeau's Liberals have equally comfortably still won most seats with 156 to just 121 for O'Toole's Conservatives
FPTP certainly seems to benefit the Conservatives in UK. However, that on this occasion it has worked to the benefit of a different party only underlines the fact that it isn't (ahem) by any means the best system.
At least Trudeau has considered changing it! In this country we're apparently going to see it brought in for elections where 'your lot' think they'll benefit from it.
The problem is, the opposition to FPTP in this country is based on the fact that the Tories are currently winning.
It is to a degree, but it is also a feature of fragmentation of political parties. FPTP only really works effectively where it is a 2 party system. Unless strongly regionalised such as SNP or BQ other parties have little chance.
I voted Ukip in 2015 and it didn't bother me that they only got one seat for 12.6% of the vote. Ultimately FPTP got us the referendum. Cameron and Osborne had nowhere to hide.
Yes, parties can influence without winning seats. The Greens are another example, but it is much weaker influence than a block in Parliament.
The choice of parties in Germany is more to my taste.
I'd say Ukip have been a lot more successful than the Lib Dems over the last 30 years.
And in Germany, they have a choice of parties, but do they have a choice of government? I guess we're about to find out.
It’s a shame FPTP went so badly for UKIP, as if we had won 10-15 seats, there’d have been a party in the commons outlining the case for Brexit, and the madness of 2016-2019 might have been avoided. More likely, if the Kipper MPs had been crap, or Leave associated solely with them, it could have been a factor in a Remain win.
I guess a narrow Remain win with 10-15 UKIP MPs already in the commons may have meant further electoral success for UKIP subsequently though
I'm about as far away from kipper politics as you can get. But I agree with you - people should get what they vote for. 4m votes should not have resulted in zero MPs.
5 live were musing that as Boris was born in New York could he become POTUS
QTWAIN. He renounced his citizenship therefore he's no longer a natural born citizen.
If he wanted to become a US citizen again he'd need to be naturalized (sic) and therefore not a natural born citizen.
I'm not sure that's the case, if he were to get citizenship in the US it would be based on his birth certificate. Either way I don't see Americans voting for Boris as POTUS. It would be funny if he went for it though.
He can't get citizenship based on his birth certificate anymore can he? He renounced it.
Once you renounce your citizenship I don't think there's a do-over take back option to regain it.
I'd be surprised if that was the case, though definitely not an expert in such things.
"The project prompted major increases in quality control standards across Australian industries: in 1980, only 35 Australian companies possessed the appropriate quality control certifications for Defence projects, but by 1998 this had increased to over 1,500."
As a cynic about QC certification, I wonder how much that indicates an actual increase in quality control standards and how much it merely indicates that with more defence money sloshing around more companies found it worthwhile to jump through the bureaucratic hoops to get the necessary merit badges to submit bids...
Most of the QC certifications appear to be at least as much about the right sort of box-ticking, as they are at demonstrating the competence that one might expect said certification to represent.
5 live were musing that as Boris was born in New York could he become POTUS
QTWAIN. He renounced his citizenship therefore he's no longer a natural born citizen.
If he wanted to become a US citizen again he'd need to be naturalized (sic) and therefore not a natural born citizen.
I'm not sure that's the case, if he were to get citizenship in the US it would be based on his birth certificate. Either way I don't see Americans voting for Boris as POTUS. It would be funny if he went for it though.
He can't get citizenship based on his birth certificate anymore can he? He renounced it.
Once you renounce your citizenship I don't think there's a do-over take back option to regain it.
Big ‘the board has full confidence in lights and their ability to stay on this winter’ energy. Reassuring.
For those that can afford twice the price
Yep. Having a series of very comfortable Cons ministers (OE Kwasi this morning) say how everything will be ok and for no one to worry about a few hundred pounds more here or there might be the thing that clicks with the voting public.
What clicks ?
We've had over a decade of "climate change must be stopped" from the establishment.
Do people think that doesn't come without a price tag ?
Hitherto perhaps. It has previously meant sorting green and white glass for the council.
But more than what our green targets are costing us my point was that there is a confluence of price-rising events which will hit everyone and which might easily be blamed on HMG. No one really cares about much at all until it hits them in the pocket. This is about to be a big hit to the pocket.
Is separating the glass by colour really a thing in London ?
If people do get upset about increasing energy costs then climate change and costs becomes a much bigger political issue with differences between the parties as to what those costs should be and who should pay them.
We've had sorting glass by colour until a couple of weeks ago, although the guys who worked on the lorries said that they put all the glass into the one skip, because the lorry which did have separate compartments had broken down and couldn't be fixed.
My local council insists on colour separation. Then sends round lorries that tip it all in to one compartment.
Comments
Energy prices
UC
NI
I wonder how much that might become a theme. Kwasi doing the rounds saying how everything is wonderful.
Might easily have cut-through. Is there a PMQs tomorrow? Let's see SKS lead on trans issues.
Better cautious, than blowing parental trust because of rushed decisions.
Between the two poles of 'COVID is killing children, give them the vaccine' and 'COVID causes hardly any harm in children, don't use the vaccine" is a process of MHRA/JCVI/CMOs oversight (all with differing remits), which comes to a balanced decision. We should trust it.
And trust parents with open transparent communications about risks and benefits, including when the benefits are about wider societal benefits rather than direct benefits to children, and about the safety systems we have to detect harms of vaccines. We should trust them.
I find the idea that the JCVI is too cautious amusing, given they were considered reckless at the start of the vaccination campaign in the UK by extending the dosing interval. When in fact, they making judicious decisions based on best evidence and known science.
https://twitter.com/Cox_A_R/status/1440209398802960390?s=20
https://www.economist.com/international/2021/09/17/what-does-the-australian-submarine-deal-mean-for-non-proliferation
TRIGA and similar reactors are all over the place.
Non-nuclear weapons states such as Japan have tons of plutonium and, at one stage they were planning on shipping the stuff round the world to the UK for reprocessing and back again.
He didn't have friends, money or power when he became VP. He probably has *less* now.
But the unanswered questions around this deal do encourage that.
Even the optimists in are saying that the first boat might be in the water before the end of the 2030s, so it's all going to take rather a long time.
When the evidence about 16-16 became too strong, they gave way on that. I believe we can see the result in the following. The 15-19 dives down to join the other vaccinated groups.
In all of this they didn't follow best evidence - strange contortions to avoid evidence from millions of vaccinations of 12-17 around the world.
How many Conservatives councillors are there today in Liverpool, for example, or Manchester? And how many would we expect is the number of councillors more or less corresponded to the overall Conservative vote? For that matter, when was a Conservative voice last heard in the council chambers of Liverpool and Manchester?
The fact is that the Conservatives represent a significant point of view, and it is outrageous that this is not reflected in the political discussions in certain parts of the country.
In FPTP, one of the most important inputs is how spread out / concentrated your voters are. I don't understand why anyone would think it's necessary to have that reflected in the result.
My proposal would be for an electoral system that better reflects how many ACTUAL votes there are for a party. Wild, I know.
These programs take a very long time and the limiting factor isn't money or facilities or technology but availability of appropriately educated and experienced people in engineering and leadership roles on both sides of the military/civvie fence.
Listen to people talking on this forum. People vote for parties, party leaders, and yes, individual candidates. Perhaps in that order.
The idea that each constituency is an island competition between individuals is a charming fiction, but perhaps 200 years out of date, if it ever was true even then.
Take Canada. There's been a fair amount of talk today about parties, and two or three leaders. How many of you who have commented have said anything about local issues or candidates? As Canada, so us.
Now I go back and forth on exactly what type of hybrid arrangement I'd prefer, there are pluses and minuses to all options, it's why it can only be that on balance we prefer X not that it is the only fair option.
We've had over a decade of "climate change must be stopped" from the establishment.
Do people think that doesn't come without a price tag ?
I worked in consumer electronics for five years before I came across rigorous standards. We'd produce good products, and pick up most failures in the factory. It wasn't my area, but AIUI returns were manageable, and priced into the bottom line.
Then, after a year or so at another company, we got an automotive contract. The company (I won't mention which one) really screwed us down hard on quality, making us meet new-to-us standards and use new-to-us processes. In trying to meet these, we found little issues with our hardware and software stack that would cause problems. Most CE clients didn't care about them, but the automotive sector did.
It was a swine, but we produced a higher-quality produce because of it. And the mindset has certainly remained with me as well.
Incidentally, Sony was about the only CE company who had a similar mindset. They were really hard clients, but also fair and rewarding. I liked working with them; by working together, we got better products. Samsung were ... interesting. Apple were gits.
But more than what our green targets are costing us my point was that there is a confluence of price-rising events which will hit everyone and which might easily be blamed on HMG. No one really cares about much at all until it hits them in the pocket. This is about to be a big hit to the pocket.
I'm making use of a Northern Delay Repay free ticket for a trip to the seaside.
Change at Wigan for Southport. I wonder if I'll actually be able to see the sea?
Which shows how different US politics can be.
Although Manchin is 20+ years too old for other countries.
Which also shows how different US politics can be.
Sony cared about everything but were sane.
Samsung care about some bits in too much detail and ignore other potential issues (as that's common in every samsung product I've ever had)
Apple - just absolutely anal about everything and everything...
We could be better at this, but could be much worse. Filling the house with reps of tiny parties (Israel comes to mind) won't help much.
I wanted Trudeau to lose and the Canadian Conservatives to win but I have to accept the result overnight is a fair result.
My family in Canada are Albertan Conservatives but quite frankly in order to get power the Canadian Tories need to stop piling up votes in Alberta and win more votes across the country. Until they do that, last night's result was (regrettably) a fair result.
It's very very marginal and no UK Tory 2019 triumph but he's avoided doing a May.
Edit slightly wrong - I think the article I remember is https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/joe-manchin-the-democrat-becoming-bidens-biggest-headache-ldtzd8mzk
If the greenies had their way we wouldn't be burning fossil fuels for electricity and we'd be sitting pretty while the rest of the world struggled with a spike in gas prices.
That would never catch on.
The parties d'Hondt want a proportional system.
If people do get upset about increasing energy costs then climate change and costs becomes a much bigger political issue with differences between the parties as to what those costs should be and who should pay them.
Every election we get vox pops of voters agonising over this leader or that leader. "I can't vote for Jeremy Corbyn" was the endless refrain on Labour doorsteps, even in council elections.
In reality though you vote for the candidate named, not the party, not the leader, not a government. So not only is the electoral system disproportionate, it is also misleading.
Which is why I am a decades-long advocate for fully proportional voting. Vote for the party and candidate you want, not against the one you fear. Someone suggested that UKIP have been a success, but look how brutally unfairly they were treated. 4m votes and zero seats. I may disagree with UKIP politically but people should get who they vote for.
Samsung were very good; but it was sometimes clear they didn't know what the technology was doing. Surprisingly to me, at least) language issues abounded. The people I interacted with were nice.
Apple... I need to be careful here. Let's just say I think they promote by the weight of paperwork a manager produces, and that paperwork had to be produced by us. Much of it was, from our point of view, utterly worthless and obviously remained unread based on the questions they would ask months later.
One of the best foreign companies I worked with was a little-known Japanese one (over here) called Funai. Great clients and great people to work with. Utterly rewarding work.
Although with large companies, it can depend on which division you are interacting with.
https://twitter.com/SkyNewsBreak/status/1440231430676619280?s=20
Warships are not quite so far down the same path. Full of bits that break and need fixing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disappearance_of_ARA_San_Juan is what happens when you don't do the maintenance on your submarines, thoroughly.
In a surface ship, pretty much the worst that can happen* is that you need to radio for a tug. In a submarine, the toilet going wrong can sink the ship, killing everyone on board.
*Yes, it can be worse - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Endurance_(A171)#2008_near_loss etc
With green levies which party does a voter go to to minimise them?
But again, my point was not about that, it was about a confluence of measures hitting the pockets of all voters including Conservative ones.
It's fine if they 'follow the science' - if they follow their own political compass then their decisions should be subject to political oversight and overruling.
Meanwhile, the tides keep delivering power to our doorsteps, twice a day....Ain't no way an interconnector fire or a petulant Putin is going to stop that.
But in addition to your first paragraph the blame for UK reserves being so low is perhaps easier to apportion.
They shouldn't have a problem getting from 33-34% of the vote up to 40% but they need to broaden their coalition with a distinctly Canadian appeal first. At present, it's too much of an English rural Canada vibe.
5 live were musing that as Boris was born in New York could he become POTUS
That would have come at a financial cost as well.
Not to mention it would have led to supply risks on those days when the wind doesn't blow.
That's the situation we're in. I don't even think we did anything particularly wrong, we should be encouraging renewables investment and we should be discouraging fossil fuel usage. We should also have ensured we had gas storage solutions and invested in backup power over the last 10 years as well as renewables given the intermittent nature of wind and solar.
I guess a narrow Remain win with 10-15 UKIP MPs already in the commons may have meant further electoral success for UKIP subsequently though
If he wanted to become a US citizen again he'd need to be naturalized (sic) and therefore not a natural born citizen.
Up here I am about to start campaigning to become a LibDem councillor and we use STV for council elections. Its fair, it works, representatives are elected as individuals and are free to cross the floor (and often do).
1) The winning party can often not get the most seats
2) Areas with a larger amount of supporters can swamp out any other representation (Alberta, BQ, Scotland, Northern Cities in England)
3) Very poor representation for smaller parties (NDP, LibDem, PC, Grn, RefUK, UKIP, Con/Lab/LDP in Scotland)
4) Massive majority and supreme power of Government for only 40%+,
5) Massively neutered parliament.
To be honest, Philip, I don't know why you don't push for an all-powerful president with no parliament, ie a dictatorship.
Read it, and you'll see he's co-opted Emma - with a MASSIVE picture of her on the post- to support his own pre-existing political views. He manages to crowbar Brexit in and also has the audacity to say that Emma is not British and is evidence that national identities are fading, which he thinks is a good thing, as he feels they can only be ethnocentrically based. This is fairly typical of the views advertised on the professional networking site LinkedIn and the "global citizens" that inhabit it:
"EMMA RADUCANU AND THE ILLUSION OF NATIONS
A new tennis champion has emerged. It is fascinating to observe the dynamics taking place around this young lady.
Emma's father is Romanian. Her name is Romanian and she speaks Romanian fluently. Hence she is considered Romanian by millions of Romanians. But Emma has actually never lived in Romania.
Emma's mother is Chinese. She speaks fluent Chinese, as a recent video available on YouTube shows. Hence she is considered a Chinese hero by millions of Chinese, who seem to forget that the PRC discourages international marriages.
Emma was born in Canada but has lived most of her life and trained in the UK. Hence she is considered British by most Britons and was publicly congratulated by the Queen. But the British public that now celebrates her success is the same that voted Brexit with the very objective to make it difficult for East Europeans such as Emma and her father to live in the UK.
The reality is that Emma is not Romanian, Chinese or British. She is much more. She is the outstanding result of the combination of Romanian talent, Chinese work ethics and British openness and sport infrastructure.
At a time when many countries are going back to very ethnocentric models and policies, Emma is the best evidence that National identities are fading and we must embrace a geocentric mindset. Emma Raducanu is the future of humankind."
Once you renounce your citizenship I don't think there's a do-over take back option to regain it.
Any other PR system based on the proportion of votes gained by a party automatically gives the party the moral high ground in the claim that they can control MPs and that we are voting for a party not an individual representative. It gives more power to the parties rather than taking it away and is something that needs to be resisted. You can guess which systems the parties campaigning for electoral reform would prefer us to use.
Another of her cousins in Ontario is a Liberal member. He tried to get himself selected as a parliamentary candidate a few years ago but wasn't successful.