Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Options

Why stoking the culture wars ensures a Tory shellacking – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 11,005
edited July 2022 in General
Why stoking the culture wars ensures a Tory shellacking – politicalbetting.com

Key takeaways from this (mainly Conservative inclined group) -terror/fury about economy, about winter to come.-short shrift for ‘culture war’ issues in that context: “what’s that got to do with me?” Sole focus cost of living-desperate to hear about policies to deal with it. https://t.co/2dsjhV8ARb

Read the full story here

«134567

Comments

  • Options
    DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 24,234
    edited July 2022
    Betfair next prime minister
    2.62 Rishi Sunak 38%
    2.7 Penny Mordaunt 37%
    6.4 Liz Truss 16%
    10.5 Kemi Badenoch 10%
    95 Tom Tugendhat
    110 Dominic Raab

    To make the final two
    1.08 Rishi Sunak 93%
    1.55 Penny Mordaunt 65%
    3.2 Liz Truss 31%
    7.2 Kemi Badenoch 14%
    100 Tom Tugendhat
  • Options
    DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 24,234
    ITV debate tonight, 7pm.
  • Options
    StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 12,146
    Unpleasant obsession with porn.
  • Options
    DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 24,234
    Now top Tories want Boris Johnson to quit as an MP to stop probe into whether he lied over Partygate
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11021079/Boris-Johnson-called-Tories-quit-MP-stop-probe-lied-Partygate.html
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,503
    The other problem with stoking the culture wars is that it is a re-toxification of the Conservative party, not a net vote winner.

    We had a BBQ last night with Fox Jr and his partner. Both find the Tory obsession with this bizarre and repulsive.

  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,108

    Unpleasant obsession with porn.

    Have you considered therapy?
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,108
    Incidentally if there are rolling blackouts this winter doesn’t that mean energy companies will have to remit their standing charge on the basis they are not, in fact, providing gas and electricity?
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,215
    Boris Johnson was accused on Saturday of being “missing in action” after failing to attend a Cobra meeting to discuss the national heatwave emergency following predictions that thousands could die in the coming days.

    As the threat to life from the impending heatwave continues to crystallise, the prime minister chose to skip the meeting on Saturday. He instead stayed at his Chequers country retreat, where he is due to hold a thank you party for supporters on Sunday.
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,964
    Good morning, everyone.

    How come Badenoch's suddenly come down to 10?

    Interesting that Sunak's currently shorter than Mordaunt.

    Tempted to lay Badenoch...
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,919

    Betfair next prime minister
    2.62 Rishi Sunak 38%
    2.7 Penny Mordaunt 37%
    6.4 Liz Truss 16%
    10.5 Kemi Badenoch 10%
    95 Tom Tugendhat
    110 Dominic Raab

    To make the final two
    1.08 Rishi Sunak 93%
    1.55 Penny Mordaunt 65%
    3.2 Liz Truss 31%
    7.2 Kemi Badenoch 14%
    100 Tom Tugendhat

    No matter how useless she is, I suspect that Ms Truss is the value here.

    (1) She's not Rishi Sunak, and would beat him in a head-to-head
    (2) She's likely to beat out Kemi for third place, and therefore will be the main repository for her votes
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,919

    Unpleasant obsession with porn.

    What's unpleasant about an obsession with porn?

    Why Sweden has always been known for the high quality of its pornographic output.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,108
    edited July 2022
    IanB2 said:

    Boris Johnson was accused on Saturday of being “missing in action” after failing to attend a Cobra meeting to discuss the national heatwave emergency following predictions that thousands could die in the coming days.

    As the threat to life from the impending heatwave continues to crystallise, the prime minister chose to skip the meeting on Saturday. He instead stayed at his Chequers country retreat, where he is due to hold a thank you party for supporters on Sunday.

    Well, that’s good news. We don’t want him messing things up even more.

    Edit - although why he needs Chequers for his supporters I don’t know. Surely both of them would have been happy with a surf and turf at Spoons?
  • Options
    northern_monkeynorthern_monkey Posts: 1,501

    Unpleasant obsession with porn.

    You sound like my missus.
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,964
    Hm, scratch that lay on Badenoch, already done that and I'm roughly balanced on non-Sunak contenders.

    I am surprised to see such a significant shift, though, given there was (I think) no debate yesterday.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,919

    Unpleasant obsession with porn.

    You sound like my missus.
    Is she a porn actress?
  • Options
    northern_monkeynorthern_monkey Posts: 1,501
    rcs1000 said:

    Unpleasant obsession with porn.

    You sound like my missus.
    Is she a porn actress?
    No but my stepmum is.
  • Options
    geoffwgeoffw Posts: 8,134
    a eunuch
  • Options
    FishingFishing Posts: 4,560
    Net Zero is a much bigger and juicier target than trans bathrooms during an energy crisis.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,503

    Hm, scratch that lay on Badenoch, already done that and I'm roughly balanced on non-Sunak contenders.

    I am surprised to see such a significant shift, though, given there was (I think) no debate yesterday.

    Yesterday's ConHome poll I think, all very fluid. Tonights debate should be interesting:


  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,503
    Fishing said:

    Net Zero is a much bigger and juicier target than trans bathrooms during an energy crisis.

    And also during a record breaking heatwave...
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,919
    Fishing said:

    Net Zero is a much bigger and juicier target than trans bathrooms during an energy crisis.

    Yes, because we'd be in a much better position today if we still got all our energy from hydrocarbons.

    Back in 2021, you could (rightly) claim that renewables were increasing the price of our electricity.

    Today, the government paying a guaranteed £43/MWh for wind looks like like utter genius.
  • Options
    turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 15,116

    Unpleasant obsession with porn.

    Well then I’d suggest you stop looking at it.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,108

    Unpleasant obsession with porn.

    Well then I’d suggest you stop looking at it.
    I'm told that's hard.
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,964
    Dr. Foxy, I checked a Twitter list I keep for politics and apparently there's murmuring of MPs switching from Truss to Badenoch. We'll see if that proves accurate or not.

    Tugendhat staying in does provide extra opportunity for a shift like that to happen.

    Mr. Doethur, not just that, the specific design for the Chinese money drain apparently doesn't work at all. Be better to just set fire to several billion pounds and use that for warmth...
  • Options
    geoffwgeoffw Posts: 8,134
    Whatever you think of the Tories and their policies, their method of selecting a leader takes some beating.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,108
    rcs1000 said:

    ydoethur said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Fishing said:

    Net Zero is a much bigger and juicier target than trans bathrooms during an energy crisis.

    Yes, because we'd be in a much better position today if we still got all our energy from hydrocarbons.

    Back in 2021, you could (rightly) claim that renewables were increasing the price of our electricity.

    Today, the government paying a guaranteed £43/MWh for wind looks like like utter genius.
    Building tidal lagoons instead of endlessly faffing around with overpriced and probably never to be built nuclear power stations would have looked much more like utter genius.
    Particularly with renewables, you want a portfolio approach.

    But I still find it astonishing that at a time when hydrocarbon prices are through the roof, a few people come out of the woodwork and say "Well, if only we'd not increased our reliance on renewables, we'd be fine."

    I'm not a man to through around the "retard" word lightly. But W.T.F.
    The issue with wind is it went hand in hand with the expansion of CCGT power, which was the only realistic way of balancing the load when the wind wasn't blowing.

    And that's now coming home to roost with a vengeance.

    If there were effective storage solutions available for wind generation things would be different. But there are none available yet.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,503
    geoffw said:

    Whatever you think of the Tories and their policies, their method of selecting a leader takes some beating.

    Certainly provides good betting opportunities with all the multiple rounds etc.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,503
    rcs1000 said:

    Unpleasant obsession with porn.

    What's unpleasant about an obsession with porn?

    Why Sweden has always been known for the high quality of its pornographic output.
    Sweden has also produced this fascinating film on life in the industry. Currently on MUBI:

    https://mubi.com/films/pleasure-2020

    Needless to say it is unrelentingly graphic, and at times rather disturbing.
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,880
    ydoethur said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Fishing said:

    Net Zero is a much bigger and juicier target than trans bathrooms during an energy crisis.

    Yes, because we'd be in a much better position today if we still got all our energy from hydrocarbons.

    Back in 2021, you could (rightly) claim that renewables were increasing the price of our electricity.

    Today, the government paying a guaranteed £43/MWh for wind looks like like utter genius.
    Building tidal lagoons instead of endlessly faffing around with overpriced and probably never to be built nuclear power stations would have looked much more like utter genius.
    We hear a lot about tidal lagoons, but I am (currently) unconvinced. The scale required to make a difference is massive, and despite what the proponents say, the costs will likewise be massive.

    Having said that, I'm in favour if having as varied a power generation system in the UK as possible; we should throw everything into the mix. It's just that I doubt tidal lagoons will prove to be as cheap or effective as their proponents claim.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,919
    ydoethur said:

    rcs1000 said:

    ydoethur said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Fishing said:

    Net Zero is a much bigger and juicier target than trans bathrooms during an energy crisis.

    Yes, because we'd be in a much better position today if we still got all our energy from hydrocarbons.

    Back in 2021, you could (rightly) claim that renewables were increasing the price of our electricity.

    Today, the government paying a guaranteed £43/MWh for wind looks like like utter genius.
    Building tidal lagoons instead of endlessly faffing around with overpriced and probably never to be built nuclear power stations would have looked much more like utter genius.
    Particularly with renewables, you want a portfolio approach.

    But I still find it astonishing that at a time when hydrocarbon prices are through the roof, a few people come out of the woodwork and say "Well, if only we'd not increased our reliance on renewables, we'd be fine."

    I'm not a man to through around the "retard" word lightly. But W.T.F.
    The issue with wind is it went hand in hand with the expansion of CCGT power, which was the only realistic way of balancing the load when the wind wasn't blowing.

    And that's now coming home to roost with a vengeance.

    If there were effective storage solutions available for wind generation things would be different. But there are none available yet.
    With all due respect, there's really nothing complicated about storing gas. The UK used to have sites all across the country.

    UK gas storage capacity - whether at the utility level (Rough) or at the local level (the Oval) - cost almost nothing to maintain, and yet was still shut down.
  • Options
    CD13CD13 Posts: 6,351
    The problem with an activist ... "When do we want total reliance on green energy?" "Now, or we'll blockade the garages. That will bring you to your senses."

    Next time a voter pauses over the ballt paper. "They're barmy, and winter is a'coming."
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,108
    edited July 2022

    ydoethur said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Fishing said:

    Net Zero is a much bigger and juicier target than trans bathrooms during an energy crisis.

    Yes, because we'd be in a much better position today if we still got all our energy from hydrocarbons.

    Back in 2021, you could (rightly) claim that renewables were increasing the price of our electricity.

    Today, the government paying a guaranteed £43/MWh for wind looks like like utter genius.
    Building tidal lagoons instead of endlessly faffing around with overpriced and probably never to be built nuclear power stations would have looked much more like utter genius.
    We hear a lot about tidal lagoons, but I am (currently) unconvinced. The scale required to make a difference is massive, and despite what the proponents say, the costs will likewise be massive.

    Having said that, I'm in favour if having as varied a power generation system in the UK as possible; we should throw everything into the mix. It's just that I doubt tidal lagoons will prove to be as cheap or effective as their proponents claim.
    Whether you are convinced or not has become irrelevant because the government vetoed large scale trials, claiming it would undoubtedly be more expensive, shorter lived and less reliable than the nuclear options they were exploring so there was no point in even experimenting with it. Which was clearly bullshit.

    They don't have to be a silver bullet. Only more reliable than wind, cheaper than gas and longer lasting than nuclear.

    Which they undoubtedly would be. There is no realistic way you can juggle the numbers to come out with a different answer.

    If we'd built five lagoons five years ago we'd be in a much better situation now.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,108
    edited July 2022
    rcs1000 said:

    ydoethur said:

    rcs1000 said:

    ydoethur said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Fishing said:

    Net Zero is a much bigger and juicier target than trans bathrooms during an energy crisis.

    Yes, because we'd be in a much better position today if we still got all our energy from hydrocarbons.

    Back in 2021, you could (rightly) claim that renewables were increasing the price of our electricity.

    Today, the government paying a guaranteed £43/MWh for wind looks like like utter genius.
    Building tidal lagoons instead of endlessly faffing around with overpriced and probably never to be built nuclear power stations would have looked much more like utter genius.
    Particularly with renewables, you want a portfolio approach.

    But I still find it astonishing that at a time when hydrocarbon prices are through the roof, a few people come out of the woodwork and say "Well, if only we'd not increased our reliance on renewables, we'd be fine."

    I'm not a man to through around the "retard" word lightly. But W.T.F.
    The issue with wind is it went hand in hand with the expansion of CCGT power, which was the only realistic way of balancing the load when the wind wasn't blowing.

    And that's now coming home to roost with a vengeance.

    If there were effective storage solutions available for wind generation things would be different. But there are none available yet.
    With all due respect, there's really nothing complicated about storing gas. The UK used to have sites all across the country.

    UK gas storage capacity - whether at the utility level (Rough) or at the local level (the Oval) - cost almost nothing to maintain, and yet was still shut down.
    I'm not disputing that, and I'm not quite sure why you've come up with a non-sequitur. You still have to buy it before you can store it. That's the issue.
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,880
    Foxy said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Unpleasant obsession with porn.

    What's unpleasant about an obsession with porn?

    Why Sweden has always been known for the high quality of its pornographic output.
    Sweden has also produced this fascinating film on life in the industry. Currently on MUBI:

    https://mubi.com/films/pleasure-2020

    Needless to say it is unrelentingly graphic, and at times rather disturbing.
    Victoria Coren and Charlie Skelton wrote a hilarious book called "Once more, with feeling" about their attempt to make a porn film.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Once_More,_with_Feeling_(book)
  • Options
    moonshinemoonshine Posts: 5,243

    ydoethur said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Fishing said:

    Net Zero is a much bigger and juicier target than trans bathrooms during an energy crisis.

    Yes, because we'd be in a much better position today if we still got all our energy from hydrocarbons.

    Back in 2021, you could (rightly) claim that renewables were increasing the price of our electricity.

    Today, the government paying a guaranteed £43/MWh for wind looks like like utter genius.
    Building tidal lagoons instead of endlessly faffing around with overpriced and probably never to be built nuclear power stations would have looked much more like utter genius.
    We hear a lot about tidal lagoons, but I am (currently) unconvinced. The scale required to make a difference is massive, and despite what the proponents say, the costs will likewise be massive.

    Having said that, I'm in favour if having as varied a power generation system in the UK as possible; we should throw everything into the mix. It's just that I doubt tidal lagoons will prove to be as
    cheap or effective as their proponents claim.
    The power is worth more because it’s predictable. It’s also potentially an export energy. All the trillions of pounds spaffed since 2010 and they didn’t find enough even for the pilot scheme, very sad.

  • Options
    JonWCJonWC Posts: 285
    edited July 2022
    I think TSE is wrong on this - at least for some aspects of the culture war. Even on a heavily "champagne" forum like this, I'm sure many of us are aware of some quite extraordinary things that have been said to children at schools, anecdotes worth as much as a the cited focus group. When it comes to a secret ballot with the government at stake I think the results may surprise.

    To borrow the Chilean saying, trans extremism is god's way of keeping the left out of power forever.

  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,964
    Mr. 1000, aye. Utterly pointless, and contrary to the obvious national interest.

    It's remarkable how bad multiple parties have been on energy. They're shit hot on closing down coal-powered power stations, but when it comes to building enough new nuclear sites, less good.

    Johnson's 'rush for nuclear' sums up the short-sightedness.
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,880
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Fishing said:

    Net Zero is a much bigger and juicier target than trans bathrooms during an energy crisis.

    Yes, because we'd be in a much better position today if we still got all our energy from hydrocarbons.

    Back in 2021, you could (rightly) claim that renewables were increasing the price of our electricity.

    Today, the government paying a guaranteed £43/MWh for wind looks like like utter genius.
    Building tidal lagoons instead of endlessly faffing around with overpriced and probably never to be built nuclear power stations would have looked much more like utter genius.
    We hear a lot about tidal lagoons, but I am (currently) unconvinced. The scale required to make a difference is massive, and despite what the proponents say, the costs will likewise be massive.

    Having said that, I'm in favour if having as varied a power generation system in the UK as possible; we should throw everything into the mix. It's just that I doubt tidal lagoons will prove to be as cheap or effective as their proponents claim.
    Whether you are convinced or not has become irrelevant because the government vetoed large scale trials, claiming it would undoubtedly be more expensive, shorter lived and less reliable than the nuclear options they were exploring. Which was clearly bullshit.

    They don't have to be a silver bullet. Only more reliable than wind, cheaper than gas and longer lasting than nuclear.

    Which they undoubtedly would be. There is no realistic way you can juggle the numbers to come out with a different answer.

    If we'd built five lagoons five years ago we'd be in a much better situation now.
    "Which they undoubtedly would be."

    We are talking about new tech done on a scale that had not been attempted before. Worse, we are talking about a new tech that almost wholly involves groundworks and water: perhaps the most complex and troublesome types of civil engineering. And to make a difference, they need to be large in scale (even if individual ones are small).

    If we'd started building five lagoons five years ago, we'd probably still be building them. In fact, we'd probably still be in the planning stage.

    This is not a reason not to build them: but I can't see them being anywhere near as advantageous or easy as you make out.
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,880
    moonshine said:

    ydoethur said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Fishing said:

    Net Zero is a much bigger and juicier target than trans bathrooms during an energy crisis.

    Yes, because we'd be in a much better position today if we still got all our energy from hydrocarbons.

    Back in 2021, you could (rightly) claim that renewables were increasing the price of our electricity.

    Today, the government paying a guaranteed £43/MWh for wind looks like like utter genius.
    Building tidal lagoons instead of endlessly faffing around with overpriced and probably never to be built nuclear power stations would have looked much more like utter genius.
    We hear a lot about tidal lagoons, but I am (currently) unconvinced. The scale required to make a difference is massive, and despite what the proponents say, the costs will likewise be massive.

    Having said that, I'm in favour if having as varied a power generation system in the UK as possible; we should throw everything into the mix. It's just that I doubt tidal lagoons will prove to be as
    cheap or effective as their proponents claim.
    The power is worth more because it’s predictable. It’s also potentially an export energy. All the trillions of pounds spaffed since 2010 and they didn’t find enough even for the pilot scheme, very sad.
    I'd probably be in favour of a pilot scheme, if the details were right. But that scheme would take many years to build; and more years to see if it has been as effective as claimed and what the other effects are, e.g. environmental or silting.

    I'm not saying it should not be done; just that it is much more complex than the proponents on here try to make out.

    Now, if you want to get me onto a technology we should not progress, than just ask me about carbon capture. ;)
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,108

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Fishing said:

    Net Zero is a much bigger and juicier target than trans bathrooms during an energy crisis.

    Yes, because we'd be in a much better position today if we still got all our energy from hydrocarbons.

    Back in 2021, you could (rightly) claim that renewables were increasing the price of our electricity.

    Today, the government paying a guaranteed £43/MWh for wind looks like like utter genius.
    Building tidal lagoons instead of endlessly faffing around with overpriced and probably never to be built nuclear power stations would have looked much more like utter genius.
    We hear a lot about tidal lagoons, but I am (currently) unconvinced. The scale required to make a difference is massive, and despite what the proponents say, the costs will likewise be massive.

    Having said that, I'm in favour if having as varied a power generation system in the UK as possible; we should throw everything into the mix. It's just that I doubt tidal lagoons will prove to be as cheap or effective as their proponents claim.
    Whether you are convinced or not has become irrelevant because the government vetoed large scale trials, claiming it would undoubtedly be more expensive, shorter lived and less reliable than the nuclear options they were exploring. Which was clearly bullshit.

    They don't have to be a silver bullet. Only more reliable than wind, cheaper than gas and longer lasting than nuclear.

    Which they undoubtedly would be. There is no realistic way you can juggle the numbers to come out with a different answer.

    If we'd built five lagoons five years ago we'd be in a much better situation now.
    "Which they undoubtedly would be."

    We are talking about new tech done on a scale that had not been attempted before. Worse, we are talking about a new tech that almost wholly involves groundworks and water: perhaps the most complex and troublesome types of civil engineering. And to make a difference, they need to be large in scale (even if individual ones are small).

    If we'd started building five lagoons five years ago, we'd probably still be building them. In fact, we'd probably still be in the planning stage.

    This is not a reason not to build them: but I can't see them being anywhere near as advantageous or easy as you make out.
    The Swansea proposal was around the same size as the Sihwa or Rance power stations. The latter has been operating for nearly 60 years. The former for over a decade.

    We are not really talking new technology here.
  • Options
    LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 15,070
    ydoethur said:

    rcs1000 said:

    ydoethur said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Fishing said:

    Net Zero is a much bigger and juicier target than trans bathrooms during an energy crisis.

    Yes, because we'd be in a much better position today if we still got all our energy from hydrocarbons.

    Back in 2021, you could (rightly) claim that renewables were increasing the price of our electricity.

    Today, the government paying a guaranteed £43/MWh for wind looks like like utter genius.
    Building tidal lagoons instead of endlessly faffing around with overpriced and probably never to be built nuclear power stations would have looked much more like utter genius.
    Particularly with renewables, you want a portfolio approach.

    But I still find it astonishing that at a time when hydrocarbon prices are through the roof, a few people come out of the woodwork and say "Well, if only we'd not increased our reliance on renewables, we'd be fine."

    I'm not a man to through around the "retard" word lightly. But W.T.F.
    The issue with wind is it went hand in hand with the expansion of CCGT power, which was the only realistic way of balancing the load when the wind wasn't blowing.

    And that's now coming home to roost with a vengeance.

    If there were effective storage solutions available for wind generation things would be different. But there are none available yet.
    We don't have the excess of wind energy to store. Storage only becomes an issue when there is frequently an excess that needs time-shifting. I'm confident that if we rapidly doubled our wind generation that you would see large-scale storage deployed to store the excess wind energy that would be produced at times.
  • Options
    JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901
    Renewable energy. Stop talking, start doing. Solves so many problems. It needs to be approached with some urgency.
  • Options
    turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 15,116
    Jonathan said:

    Renewable energy. Stop talking, start doing. Solves so many problems. It needs to be approached with some urgency.

    And is being done.
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,880

    Mr. 1000, aye. Utterly pointless, and contrary to the obvious national interest.

    It's remarkable how bad multiple parties have been on energy. They're shit hot on closing down coal-powered power stations, but when it comes to building enough new nuclear sites, less good.

    Johnson's 'rush for nuclear' sums up the short-sightedness.

    Have we actually been bad?

    We've managed to close down almost all of our 'dirtiest' plants: the coal ones, replacing them with less-polluting gas plants. We've massively increased the amount of renewable energy over the last ten or fifteen years, even under (shock, horror) a Conservative government.

    We are facing a problem with gas supply this winter due to Russia's actions. But we faced issues with electricity generation (and had electricity rationing for months) in 1974 due to the miners' strike.

    Yes, we could have done more; but what we have done is actually quite impressive. Ten years or so ago, I had some conversations with RCS on here about the dangers of power cuts in 2016. He said there would not be any. He was right; I was wrong.
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,880
    Jonathan said:

    Renewable energy. Stop talking, start doing. Solves so many problems. It needs to be approached with some urgency.

    We are doing it.

    And whilst it needs to be approached with some urgency, going too fast can cause significant issues like power cuts or even further massive price hikes.

    As with most things in politics, it is about a balance.

    And there's the elephant in the room: we still have not got energy storage sorted out...
  • Options
    moonshinemoonshine Posts: 5,243

    moonshine said:

    ydoethur said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Fishing said:

    Net Zero is a much bigger and juicier target than trans bathrooms during an energy crisis.

    Yes, because we'd be in a much better position today if we still got all our energy from hydrocarbons.

    Back in 2021, you could (rightly) claim that renewables were increasing the price of our electricity.

    Today, the government paying a guaranteed £43/MWh for wind looks like like utter genius.
    Building tidal lagoons instead of endlessly faffing around with overpriced and probably never to be built nuclear power stations would have looked much more like utter genius.
    We hear a lot about tidal lagoons, but I am (currently) unconvinced. The scale required to make a difference is massive, and despite what the proponents say, the costs will likewise be massive.

    Having said that, I'm in favour if having as varied a power generation system in the UK as possible; we should throw everything into the mix. It's just that I doubt tidal lagoons will prove to be as
    cheap or effective as their proponents claim.
    The power is worth more because it’s predictable. It’s also potentially an export energy. All the trillions of pounds spaffed since 2010 and they didn’t find enough even for the pilot scheme, very sad.
    I'd probably be in favour of a pilot scheme, if the details were right. But that scheme would take many years to build; and more years to see if it has been as effective as claimed and what the other effects are, e.g. environmental or silting.

    I'm not saying it should not be done; just that it is much more complex than the proponents on here try to make out.

    Now, if you want to get me onto a technology we
    should not progress, than just ask me about
    carbon capture. ;)
    12 years they’ve faffed about, weakening our strategic resilience because they don’t have the gumption to gut the Treasury of the narrow minded bean counters and take big decisions in the national interest.

  • Options
    CD13CD13 Posts: 6,351
    edited July 2022
    Governments tend to need a short-term payback as they may only be in power for five years at most. Lagoons, nuclear fusion, are spend now, hope to have benefits decades later projects. Even nuclear fission projects look ahead. Short-termism is the political answer. And radiation is the bugbear.

    I have solar panels, and encouraging built-in panels would be a step forward, but it will have to be a gradual process. I suspect we'll muddle our way there, but if the greens ever came to power, black-outs would be routine. They'd blame the recalcitrance of the voters for not moving faster. "See, we were right."

  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,880
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Fishing said:

    Net Zero is a much bigger and juicier target than trans bathrooms during an energy crisis.

    Yes, because we'd be in a much better position today if we still got all our energy from hydrocarbons.

    Back in 2021, you could (rightly) claim that renewables were increasing the price of our electricity.

    Today, the government paying a guaranteed £43/MWh for wind looks like like utter genius.
    Building tidal lagoons instead of endlessly faffing around with overpriced and probably never to be built nuclear power stations would have looked much more like utter genius.
    We hear a lot about tidal lagoons, but I am (currently) unconvinced. The scale required to make a difference is massive, and despite what the proponents say, the costs will likewise be massive.

    Having said that, I'm in favour if having as varied a power generation system in the UK as possible; we should throw everything into the mix. It's just that I doubt tidal lagoons will prove to be as cheap or effective as their proponents claim.
    Whether you are convinced or not has become irrelevant because the government vetoed large scale trials, claiming it would undoubtedly be more expensive, shorter lived and less reliable than the nuclear options they were exploring. Which was clearly bullshit.

    They don't have to be a silver bullet. Only more reliable than wind, cheaper than gas and longer lasting than nuclear.

    Which they undoubtedly would be. There is no realistic way you can juggle the numbers to come out with a different answer.

    If we'd built five lagoons five years ago we'd be in a much better situation now.
    "Which they undoubtedly would be."

    We are talking about new tech done on a scale that had not been attempted before. Worse, we are talking about a new tech that almost wholly involves groundworks and water: perhaps the most complex and troublesome types of civil engineering. And to make a difference, they need to be large in scale (even if individual ones are small).

    If we'd started building five lagoons five years ago, we'd probably still be building them. In fact, we'd probably still be in the planning stage.

    This is not a reason not to build them: but I can't see them being anywhere near as advantageous or easy as you make out.
    The Swansea proposal was around the same size as the Sihwa or Rance power stations. The latter has been operating for nearly 60 years. The former for over a decade.

    We are not really talking new technology here.
    We are at this scale. The proponents of the Swansea scheme refer to it thus: "Swansea Bay Tidal Lagoon will be the world’s first tidal lagoon power plant."

    Now, dams have been built. Barriers have been built. Barrages have been built. The Sihwa scheme is impressive. But the scale of these schemes is still impressive from a civ eng point of view.

    http://www.tidallagoonpower.com/projects/swansea-bay/
  • Options
    JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901

    Jonathan said:

    Renewable energy. Stop talking, start doing. Solves so many problems. It needs to be approached with some urgency.

    We are doing it.

    And whilst it needs to be approached with some urgency, going too fast can cause significant issues like power cuts or even further massive price hikes.

    As with most things in politics, it is about a balance.

    And there's the elephant in the room: we still have not got energy storage sorted out...
    There is a hell of a lot of crap, soul searching and red tape that goes along with it. Just do it. Now.
  • Options
    GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,077
    moonshine said:

    moonshine said:

    ydoethur said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Fishing said:

    Net Zero is a much bigger and juicier target than trans bathrooms during an energy crisis.

    Yes, because we'd be in a much better position today if we still got all our energy from hydrocarbons.

    Back in 2021, you could (rightly) claim that renewables were increasing the price of our electricity.

    Today, the government paying a guaranteed £43/MWh for wind looks like like utter genius.
    Building tidal lagoons instead of endlessly faffing around with overpriced and probably never to be built nuclear power stations would have looked much more like utter genius.
    We hear a lot about tidal lagoons, but I am (currently) unconvinced. The scale required to make a difference is massive, and despite what the proponents say, the costs will likewise be massive.

    Having said that, I'm in favour if having as varied a power generation system in the UK as possible; we should throw everything into the mix. It's just that I doubt tidal lagoons will prove to be as
    cheap or effective as their proponents claim.
    The power is worth more because it’s predictable. It’s also potentially an export energy. All the trillions of pounds spaffed since 2010 and they didn’t find enough even for the pilot scheme, very sad.
    I'd probably be in favour of a pilot scheme, if the details were right. But that scheme would take many years to build; and more years to see if it has been as effective as claimed and what the other effects are, e.g. environmental or silting.

    I'm not saying it should not be done; just that it is much more complex than the proponents on here try to make out.

    Now, if you want to get me onto a technology we
    should not progress, than just ask me about
    carbon capture. ;)
    12 years they’ve faffed about, weakening our strategic resilience because they don’t have the gumption to gut the Treasury of the narrow minded bean counters and take big decisions in the national interest.

    Lol yeah blame the civil servants and not the politicians making the decisions. If they’re too stupid to understand what the civil servants are doing then maybe they shouldn’t have gone into politics.
  • Options
    theProletheProle Posts: 948
    rcs1000 said:

    Fishing said:

    Net Zero is a much bigger and juicier target than trans bathrooms during an energy crisis.

    Yes, because we'd be in a much better position today if we still got all our energy from hydrocarbons.

    Back in 2021, you could (rightly) claim that renewables were increasing the price of our electricity.

    Today, the government paying a guaranteed £43/MWh for wind looks like like utter genius.
    Cynical head on - we'd also be in stronger position if we hadn't binned off all our coal fired capacity. Coal hasn't gone up in price nearly as much as gas, and we are still sat on a lot of it which we could have kept on mining. Its also very easy to store - you just pile it up in heaps.
    It's utterly ridiculous that we closed all our (comparatively green) hard coal fired plant, whilst the Germans closed their nuclear plants to burn ever more (exceptionally dirty) lignite.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,108

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Fishing said:

    Net Zero is a much bigger and juicier target than trans bathrooms during an energy crisis.

    Yes, because we'd be in a much better position today if we still got all our energy from hydrocarbons.

    Back in 2021, you could (rightly) claim that renewables were increasing the price of our electricity.

    Today, the government paying a guaranteed £43/MWh for wind looks like like utter genius.
    Building tidal lagoons instead of endlessly faffing around with overpriced and probably never to be built nuclear power stations would have looked much more like utter genius.
    We hear a lot about tidal lagoons, but I am (currently) unconvinced. The scale required to make a difference is massive, and despite what the proponents say, the costs will likewise be massive.

    Having said that, I'm in favour if having as varied a power generation system in the UK as possible; we should throw everything into the mix. It's just that I doubt tidal lagoons will prove to be as cheap or effective as their proponents claim.
    Whether you are convinced or not has become irrelevant because the government vetoed large scale trials, claiming it would undoubtedly be more expensive, shorter lived and less reliable than the nuclear options they were exploring. Which was clearly bullshit.

    They don't have to be a silver bullet. Only more reliable than wind, cheaper than gas and longer lasting than nuclear.

    Which they undoubtedly would be. There is no realistic way you can juggle the numbers to come out with a different answer.

    If we'd built five lagoons five years ago we'd be in a much better situation now.
    "Which they undoubtedly would be."

    We are talking about new tech done on a scale that had not been attempted before. Worse, we are talking about a new tech that almost wholly involves groundworks and water: perhaps the most complex and troublesome types of civil engineering. And to make a difference, they need to be large in scale (even if individual ones are small).

    If we'd started building five lagoons five years ago, we'd probably still be building them. In fact, we'd probably still be in the planning stage.

    This is not a reason not to build them: but I can't see them being anywhere near as advantageous or easy as you make out.
    The Swansea proposal was around the same size as the Sihwa or Rance power stations. The latter has been operating for nearly 60 years. The former for over a decade.

    We are not really talking new technology here.
    We are at this scale. The proponents of the Swansea scheme refer to it thus: "Swansea Bay Tidal Lagoon will be the world’s first tidal lagoon power plant."

    Now, dams have been built. Barriers have been built. Barrages have been built. The Sihwa scheme is impressive. But the scale of these schemes is still impressive from a civ eng point of view.

    http://www.tidallagoonpower.com/projects/swansea-bay/
    Well, they were talking nonsense then, because their projected output for the initial lagoon AIUI was around 230 MWH - slightly less than Rance at 240.
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,258
    rcs1000 said:

    ydoethur said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Fishing said:

    Net Zero is a much bigger and juicier target than trans bathrooms during an energy crisis.

    Yes, because we'd be in a much better position today if we still got all our energy from hydrocarbons.

    Back in 2021, you could (rightly) claim that renewables were increasing the price of our electricity.

    Today, the government paying a guaranteed £43/MWh for wind looks like like utter genius.
    Building tidal lagoons instead of endlessly faffing around with overpriced and probably never to be built nuclear power stations would have looked much more like utter genius.
    Particularly with renewables, you want a portfolio approach.

    But I still find it astonishing that at a time when hydrocarbon prices are through the roof, a few people come out of the woodwork and say "Well, if only we'd not increased our reliance on renewables, we'd be fine."

    I'm not a man to through around the "retard" word lightly. But W.T.F.
    Isn't the issue the costs and sacrifices required to achieve Net Zero right across the economy?

    Decarbonising the grid is actually relatively easy without busting the economy. As this graph shows:




    It's heating homes and businesses, alternative fuels for transport, waste management, industrial processes, manufacturing and construction, and agriculture where the trillions are going to come in.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,108

    moonshine said:

    moonshine said:

    ydoethur said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Fishing said:

    Net Zero is a much bigger and juicier target than trans bathrooms during an energy crisis.

    Yes, because we'd be in a much better position today if we still got all our energy from hydrocarbons.

    Back in 2021, you could (rightly) claim that renewables were increasing the price of our electricity.

    Today, the government paying a guaranteed £43/MWh for wind looks like like utter genius.
    Building tidal lagoons instead of endlessly faffing around with overpriced and probably never to be built nuclear power stations would have looked much more like utter genius.
    We hear a lot about tidal lagoons, but I am (currently) unconvinced. The scale required to make a difference is massive, and despite what the proponents say, the costs will likewise be massive.

    Having said that, I'm in favour if having as varied a power generation system in the UK as possible; we should throw everything into the mix. It's just that I doubt tidal lagoons will prove to be as
    cheap or effective as their proponents claim.
    The power is worth more because it’s predictable. It’s also potentially an export energy. All the trillions of pounds spaffed since 2010 and they didn’t find enough even for the pilot scheme, very sad.
    I'd probably be in favour of a pilot scheme, if the details were right. But that scheme would take many years to build; and more years to see if it has been as effective as claimed and what the other effects are, e.g. environmental or silting.

    I'm not saying it should not be done; just that it is much more complex than the proponents on here try to make out.

    Now, if you want to get me onto a technology we
    should not progress, than just ask me about
    carbon capture. ;)
    12 years they’ve faffed about, weakening our strategic resilience because they don’t have the gumption to gut the Treasury of the narrow minded bean counters and take big decisions in the national interest.

    Lol yeah blame the civil servants and not the politicians making the decisions. If they’re too stupid to understand what the civil servants are doing then maybe they shouldn’t have gone into politics.
    Very often actually civil servants are to blame. They are, for example, largely responsible for the train wreck that is the national education system. And certainly nuclear over tidal power and the fraudulent actions over HS2 seem to be driven by civil servants not politicians.

    In this case, however, a more pertinent question is why they accepted without question the figures of the nuclear power industry - which turned out, unsurprisingly, to be as accurate as the average Dominic Cummings statement - and rejected the tidal option without even allowing a test of it on the basis they didn't believe the figures.
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,258
    Jonathan said:

    Renewable energy. Stop talking, start doing. Solves so many problems. It needs to be approached with some urgency.

    Tell it to these boys:


  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,584

    Foxy said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Unpleasant obsession with porn.

    What's unpleasant about an obsession with porn?

    Why Sweden has always been known for the high quality of its pornographic output.
    Sweden has also produced this fascinating film on life in the industry. Currently on MUBI:

    https://mubi.com/films/pleasure-2020

    Needless to say it is unrelentingly graphic, and at times rather disturbing.
    Victoria Coren and Charlie Skelton wrote a hilarious book called "Once more, with feeling" about their attempt to make a porn film.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Once_More,_with_Feeling_(book)
    'Rowan Pelling, writing for The Independent, stated that "the plot was labyrinthine" and claimed she "particularly liked a lesbian bath scene where a muscular plumber enters the room with an enormous spanner, consults his pager, then says, "Oh dear, wrong day!" and promptly disappears."[1]'
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,258

    Hm, scratch that lay on Badenoch, already done that and I'm roughly balanced on non-Sunak contenders.

    I am surprised to see such a significant shift, though, given there was (I think) no debate yesterday.

    The market is hypersensitive to positive Badenoch noises.

    I should probably be laying the crap out of her now. But I'm just not quite sure enough, whilst I have little faith in Truss to perform massively better tonight.
  • Options
    edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,141

    Jonathan said:

    Renewable energy. Stop talking, start doing. Solves so many problems. It needs to be approached with some urgency.

    Tell it to these boys:


    Do you have a graph with the numbers per-head? Absolute numbers per country are a bit pointless, unless you have a budget available to spend on bribing prime ministers or something.
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,584
    edited July 2022


    '''
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,584
    edited July 2022
    geoffw said:

    a eunuch

    Also, on a point of order, some castrati are/were entirely, erm, functional, the matter of babies aside. It depends when they had the cut.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,503

    Mr. 1000, aye. Utterly pointless, and contrary to the obvious national interest.

    It's remarkable how bad multiple parties have been on energy. They're shit hot on closing down coal-powered power stations, but when it comes to building enough new nuclear sites, less good.

    Johnson's 'rush for nuclear' sums up the short-sightedness.

    Have we actually been bad?

    We've managed to close down almost all of our 'dirtiest' plants: the coal ones, replacing them with less-polluting gas plants. We've massively increased the amount of renewable energy over the last ten or fifteen years, even under (shock, horror) a Conservative government.

    We are facing a problem with gas supply this winter due to Russia's actions. But we faced issues with electricity generation (and had electricity rationing for months) in 1974 due to the miners' strike.

    Yes, we could have done more; but what we have done is actually quite impressive. Ten years or so ago, I had some conversations with RCS on here about the dangers of power cuts in 2016. He said there would not be any. He was right; I was wrong.
    Ed Davey was the big mover on Renewable energy under the coalition. Tories love to claim credit for what the LibDems did in coalition.

    As I have been saying for about 7 years, the Coalition will be remembered as a golden era of good government by comparison with what comes after.

  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,964
    Mr. Royale, I got on her at 131 just over a week ago, and laid at something like 27. But then, betting would be much easier if we could see the future. Less fun, too.
  • Options
    JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901
    edited July 2022

    Jonathan said:

    Renewable energy. Stop talking, start doing. Solves so many problems. It needs to be approached with some urgency.

    Tell it to these boys:


    Nothing there to stop us investing in renewables and becoming an energy self sufficient, low carbon UK. Time to end the political BS, we can do this.
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,584
    ydoethur said:

    Unpleasant obsession with porn.

    Well then I’d suggest you stop looking at it.
    I'm told that's hard.
    A stiff imposition.
  • Options
    RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 27,175
    JonWC said:

    I think TSE is wrong on this - at least for some aspects of the culture war. Even on a heavily "champagne" forum like this, I'm sure many of us are aware of some quite extraordinary things that have been said to children at schools, anecdotes worth as much as a the cited focus group. When it comes to a secret ballot with the government at stake I think the results may surprise.

    To borrow the Chilean saying, trans extremism is god's way of keeping the left out of power forever.

    The gamble for the Tories is this: as people get cold and hungry this winter, will the supposed threat of cock-wielding trans deviants persuade them to ignore their hunger and cold and the anger that generates towards the Tories, and instead be kept warm in a Mail-induced fury about bathrooms?
  • Options
    GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,077
    ydoethur said:

    moonshine said:

    moonshine said:

    ydoethur said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Fishing said:

    Net Zero is a much bigger and juicier target than trans bathrooms during an energy crisis.

    Yes, because we'd be in a much better position today if we still got all our energy from hydrocarbons.

    Back in 2021, you could (rightly) claim that renewables were increasing the price of our electricity.

    Today, the government paying a guaranteed £43/MWh for wind looks like like utter genius.
    Building tidal lagoons instead of endlessly faffing around with overpriced and probably never to be built nuclear power stations would have looked much more like utter genius.
    We hear a lot about tidal lagoons, but I am (currently) unconvinced. The scale required to make a difference is massive, and despite what the proponents say, the costs will likewise be massive.

    Having said that, I'm in favour if having as varied a power generation system in the UK as possible; we should throw everything into the mix. It's just that I doubt tidal lagoons will prove to be as
    cheap or effective as their proponents claim.
    The power is worth more because it’s predictable. It’s also potentially an export energy. All the trillions of pounds spaffed since 2010 and they didn’t find enough even for the pilot scheme, very sad.
    I'd probably be in favour of a pilot scheme, if the details were right. But that scheme would take many years to build; and more years to see if it has been as effective as claimed and what the other effects are, e.g. environmental or silting.

    I'm not saying it should not be done; just that it is much more complex than the proponents on here try to make out.

    Now, if you want to get me onto a technology we
    should not progress, than just ask me about
    carbon capture. ;)
    12 years they’ve faffed about, weakening our strategic resilience because they don’t have the gumption to gut the Treasury of the narrow minded bean counters and take big decisions in the national interest.

    Lol yeah blame the civil servants and not the politicians making the decisions. If they’re too stupid to understand what the civil servants are doing then maybe they shouldn’t have gone into politics.
    Very often actually civil servants are to blame. They are, for example, largely responsible for the train wreck that is the national education system. And certainly nuclear over tidal power and the fraudulent actions over HS2 seem to be driven by civil servants not politicians.

    In this case, however, a more pertinent question is why they accepted without question the figures of the nuclear power industry - which turned out, unsurprisingly, to be as accurate as the average Dominic Cummings statement - and rejected the tidal option without even allowing a test of it on the basis they didn't believe the figures.
    Management i.e. politicians should be designing or signing off on any test or criteria - not civil servants in my opinion.
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,880
    Foxy said:

    Mr. 1000, aye. Utterly pointless, and contrary to the obvious national interest.

    It's remarkable how bad multiple parties have been on energy. They're shit hot on closing down coal-powered power stations, but when it comes to building enough new nuclear sites, less good.

    Johnson's 'rush for nuclear' sums up the short-sightedness.

    Have we actually been bad?

    We've managed to close down almost all of our 'dirtiest' plants: the coal ones, replacing them with less-polluting gas plants. We've massively increased the amount of renewable energy over the last ten or fifteen years, even under (shock, horror) a Conservative government.

    We are facing a problem with gas supply this winter due to Russia's actions. But we faced issues with electricity generation (and had electricity rationing for months) in 1974 due to the miners' strike.

    Yes, we could have done more; but what we have done is actually quite impressive. Ten years or so ago, I had some conversations with RCS on here about the dangers of power cuts in 2016. He said there would not be any. He was right; I was wrong.
    Ed Davey was the big mover on Renewable energy under the coalition. Tories love to claim credit for what the LibDems did in coalition.

    As I have been saying for about 7 years, the Coalition will be remembered as a golden era of good government by comparison with what comes after.
    I've said that as well. And with what came immediately before, as well.

    But putting all of the good that happened on Ed Davey is a trifle unfair on Cameron and the others in government.
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,215
    edited July 2022

    JonWC said:

    I think TSE is wrong on this - at least for some aspects of the culture war. Even on a heavily "champagne" forum like this, I'm sure many of us are aware of some quite extraordinary things that have been said to children at schools, anecdotes worth as much as a the cited focus group. When it comes to a secret ballot with the government at stake I think the results may surprise.

    To borrow the Chilean saying, trans extremism is god's way of keeping the left out of power forever.

    The gamble for the Tories is this: as people get cold and hungry this winter, will the supposed threat of cock-wielding trans deviants persuade them to ignore their hunger and cold and the anger that generates towards the Tories, and instead be kept warm in a Mail-induced fury about bathrooms?
    I do wonder whether it has occurred to the contenders that, quite probably, they're fighting to become who will soon be the most unpopular person in the country? The lightening rod for all manner of discontents, mostly beyond their immediate control.
  • Options
    RogerRoger Posts: 18,891
    edited July 2022

    Now top Tories want Boris Johnson to quit as an MP to stop probe into whether he lied over Partygate
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11021079/Boris-Johnson-called-Tories-quit-MP-stop-probe-lied-Partygate.html

    A quandary indeed. The damage caused by Guto Harri in Johnson's downfall has so far been ignored. Johnson's clearly a weak man who needs a crutch. Cummings at least brought some intelligence to the job. Harri is just a perennial gossip and briefer and -as predicted -not a good one

    All the stories out of 'No 10' ..... Johnson trying to destroy Rishi's campaign because he was disloyal ......Gove's duplicity ...... various candidates not being up to the job and now Johnson leaving before they can establish he lied to parliament have the unmistakable Guto Harri handwriting all over them. All the delicacy of a bull in a china shop.

    Johnson's legacy will be bad enough without soiling it still further with the manner of his leaving. Time to get rid of the 'No 10 ' sycophants and in the words of Sir Keir time to show some self respect
  • Options
    moonshinemoonshine Posts: 5,243

    moonshine said:

    moonshine said:

    ydoethur said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Fishing said:

    Net Zero is a much bigger and juicier target than trans bathrooms during an energy crisis.

    Yes, because we'd be in a much better position today if we still got all our energy from hydrocarbons.

    Back in 2021, you could (rightly) claim that renewables were increasing the price of our electricity.

    Today, the government paying a guaranteed £43/MWh for wind looks like like utter genius.
    Building tidal lagoons instead of endlessly faffing around with overpriced and probably never to be built nuclear power stations would have looked much more like utter genius.
    We hear a lot about tidal lagoons, but I am (currently) unconvinced. The scale required to make a difference is massive, and despite what the proponents say, the costs will likewise be massive.

    Having said that, I'm in favour if having as varied a power generation system in the UK as possible; we should throw everything into the mix. It's just that I doubt tidal lagoons will prove to be as
    cheap or effective as their proponents claim.
    The power is worth more because it’s predictable. It’s also potentially an export energy. All the trillions of pounds spaffed since 2010 and they didn’t find enough even for the pilot scheme, very sad.
    I'd probably be in favour of a pilot scheme, if the details were right. But that scheme would take many years to build; and more years to see if it has been as effective as claimed and what the other effects are, e.g. environmental or silting.

    I'm not saying it should not be done; just that it is much more complex than the proponents on here try to make out.

    Now, if you want to get me onto a technology we
    should not progress, than just ask me about
    carbon capture. ;)
    12 years they’ve faffed about, weakening our strategic resilience because they don’t have the gumption to gut the Treasury of the narrow minded bean counters and take big decisions in the national interest.

    Lol yeah blame the civil servants and not the politicians making the decisions. If they’re too
    stupid to understand what the civil servants are
    doing then maybe they shouldn’t have gone into
    politics.
    There is a sick culture at the treasury, where they think their role is to balance the books. It’s not, it’s to promote long term wealth creation. This includes ensuring strategic resilience, as well as efficient provision of public goods and productivity enhancement. The organisation has lost its mission statement and we’ve had pigmies as chancellor for too long (30 years?) who are equally to blame.

    Cummings was right. Throw the Treasury onto the bonfire and rebuild an entirely new department with a focused mission statement and new blood.

  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,258
    ydoethur said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Fishing said:

    Net Zero is a much bigger and juicier target than trans bathrooms during an energy crisis.

    Yes, because we'd be in a much better position today if we still got all our energy from hydrocarbons.

    Back in 2021, you could (rightly) claim that renewables were increasing the price of our electricity.

    Today, the government paying a guaranteed £43/MWh for wind looks like like utter genius.
    Building tidal lagoons instead of endlessly faffing around with overpriced and probably never to be built nuclear power stations would have looked much more like utter genius.
    20-25% nuclear fission baseload makes sense. At least for the next 30-40 years until fusion is mainscale.

    They are quite literally almost zero carbon in operation (bit of water vapour, that's it), we can get uranium ore from Canada and Australia, countries that are unlikely to do the dirty on us anytime soon, and it helps us pump out a major amount of power at all hours, night-and-day, and efficiently manage the fluctuation of wind.

    Yes, we need a secure geological disposal facility for a modest amount of waste; we've had nuclear reactors for decades and decades and our kids don't yet seem to have two heads. Yes, they're a tad expensive but so is any insurance policy that protects you against climate change and rogue states that might otherwise choose to hold a gun to our heads.

    We know they work - and getting 2-3 more of these built by 2040 achieves grid decarbonisation. This makes us stronger and more resilient. So let's drop the histrionics and pseudo-CND stuff and just get on with it.
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,964
    As an aside, just seen that Pathfinder Wrath of the Righteous is coming to consoles 29 September.

    Had mixed feelings on Kingmaker. I liked a lot of it, but load times were on the slow side and I think the strategic side (managing the kingdom) did not work well. It just annoyed me (which was surprising as this was after strategy games came to console so I was familiar with, and liked, Civ VI and Stellaris).

    Anybody happen to know if the buggy mess that Pillars of Eternity 2, for PS4, apparently was got resolved by patches?
  • Options
    JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901
    IanB2 said:

    JonWC said:

    I think TSE is wrong on this - at least for some aspects of the culture war. Even on a heavily "champagne" forum like this, I'm sure many of us are aware of some quite extraordinary things that have been said to children at schools, anecdotes worth as much as a the cited focus group. When it comes to a secret ballot with the government at stake I think the results may surprise.

    To borrow the Chilean saying, trans extremism is god's way of keeping the left out of power forever.

    The gamble for the Tories is this: as people get cold and hungry this winter, will the supposed threat of cock-wielding trans deviants persuade them to ignore their hunger and cold and the anger that generates towards the Tories, and instead be kept warm in a Mail-induced fury about bathrooms?
    I do wonder whether it has occurred to the contenders that, quite probably, they're fighting to become who will soon be the most unpopular person in the country? The lightening rod for all manner of discontents, mostly beyond their immediate control.
    If not they should, and the electors should also. The candidate they pick should be the most robust, most able to weather the storm.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,334

    Unpleasant obsession with porn.

    You can get treatment for that, Stuart.
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,584
    IanB2 said:

    JonWC said:

    I think TSE is wrong on this - at least for some aspects of the culture war. Even on a heavily "champagne" forum like this, I'm sure many of us are aware of some quite extraordinary things that have been said to children at schools, anecdotes worth as much as a the cited focus group. When it comes to a secret ballot with the government at stake I think the results may surprise.

    To borrow the Chilean saying, trans extremism is god's way of keeping the left out of power forever.

    The gamble for the Tories is this: as people get cold and hungry this winter, will the supposed threat of cock-wielding trans deviants persuade them to ignore their hunger and cold and the anger that generates towards the Tories, and instead be kept warm in a Mail-induced fury about bathrooms?
    I do wonder whether it has occurred to the contenders that, quite probably, they're fighting to become who will soon be the most unpopular person in the country? The lightening rod for all manner of discontents, mostly beyond their immediate control.
    But most people in the country aren't Tories and so "don't count" in the immortal words of one of us, and are to be ignored. I do wonder if that is the mentality in action here.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,503
    edited July 2022

    Foxy said:

    Mr. 1000, aye. Utterly pointless, and contrary to the obvious national interest.

    It's remarkable how bad multiple parties have been on energy. They're shit hot on closing down coal-powered power stations, but when it comes to building enough new nuclear sites, less good.

    Johnson's 'rush for nuclear' sums up the short-sightedness.

    Have we actually been bad?

    We've managed to close down almost all of our 'dirtiest' plants: the coal ones, replacing them with less-polluting gas plants. We've massively increased the amount of renewable energy over the last ten or fifteen years, even under (shock, horror) a Conservative government.

    We are facing a problem with gas supply this winter due to Russia's actions. But we faced issues with electricity generation (and had electricity rationing for months) in 1974 due to the miners' strike.

    Yes, we could have done more; but what we have done is actually quite impressive. Ten years or so ago, I had some conversations with RCS on here about the dangers of power cuts in 2016. He said there would not be any. He was right; I was wrong.
    Ed Davey was the big mover on Renewable energy under the coalition. Tories love to claim credit for what the LibDems did in coalition.

    As I have been saying for about 7 years, the Coalition will be remembered as a golden era of good government by comparison with what comes after.
    I've said that as well. And with what came immediately before, as well.

    But putting all of the good that happened on Ed Davey is a trifle unfair on Cameron and the others in government.
    I didn't say ALL the good, I said Davey was the big mover, and he was.
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,584

    JonWC said:

    I think TSE is wrong on this - at least for some aspects of the culture war. Even on a heavily "champagne" forum like this, I'm sure many of us are aware of some quite extraordinary things that have been said to children at schools, anecdotes worth as much as a the cited focus group. When it comes to a secret ballot with the government at stake I think the results may surprise.

    To borrow the Chilean saying, trans extremism is god's way of keeping the left out of power forever.

    The gamble for the Tories is this: as people get cold and hungry this winter, will the supposed threat of cock-wielding trans deviants persuade them to ignore their hunger and cold and the anger that generates towards the Tories, and instead be kept warm in a Mail-induced fury about bathrooms?
    Also, with Boris Johnson saying very loudly that Brexit is not finished (!), and that his successor must complete the job, that's another thing they need to address, to keep most people happy. Which is impossible.
  • Options
    GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,077
    moonshine said:

    moonshine said:

    moonshine said:

    ydoethur said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Fishing said:

    Net Zero is a much bigger and juicier target than trans bathrooms during an energy crisis.

    Yes, because we'd be in a much better position today if we still got all our energy from hydrocarbons.

    Back in 2021, you could (rightly) claim that renewables were increasing the price of our electricity.

    Today, the government paying a guaranteed £43/MWh for wind looks like like utter genius.
    Building tidal lagoons instead of endlessly faffing around with overpriced and probably never to be built nuclear power stations would have looked much more like utter genius.
    We hear a lot about tidal lagoons, but I am (currently) unconvinced. The scale required to make a difference is massive, and despite what the proponents say, the costs will likewise be massive.

    Having said that, I'm in favour if having as varied a power generation system in the UK as possible; we should throw everything into the mix. It's just that I doubt tidal lagoons will prove to be as
    cheap or effective as their proponents claim.
    The power is worth more because it’s predictable. It’s also potentially an export energy. All the trillions of pounds spaffed since 2010 and they didn’t find enough even for the pilot scheme, very sad.
    I'd probably be in favour of a pilot scheme, if the details were right. But that scheme would take many years to build; and more years to see if it has been as effective as claimed and what the other effects are, e.g. environmental or silting.

    I'm not saying it should not be done; just that it is much more complex than the proponents on here try to make out.

    Now, if you want to get me onto a technology we
    should not progress, than just ask me about
    carbon capture. ;)
    12 years they’ve faffed about, weakening our strategic resilience because they don’t have the gumption to gut the Treasury of the narrow minded bean counters and take big decisions in the national interest.

    Lol yeah blame the civil servants and not the politicians making the decisions. If they’re too
    stupid to understand what the civil servants are
    doing then maybe they shouldn’t have gone into
    politics.
    There is a sick culture at the treasury, where they think their role is to balance the books. It’s not, it’s to promote long term wealth creation. This includes ensuring strategic resilience, as well as efficient provision of public goods and productivity enhancement. The organisation has lost its mission statement and we’ve had pigmies as chancellor for too long (30 years?) who are equally to blame.

    Cummings was right. Throw the Treasury onto the bonfire and rebuild an entirely new department with a focused mission statement and new blood.

    Sounds suspiciously like restructuring for restructuring sake. The Chancellor is in charge - who appoints the Chancellor? Perhaps any PM should appoint a Chancellor based on merit and numerical skills rather than by greasy loyalty.
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,258

    Jonathan said:

    Renewable energy. Stop talking, start doing. Solves so many problems. It needs to be approached with some urgency.

    Tell it to these boys:


    Do you have a graph with the numbers per-head? Absolute numbers per country are a bit pointless, unless you have a budget available to spend on bribing prime ministers or something.
    All from this - countries are important because that's where policy is set and the solutions delivered. Bribing PMs and Presidents might not be a bad idea:

    https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/uk-and-global-emissions-and-temperature-trends/
  • Options
    moonshinemoonshine Posts: 5,243

    ydoethur said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Fishing said:

    Net Zero is a much bigger and juicier target than trans bathrooms during an energy crisis.

    Yes, because we'd be in a much better position today if we still got all our energy from hydrocarbons.

    Back in 2021, you could (rightly) claim that renewables were increasing the price of our electricity.

    Today, the government paying a guaranteed £43/MWh for wind looks like like utter genius.
    Building tidal lagoons instead of endlessly faffing around with overpriced and probably never to be built nuclear power stations would have looked much more like utter genius.
    20-25% nuclear fission baseload makes sense. At least for the next 30-40 years until fusion is mainscale.

    They are quite literally almost zero carbon in operation (bit of water vapour, that's it), we can get uranium ore from Canada and Australia, countries that are unlikely to do the dirty on us anytime soon, and it helps us pump out a major amount of power at all hours, night-and-day, and efficiently manage the fluctuation of wind.

    Yes, we need a secure geological disposal facility for a modest amount of waste; we've had nuclear reactors for decades and decades and our kids don't yet seem to have two heads. Yes, they're a tad expensive but so is any insurance policy that protects you against climate change and rogue states that might otherwise choose to hold a gun to our heads.

    We know they work - and getting 2-3 more of these built by 2040 achieves grid decarbonisation. This makes us stronger and
    more resilient. So let's drop the histrionics and pseudo-CND stuff and just get on with it.
    Trouble is that we’ve had total morons like George Osborne (sorry TSE but he was), who understood nothing about strategic resilience.

    A school boy blinded by the glitz of Shanghai when backpacking and who then thought it was sensible to try and offshore our nuclear industry to people who quite explicitly identify themselves as our adversaries if you bother to listen to them. All so he could placate the bean counters in the Treasury, because it meant he could keep the construction costs off the books. And here we are. Still no new nuclear capacity.

  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,503

    JonWC said:

    I think TSE is wrong on this - at least for some aspects of the culture war. Even on a heavily "champagne" forum like this, I'm sure many of us are aware of some quite extraordinary things that have been said to children at schools, anecdotes worth as much as a the cited focus group. When it comes to a secret ballot with the government at stake I think the results may surprise.

    To borrow the Chilean saying, trans extremism is god's way of keeping the left out of power forever.

    The gamble for the Tories is this: as people get cold and hungry this winter, will the supposed threat of cock-wielding trans deviants persuade them to ignore their hunger and cold and the anger that generates towards the Tories, and instead be kept warm in a Mail-induced fury about bathrooms?
    Under current rules pre operative Trans people are required to live as their new gender for two years. It is hard to see how that doesn't involve using female only spaces.
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,880
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Fishing said:

    Net Zero is a much bigger and juicier target than trans bathrooms during an energy crisis.

    Yes, because we'd be in a much better position today if we still got all our energy from hydrocarbons.

    Back in 2021, you could (rightly) claim that renewables were increasing the price of our electricity.

    Today, the government paying a guaranteed £43/MWh for wind looks like like utter genius.
    Building tidal lagoons instead of endlessly faffing around with overpriced and probably never to be built nuclear power stations would have looked much more like utter genius.
    We hear a lot about tidal lagoons, but I am (currently) unconvinced. The scale required to make a difference is massive, and despite what the proponents say, the costs will likewise be massive.

    Having said that, I'm in favour if having as varied a power generation system in the UK as possible; we should throw everything into the mix. It's just that I doubt tidal lagoons will prove to be as cheap or effective as their proponents claim.
    Whether you are convinced or not has become irrelevant because the government vetoed large scale trials, claiming it would undoubtedly be more expensive, shorter lived and less reliable than the nuclear options they were exploring. Which was clearly bullshit.

    They don't have to be a silver bullet. Only more reliable than wind, cheaper than gas and longer lasting than nuclear.

    Which they undoubtedly would be. There is no realistic way you can juggle the numbers to come out with a different answer.

    If we'd built five lagoons five years ago we'd be in a much better situation now.
    "Which they undoubtedly would be."

    We are talking about new tech done on a scale that had not been attempted before. Worse, we are talking about a new tech that almost wholly involves groundworks and water: perhaps the most complex and troublesome types of civil engineering. And to make a difference, they need to be large in scale (even if individual ones are small).

    If we'd started building five lagoons five years ago, we'd probably still be building them. In fact, we'd probably still be in the planning stage.

    This is not a reason not to build them: but I can't see them being anywhere near as advantageous or easy as you make out.
    The Swansea proposal was around the same size as the Sihwa or Rance power stations. The latter has been operating for nearly 60 years. The former for over a decade.

    We are not really talking new technology here.
    We are at this scale. The proponents of the Swansea scheme refer to it thus: "Swansea Bay Tidal Lagoon will be the world’s first tidal lagoon power plant."

    Now, dams have been built. Barriers have been built. Barrages have been built. The Sihwa scheme is impressive. But the scale of these schemes is still impressive from a civ eng point of view.

    http://www.tidallagoonpower.com/projects/swansea-bay/
    Well, they were talking nonsense then, because their projected output for the initial lagoon AIUI was around 230 MWH - slightly less than Rance at 240.
    If they are 'talking nonsense' on one of the first lines on the front page of their website, why should we take any of the rest of it as anywhere near accurate?

    (There is a chance that the claim on the front page was written before the SK scheme came online, and they just have not updated it.)
  • Options
    Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 60,247
    Good morning

    The state of the conservative party, as being shown to the public, with petty squabbling and disunity, while with the most diverse of candidates standing for PM, are most likely to elect the least favourable as they continue their Johnson tribute act

    My wife and I discussed this this morning and agreed that unless the party comes to it's senses its deserves to go into opposition and we agreed we would vote for the independent candidate at the next GE if this came about

    They are tired and have been in office too long and a period in opposition may well be needed, but I really hope the Lib Dems perform well in those circumstances and are able to protect the country from labour's worst excesses

    Anyway, on Tuesday we travel to Pitlochry, then on Wednesday to Lossiemouth to see our family which we have not been able to do due to covid, then a week tomorrow we have hired a 6 berth cabin cruiser on the Caledonian Canal to be accompanied by our daughter, her husband, their son and dog, and we shall enjoy being far away from the maddening crowds

    This will be our third time navigating the Caledonian canal, and my wife's late father sailed his fishing boat through the canal numerous times as he and his brothers fished in Ireland, and indeed helped to develop the Irish fishing industry at the time
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,584
    Foxy said:

    JonWC said:

    I think TSE is wrong on this - at least for some aspects of the culture war. Even on a heavily "champagne" forum like this, I'm sure many of us are aware of some quite extraordinary things that have been said to children at schools, anecdotes worth as much as a the cited focus group. When it comes to a secret ballot with the government at stake I think the results may surprise.

    To borrow the Chilean saying, trans extremism is god's way of keeping the left out of power forever.

    The gamble for the Tories is this: as people get cold and hungry this winter, will the supposed threat of cock-wielding trans deviants persuade them to ignore their hunger and cold and the anger that generates towards the Tories, and instead be kept warm in a Mail-induced fury about bathrooms?
    Under current rules pre operative Trans people are required to live as their new gender for two years. It is hard to see how that doesn't involve using female only spaces.
    Current rules passed by the current administration?
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,258
    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Renewable energy. Stop talking, start doing. Solves so many problems. It needs to be approached with some urgency.

    Tell it to these boys:


    Nothing there to stop us investing in renewables and becoming an energy self sufficient, low carbon UK. Time to end the political BS, we can do this.
    I agree but my point is we are never going to race well-ahead of the pack where this causes us huge relative economic pain.

    We will go as fast as we can that makes logical political and economic sense to do so in the short-medium term.

    The solution, of course, is tech, engineering and megaproject delivery skills.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,621
    edited July 2022

    kle4 said:

    I wonder if Sunak banked on being the Biden of this contest. There were plenty of people who wanted anybody but Biden, they even looked at complete unknowns and old reactionaries, but in the end enough people knew he was the best bet they had to win with the public.

    Sunak lacks the fear factor of making the wrong choice though - at worst you'd end up with Keir, who is not that scary a prospect.

    Good post
    Don't think so. Biden's appeal was that he was known. Very known. He had been around since the year dot and was known as old skool, decent, proper 'I'm from Scranton' working class. His very presence harked back to an America that was passing.

    He was the guy who would work across the aisle and get people together. He was the guy who was Obama's VP. Loyal. Decent. Emotional. The guy who had suffered loss and bereavement.

    On every Amtrack carriage he ever rode the guys serving the coffee and punching the tickets had spoken at length to him about their lives and families.

    How on earth is any of this Sunak??
    I didnt say Sunak was the Biden of this contest. I speculated whether he had banked on being the Biden (not in the sense of perfect similarity, but in being the obvious choice which many were resisting but would come to accept), which is not the same thing.

    The point was also that he had miscalculated if that had been his thinking precisely because he and the situation are different.
  • Options
    GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,077

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Renewable energy. Stop talking, start doing. Solves so many problems. It needs to be approached with some urgency.

    Tell it to these boys:


    Nothing there to stop us investing in renewables and becoming an energy self sufficient, low carbon UK. Time to end the political BS, we can do this.
    I agree but my point is we are never going to race well-ahead of the pack where this causes us huge relative economic pain.

    We will go as fast as we can that makes logical political and economic sense to do so in the short-medium term.

    The solution, of course, is tech, engineering and megaproject delivery skills.
    Moving the Treasury to Darlo could help with this - especially if you can tap into the down to earth engineering talent pool in the North.

  • Options
    SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,914
    David Herdson - who knows about this kind of stuff - believes the Tories will go for Mordaunt. I find it hard to believe that they would be mad enough not to go with Sunak. But, for different reasons, either of those two takes culture wars off the table.
  • Options
    JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901

    Carnyx said:

    JonWC said:

    I think TSE is wrong on this - at least for some aspects of the culture war. Even on a heavily "champagne" forum like this, I'm sure many of us are aware of some quite extraordinary things that have been said to children at schools, anecdotes worth as much as a the cited focus group. When it comes to a secret ballot with the government at stake I think the results may surprise.

    To borrow the Chilean saying, trans extremism is god's way of keeping the left out of power forever.

    The gamble for the Tories is this: as people get cold and hungry this winter, will the supposed threat of cock-wielding trans deviants persuade them to ignore their hunger and cold and the anger that generates towards the Tories, and instead be kept warm in a Mail-induced fury about bathrooms?
    Also, with Boris Johnson saying very loudly that Brexit is not finished (!), and that his successor must complete the job, that's another thing they need to address, to keep most people happy. Which is impossible.
    Also millennials are yet to take the reins of power but when we do retribution will be both powerful and swift.

    If red tape and hot air from politicians created electricity we would be set, The debate is not nuclear vs. renewables. It’s endless talking and politicking vs. action.

    Famously perfection is the enemy of the good, just do something, if ever there was a place to remove partisan narrow bickering this is it. Build it.
  • Options
    RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 27,175

    Foxy said:

    Mr. 1000, aye. Utterly pointless, and contrary to the obvious national interest.

    It's remarkable how bad multiple parties have been on energy. They're shit hot on closing down coal-powered power stations, but when it comes to building enough new nuclear sites, less good.

    Johnson's 'rush for nuclear' sums up the short-sightedness.

    Have we actually been bad?

    We've managed to close down almost all of our 'dirtiest' plants: the coal ones, replacing them with less-polluting gas plants. We've massively increased the amount of renewable energy over the last ten or fifteen years, even under (shock, horror) a Conservative government.

    We are facing a problem with gas supply this winter due to Russia's actions. But we faced issues with electricity generation (and had electricity rationing for months) in 1974 due to the miners' strike.

    Yes, we could have done more; but what we have done is actually quite impressive. Ten years or so ago, I had some conversations with RCS on here about the dangers of power cuts in 2016. He said there would not be any. He was right; I was wrong.
    Ed Davey was the big mover on Renewable energy under the coalition. Tories love to claim credit for what the LibDems did in coalition.

    As I have been saying for about 7 years, the Coalition will be remembered as a golden era of good government by comparison with what comes after.
    I've said that as well. And with what came immediately before, as well.

    But putting all of the good that happened on Ed Davey is a trifle unfair on Cameron and the others in government.
    Why? Davey drove policies the Tories were against. If the Tories had actually supported them they they could take credit. As it is, horse trading saw Tory votes for LibDem energy policies just as we then had LibDem votes for Tory health policies.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,334
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Fishing said:

    Net Zero is a much bigger and juicier target than trans bathrooms during an energy crisis.

    Yes, because we'd be in a much better position today if we still got all our energy from hydrocarbons.

    Back in 2021, you could (rightly) claim that renewables were increasing the price of our electricity.

    Today, the government paying a guaranteed £43/MWh for wind looks like like utter genius.
    Building tidal lagoons instead of endlessly faffing around with overpriced and probably never to be built nuclear power stations would have looked much more like utter genius.
    We hear a lot about tidal lagoons, but I am (currently) unconvinced. The scale required to make a difference is massive, and despite what the proponents say, the costs will likewise be massive.

    Having said that, I'm in favour if having as varied a power generation system in the UK as possible; we should throw everything into the mix. It's just that I doubt tidal lagoons will prove to be as cheap or effective as their proponents claim.
    Whether you are convinced or not has become irrelevant because the government vetoed large scale trials, claiming it would undoubtedly be more expensive, shorter lived and less reliable than the nuclear options they were exploring so there was no point in even experimenting with it. Which was clearly bullshit.

    They don't have to be a silver bullet. Only more reliable than wind, cheaper than gas and longer lasting than nuclear.

    Which they undoubtedly would be. There is no realistic way you can juggle the numbers to come out with a different answer.

    If we'd built five lagoons five years ago we'd be in a much better situation now.
    Would have been a great deal cheaper to finance, too.
    When really long term borrowing was historically at an absolute low.

    Bit more complicated now, I suspect.
  • Options
    RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 27,175

    Good morning

    The state of the conservative party, as being shown to the public, with petty squabbling and disunity, while with the most diverse of candidates standing for PM, are most likely to elect the least favourable as they continue their Johnson tribute act

    My wife and I discussed this this morning and agreed that unless the party comes to it's senses its deserves to go into opposition and we agreed we would vote for the independent candidate at the next GE if this came about

    They are tired and have been in office too long and a period in opposition may well be needed, but I really hope the Lib Dems perform well in those circumstances and are able to protect the country from labour's worst excesses

    Anyway, on Tuesday we travel to Pitlochry, then on Wednesday to Lossiemouth to see our family which we have not been able to do due to covid, then a week tomorrow we have hired a 6 berth cabin cruiser on the Caledonian Canal to be accompanied by our daughter, her husband, their son and dog, and we shall enjoy being far away from the maddening crowds

    This will be our third time navigating the Caledonian canal, and my wife's late father sailed his fishing boat through the canal numerous times as he and his brothers fished in Ireland, and indeed helped to develop the Irish fishing industry at the time

    Every time I have been having a picnic on Loch Oich at this little spot we know, I always at the boats sailing along!
  • Options
    JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Renewable energy. Stop talking, start doing. Solves so many problems. It needs to be approached with some urgency.

    Tell it to these boys:


    Nothing there to stop us investing in renewables and becoming an energy self sufficient, low carbon UK. Time to end the political BS, we can do this.
    I agree but my point is we are never going to race well-ahead of the pack where this causes us huge relative economic pain.

    We will go as fast as we can that makes logical political and economic sense to do so in the short-medium term.

    The solution, of course, is tech, engineering and megaproject delivery skills.
    Not taking a lead on this and solving energy problems on out little island has created a lot of economic pain. We should be more confident and optimistic as a nation and start delivering these projects.
  • Options
    FarooqFarooq Posts: 10,775

    Good morning

    The state of the conservative party, as being shown to the public, with petty squabbling and disunity, while with the most diverse of candidates standing for PM, are most likely to elect the least favourable as they continue their Johnson tribute act

    My wife and I discussed this this morning and agreed that unless the party comes to it's senses its deserves to go into opposition and we agreed we would vote for the independent candidate at the next GE if this came about

    They are tired and have been in office too long and a period in opposition may well be needed, but I really hope the Lib Dems perform well in those circumstances and are able to protect the country from labour's worst excesses

    Anyway, on Tuesday we travel to Pitlochry, then on Wednesday to Lossiemouth to see our family which we have not been able to do due to covid, then a week tomorrow we have hired a 6 berth cabin cruiser on the Caledonian Canal to be accompanied by our daughter, her husband, their son and dog, and we shall enjoy being far away from the maddening crowds

    This will be our third time navigating the Caledonian canal, and my wife's late father sailed his fishing boat through the canal numerous times as he and his brothers fished in Ireland, and indeed helped to develop the Irish fishing industry at the time

    I'm not quite sure what your logic is in wanting the Lib Dems to do well, but voting for "the independent candidate". Is your seat Aberconwy?
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,123
    Slightly odd header to be honest. All 5 of the candidates on the Friday debate made it very clear that they had no interest in being distracted by trans or other issues and offered moderate and reasonable positions which you would find hard to slip a fag paper between.

    It was clearly much more of a risk that the Boris government would go down that path but that and he are irrelevant now.
This discussion has been closed.