Why stoking the culture wars ensures a Tory shellacking – politicalbetting.com
Options
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
0
Comments
-
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 Tugendhat0 -
ITV debate tonight, 7pm.0
-
Unpleasant obsession with porn.0
-
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.html1 -
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.
4 -
I think this misunderstands how the culture wars are weaponized. The right-wing *politicians* don't need to talk about their chosen issues too much, at least not at election time. They stake out a moderately reactionary position, and that's it. Then the right-wing *media* do the culture war thing, and they talk about it as if the *left* are obsessed with it instead of the economy or whatever. This is easy to do because:
1) Some left-wing *activists* are really into these issues, and are always trying to be edgy and get attention
2) Left-wing politicians can be made to answer questions or at least have to publicly dodge them, and they can be phrased in whatever way the person spinning the attacker chooses to create maximum discomfort based on what the average voter knows ("Kier Starmer can't even give you a straight answer on whether a cashew nut is a nut")
3) The papers can print what they like, and they can talk about the answers to (2) out of proportion to how much time the left-wing politicians spend talking about them8 -
Have you considered therapy?StuartDickson said:Unpleasant obsession with porn.
2 -
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?0
-
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.0 -
Good morning, everyone.
How come Badenoch's suddenly come down to 10?
Interesting that Sunak's currently shorter than Mordaunt.
Tempted to lay Badenoch...1 -
No matter how useless she is, I suspect that Ms Truss is the value here.DecrepiterJohnL said: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
(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 votes0 -
What's unpleasant about an obsession with porn?StuartDickson said:Unpleasant obsession with porn.
Why Sweden has always been known for the high quality of its pornographic output.0 -
Well, that’s good news. We don’t want him messing things up even more.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.
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?2 -
You sound like my missus.StuartDickson said:Unpleasant obsession with porn.
0 -
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.0 -
Is she a porn actress?northern_monkey said:
You sound like my missus.StuartDickson said:Unpleasant obsession with porn.
0 -
No but my stepmum is.rcs1000 said:
Is she a porn actress?northern_monkey said:
You sound like my missus.StuartDickson said:Unpleasant obsession with porn.
3 -
a eunuch1
-
Net Zero is a much bigger and juicier target than trans bathrooms during an energy crisis.0
-
Yesterday's ConHome poll I think, all very fluid. Tonights debate should be interesting:Morris_Dancer said: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.
0 -
Yes, because we'd be in a much better position today if we still got all our energy from hydrocarbons.Fishing said:Net Zero is a much bigger and juicier target than trans bathrooms during an energy crisis.
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.1 -
Well then I’d suggest you stop looking at it.StuartDickson said:Unpleasant obsession with porn.
0 -
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.rcs1000 said:
Yes, because we'd be in a much better position today if we still got all our energy from hydrocarbons.Fishing said:Net Zero is a much bigger and juicier target than trans bathrooms during an energy crisis.
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.6 -
I'm told that's hard.turbotubbs said:
Well then I’d suggest you stop looking at it.StuartDickson said:Unpleasant obsession with porn.
0 -
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...0 -
Particularly with renewables, you want a portfolio approach.ydoethur said:
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.rcs1000 said:
Yes, because we'd be in a much better position today if we still got all our energy from hydrocarbons.Fishing said:Net Zero is a much bigger and juicier target than trans bathrooms during an energy crisis.
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.
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.5 -
Whatever you think of the Tories and their policies, their method of selecting a leader takes some beating.0
-
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.rcs1000 said:
Particularly with renewables, you want a portfolio approach.ydoethur said:
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.rcs1000 said:
Yes, because we'd be in a much better position today if we still got all our energy from hydrocarbons.Fishing said:Net Zero is a much bigger and juicier target than trans bathrooms during an energy crisis.
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.
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.
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.0 -
Sweden has also produced this fascinating film on life in the industry. Currently on MUBI:rcs1000 said:
What's unpleasant about an obsession with porn?StuartDickson said:Unpleasant obsession with porn.
Why Sweden has always been known for the high quality of its pornographic output.
https://mubi.com/films/pleasure-2020
Needless to say it is unrelentingly graphic, and at times rather disturbing.1 -
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.ydoethur said:
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.rcs1000 said:
Yes, because we'd be in a much better position today if we still got all our energy from hydrocarbons.Fishing said:Net Zero is a much bigger and juicier target than trans bathrooms during an energy crisis.
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.
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.1 -
With all due respect, there's really nothing complicated about storing gas. The UK used to have sites all across the country.ydoethur said:
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.rcs1000 said:
Particularly with renewables, you want a portfolio approach.ydoethur said:
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.rcs1000 said:
Yes, because we'd be in a much better position today if we still got all our energy from hydrocarbons.Fishing said:Net Zero is a much bigger and juicier target than trans bathrooms during an energy crisis.
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.
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.
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.
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.1 -
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."0 -
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.JosiasJessop said:
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.ydoethur said:
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.rcs1000 said:
Yes, because we'd be in a much better position today if we still got all our energy from hydrocarbons.Fishing said:Net Zero is a much bigger and juicier target than trans bathrooms during an energy crisis.
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.
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.
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.2 -
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.rcs1000 said:
With all due respect, there's really nothing complicated about storing gas. The UK used to have sites all across the country.ydoethur said:
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.rcs1000 said:
Particularly with renewables, you want a portfolio approach.ydoethur said:
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.rcs1000 said:
Yes, because we'd be in a much better position today if we still got all our energy from hydrocarbons.Fishing said:Net Zero is a much bigger and juicier target than trans bathrooms during an energy crisis.
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.
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.
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.
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.0 -
Victoria Coren and Charlie Skelton wrote a hilarious book called "Once more, with feeling" about their attempt to make a porn film.Foxy said:
Sweden has also produced this fascinating film on life in the industry. Currently on MUBI:rcs1000 said:
What's unpleasant about an obsession with porn?StuartDickson said:Unpleasant obsession with porn.
Why Sweden has always been known for the high quality of its pornographic output.
https://mubi.com/films/pleasure-2020
Needless to say it is unrelentingly graphic, and at times rather disturbing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Once_More,_with_Feeling_(book)0 -
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.JosiasJessop said:
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.ydoethur said:
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.rcs1000 said:
Yes, because we'd be in a much better position today if we still got all our energy from hydrocarbons.Fishing said:Net Zero is a much bigger and juicier target than trans bathrooms during an energy crisis.
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.
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.
0 -
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.
3 -
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.2 -
"Which they undoubtedly would be."ydoethur said:
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.JosiasJessop said:
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.ydoethur said:
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.rcs1000 said:
Yes, because we'd be in a much better position today if we still got all our energy from hydrocarbons.Fishing said:Net Zero is a much bigger and juicier target than trans bathrooms during an energy crisis.
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.
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.
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.
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.1 -
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.moonshine said:
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.JosiasJessop said:
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.ydoethur said:
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.rcs1000 said:
Yes, because we'd be in a much better position today if we still got all our energy from hydrocarbons.Fishing said:Net Zero is a much bigger and juicier target than trans bathrooms during an energy crisis.
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.
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.
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.
0 -
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.JosiasJessop said:
"Which they undoubtedly would be."ydoethur said:
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.JosiasJessop said:
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.ydoethur said:
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.rcs1000 said:
Yes, because we'd be in a much better position today if we still got all our energy from hydrocarbons.Fishing said:Net Zero is a much bigger and juicier target than trans bathrooms during an energy crisis.
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.
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.
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.
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.
We are not really talking new technology here.2 -
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.ydoethur said:
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.rcs1000 said:
Particularly with renewables, you want a portfolio approach.ydoethur said:
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.rcs1000 said:
Yes, because we'd be in a much better position today if we still got all our energy from hydrocarbons.Fishing said:Net Zero is a much bigger and juicier target than trans bathrooms during an energy crisis.
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.
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.
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.1 -
Renewable energy. Stop talking, start doing. Solves so many problems. It needs to be approached with some urgency.3
-
And is being done.Jonathan said:Renewable energy. Stop talking, start doing. Solves so many problems. It needs to be approached with some urgency.
0 -
Have we actually been bad?Morris_Dancer 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.
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.1 -
We are doing it.Jonathan said:Renewable energy. Stop talking, start doing. Solves so many problems. It needs to be approached with some urgency.
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...1 -
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.JosiasJessop said:
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.moonshine said:
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.JosiasJessop said:
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.ydoethur said:
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.rcs1000 said:
Yes, because we'd be in a much better position today if we still got all our energy from hydrocarbons.Fishing said:Net Zero is a much bigger and juicier target than trans bathrooms during an energy crisis.
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.
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.
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.
1 -
Mr. Jessop, it's true renewables have been increased and evil coal has been cut.
But I'll take dirty electricity and the lights being on over the talk there is now of lights going out over winter because ideology was put above practicality when it comes to energy. An enthusiasm for cutting power plants for 'green' reasons has not been matched by a commitment to make up the shortfall.
More nuclear plants should have been built to help bridge the gap. But the only nuclear moves that have been made are May's terrible Chinese deal and some verbal diarrhoea from the outgoing jester.
Hopefully everything will be fine but the fact it's even a question is alarming.5 -
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."
0 -
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."ydoethur said:
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.JosiasJessop said:
"Which they undoubtedly would be."ydoethur said:
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.JosiasJessop said:
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.ydoethur said:
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.rcs1000 said:
Yes, because we'd be in a much better position today if we still got all our energy from hydrocarbons.Fishing said:Net Zero is a much bigger and juicier target than trans bathrooms during an energy crisis.
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.
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.
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.
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.
We are not really talking new technology here.
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/0 -
There is a hell of a lot of crap, soul searching and red tape that goes along with it. Just do it. Now.JosiasJessop said:
We are doing it.Jonathan said:Renewable energy. Stop talking, start doing. Solves so many problems. It needs to be approached with some urgency.
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...0 -
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.moonshine said:
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.JosiasJessop said:
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.moonshine said:
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.JosiasJessop said:
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.ydoethur said:
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.rcs1000 said:
Yes, because we'd be in a much better position today if we still got all our energy from hydrocarbons.Fishing said:Net Zero is a much bigger and juicier target than trans bathrooms during an energy crisis.
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.
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.
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.0 -
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.rcs1000 said:
Yes, because we'd be in a much better position today if we still got all our energy from hydrocarbons.Fishing said:Net Zero is a much bigger and juicier target than trans bathrooms during an energy crisis.
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.
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.4 -
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.JosiasJessop said:
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."ydoethur said:
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.JosiasJessop said:
"Which they undoubtedly would be."ydoethur said:
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.JosiasJessop said:
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.ydoethur said:
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.rcs1000 said:
Yes, because we'd be in a much better position today if we still got all our energy from hydrocarbons.Fishing said:Net Zero is a much bigger and juicier target than trans bathrooms during an energy crisis.
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.
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.
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.
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.
We are not really talking new technology here.
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/0 -
Isn't the issue the costs and sacrifices required to achieve Net Zero right across the economy?rcs1000 said:
Particularly with renewables, you want a portfolio approach.ydoethur said:
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.rcs1000 said:
Yes, because we'd be in a much better position today if we still got all our energy from hydrocarbons.Fishing said:Net Zero is a much bigger and juicier target than trans bathrooms during an energy crisis.
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.
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.
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.0 -
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.Gallowgate said:
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.moonshine said:
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.JosiasJessop said:
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.moonshine said:
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.JosiasJessop said:
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.ydoethur said:
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.rcs1000 said:
Yes, because we'd be in a much better position today if we still got all our energy from hydrocarbons.Fishing said:Net Zero is a much bigger and juicier target than trans bathrooms during an energy crisis.
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.
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.
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.
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.0 -
Tell it to these boys:Jonathan said:Renewable energy. Stop talking, start doing. Solves so many problems. It needs to be approached with some urgency.
1 -
'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]'JosiasJessop said:
Victoria Coren and Charlie Skelton wrote a hilarious book called "Once more, with feeling" about their attempt to make a porn film.Foxy said:
Sweden has also produced this fascinating film on life in the industry. Currently on MUBI:rcs1000 said:
What's unpleasant about an obsession with porn?StuartDickson said:Unpleasant obsession with porn.
Why Sweden has always been known for the high quality of its pornographic output.
https://mubi.com/films/pleasure-2020
Needless to say it is unrelentingly graphic, and at times rather disturbing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Once_More,_with_Feeling_(book)1 -
The market is hypersensitive to positive Badenoch noises.Morris_Dancer said: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.
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.0 -
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.Casino_Royale said:
Tell it to these boys:Jonathan said:Renewable energy. Stop talking, start doing. Solves so many problems. It needs to be approached with some urgency.
0 -
'''0 -
Ed Davey was the big mover on Renewable energy under the coalition. Tories love to claim credit for what the LibDems did in coalition.JosiasJessop said:
Have we actually been bad?Morris_Dancer 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.
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.
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.
4 -
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.2
-
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.Casino_Royale said:
Tell it to these boys:Jonathan said:Renewable energy. Stop talking, start doing. Solves so many problems. It needs to be approached with some urgency.
1 -
A stiff imposition.ydoethur said:
I'm told that's hard.turbotubbs said:
Well then I’d suggest you stop looking at it.StuartDickson said:Unpleasant obsession with porn.
0 -
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?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.1 -
Management i.e. politicians should be designing or signing off on any test or criteria - not civil servants in my opinion.ydoethur said:
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.Gallowgate said:
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.moonshine said:
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.JosiasJessop said:
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.moonshine said:
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.JosiasJessop said:
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.ydoethur said:
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.rcs1000 said:
Yes, because we'd be in a much better position today if we still got all our energy from hydrocarbons.Fishing said:Net Zero is a much bigger and juicier target than trans bathrooms during an energy crisis.
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.
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.
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.
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.0 -
I've said that as well. And with what came immediately before, as well.Foxy said:
Ed Davey was the big mover on Renewable energy under the coalition. Tories love to claim credit for what the LibDems did in coalition.JosiasJessop said:
Have we actually been bad?Morris_Dancer 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.
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.
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.
But putting all of the good that happened on Ed Davey is a trifle unfair on Cameron and the others in government.0 -
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.RochdalePioneers said:
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?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.1 -
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 oneDecrepiterJohnL said: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
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 respect1 -
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.Gallowgate said:
Lol yeah blame the civil servants and not the politicians making the decisions. If they’re toomoonshine said:
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.JosiasJessop said:
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.moonshine said:
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.JosiasJessop said:
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.ydoethur said:
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.rcs1000 said:
Yes, because we'd be in a much better position today if we still got all our energy from hydrocarbons.Fishing said:Net Zero is a much bigger and juicier target than trans bathrooms during an energy crisis.
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.
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.
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.
stupid to understand what the civil servants are
doing then maybe they shouldn’t have gone into
politics.
Cummings was right. Throw the Treasury onto the bonfire and rebuild an entirely new department with a focused mission statement and new blood.
1 -
20-25% nuclear fission baseload makes sense. At least for the next 30-40 years until fusion is mainscale.ydoethur said:
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.rcs1000 said:
Yes, because we'd be in a much better position today if we still got all our energy from hydrocarbons.Fishing said:Net Zero is a much bigger and juicier target than trans bathrooms during an energy crisis.
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.
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.0 -
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?0 -
If not they should, and the electors should also. The candidate they pick should be the most robust, most able to weather the storm.IanB2 said:
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.RochdalePioneers said:
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?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.0 -
You can get treatment for that, Stuart.StuartDickson said:Unpleasant obsession with porn.
0 -
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.IanB2 said:
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.RochdalePioneers said:
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?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.1 -
I didn't say ALL the good, I said Davey was the big mover, and he was.JosiasJessop said:
I've said that as well. And with what came immediately before, as well.Foxy said:
Ed Davey was the big mover on Renewable energy under the coalition. Tories love to claim credit for what the LibDems did in coalition.JosiasJessop said:
Have we actually been bad?Morris_Dancer 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.
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.
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.
But putting all of the good that happened on Ed Davey is a trifle unfair on Cameron and the others in government.0 -
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.RochdalePioneers said:
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?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.0 -
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.moonshine said:
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.Gallowgate said:
Lol yeah blame the civil servants and not the politicians making the decisions. If they’re toomoonshine said:
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.JosiasJessop said:
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.moonshine said:
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.JosiasJessop said:
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.ydoethur said:
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.rcs1000 said:
Yes, because we'd be in a much better position today if we still got all our energy from hydrocarbons.Fishing said:Net Zero is a much bigger and juicier target than trans bathrooms during an energy crisis.
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.
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.
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.
stupid to understand what the civil servants are
doing then maybe they shouldn’t have gone into
politics.
Cummings was right. Throw the Treasury onto the bonfire and rebuild an entirely new department with a focused mission statement and new blood.0 -
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:edmundintokyo said:
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.Casino_Royale said:
Tell it to these boys:Jonathan said:Renewable energy. Stop talking, start doing. Solves so many problems. It needs to be approached with some urgency.
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/uk-and-global-emissions-and-temperature-trends/0 -
Trouble is that we’ve had total morons like George Osborne (sorry TSE but he was), who understood nothing about strategic resilience.Casino_Royale said:
20-25% nuclear fission baseload makes sense. At least for the next 30-40 years until fusion is mainscale.ydoethur said:
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.rcs1000 said:
Yes, because we'd be in a much better position today if we still got all our energy from hydrocarbons.Fishing said:Net Zero is a much bigger and juicier target than trans bathrooms during an energy crisis.
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.
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.
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.
1 -
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.RochdalePioneers said:
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?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.0 -
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?ydoethur said:
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.JosiasJessop said:
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."ydoethur said:
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.JosiasJessop said:
"Which they undoubtedly would be."ydoethur said:
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.JosiasJessop said:
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.ydoethur said:
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.rcs1000 said:
Yes, because we'd be in a much better position today if we still got all our energy from hydrocarbons.Fishing said:Net Zero is a much bigger and juicier target than trans bathrooms during an energy crisis.
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.
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.
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.
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.
We are not really talking new technology here.
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/
(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.)0 -
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 time0 -
Current rules passed by the current administration?Foxy said:
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.RochdalePioneers said:
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?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.0 -
Also millennials are yet to take the reins of power but when we do retribution will be both powerful and swift.Carnyx said:
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.RochdalePioneers said:
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?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.
6 -
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.Jonathan said:
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.Casino_Royale said:
Tell it to these boys:Jonathan said:Renewable energy. Stop talking, start doing. Solves so many problems. It needs to be approached with some urgency.
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.0 -
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.rottenborough said:
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.MikeSmithson said:
Good postkle4 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.
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??
The point was also that he had miscalculated if that had been his thinking precisely because he and the situation are different.0 -
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.Casino_Royale said:
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.Jonathan said:
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.Casino_Royale said:
Tell it to these boys:Jonathan said:Renewable energy. Stop talking, start doing. Solves so many problems. It needs to be approached with some urgency.
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.
0 -
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.2
-
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.Gallowgate said:
Also millennials are yet to take the reins of power but when we do retribution will be both powerful and swift.Carnyx said:
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.RochdalePioneers said:
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?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.
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.2 -
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.JosiasJessop said:
I've said that as well. And with what came immediately before, as well.Foxy said:
Ed Davey was the big mover on Renewable energy under the coalition. Tories love to claim credit for what the LibDems did in coalition.JosiasJessop said:
Have we actually been bad?Morris_Dancer 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.
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.
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.
But putting all of the good that happened on Ed Davey is a trifle unfair on Cameron and the others in government.1 -
Would have been a great deal cheaper to finance, too.ydoethur said:
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.JosiasJessop said:
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.ydoethur said:
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.rcs1000 said:
Yes, because we'd be in a much better position today if we still got all our energy from hydrocarbons.Fishing said:Net Zero is a much bigger and juicier target than trans bathrooms during an energy crisis.
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.
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.
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.
When really long term borrowing was historically at an absolute low.
Bit more complicated now, I suspect.0 -
Every time I have been having a picnic on Loch Oich at this little spot we know, I always at the boats sailing along!Big_G_NorthWales said: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 time1 -
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.Casino_Royale said:
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.Jonathan said:
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.Casino_Royale said:
Tell it to these boys:Jonathan said:Renewable energy. Stop talking, start doing. Solves so many problems. It needs to be approached with some urgency.
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.3 -
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.2 -
Sadly the Lib Dems have no clue either. Go on their website site and click Join. And it gives you a paragraph all about Brexit and the Iraq War. Even after their humiliation in 2019, they still don’t realise that Boris got his majority because the electorate wanted to stop talking and thinking about Brexit.Big_G_NorthWales said: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
As for Iraq? First time voters next time were born after Saddam died. It’d be like Blair making one of his top three campaign points that Labour kept Britain out the Vietnam War. Not even to mention that right now the public at large are fully behind efforts to arm and repel the Russian army, with Ukraine flags hanging in village squares and tower block bedroom windows up and down the land.
Clueless they are.
1
This discussion has been closed.