Sunak does appear to be helping a CON recovery in the polls – politicalbetting.com

Ishmael_Z said:

LostPassword said:

turbotubbs said:

Andy_JS said:

Wind power has dropped from 58% yesterday to 4% today.

https://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk

Is it thatCalm out there? Seems very low.

The isobars are very sparse over Britain at the moment. It happens.

Nice picture here

https://www.windy.com/?50.575,-4.196,5,m:ffWafCz

Dev n Corn seem to have cornered the market in wind.

Stuartinromford said:

Gosh it's tetchy this evening.

Can we have a nice chat about how Cambridge is really part of the North instead?

LostPassword said:

Ishmael_Z said:

LostPassword said:

turbotubbs said:

Andy_JS said:

Wind power has dropped from 58% yesterday to 4% today.

https://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk

Is it thatCalm out there? Seems very low.

The isobars are very sparse over Britain at the moment. It happens.

Nice picture here

https://www.windy.com/?50.575,-4.196,5,m:ffWafCz

Dev n Corn seem to have cornered the market in wind.

Would be interesting to see that with the locations/sizes of wind farms included. The huge boom in North Sea windfarms is obviously great, but I think it means that our wind capacity is particularly concentrated there.

It's why it can make sense to put wind turbines up in places with less wind on average, because often those places will happen to be windy when the more windy places aren't.

JosiasJessop said:

ydoethur said:

JosiasJessop said:

Stuartinromford said:

Gosh it's tetchy this evening.

Can we have a nice chat about how Cambridge is really part of the North instead?

Well, it has a 'North' station, but no 'South' one - yet.

Is that the one which tells you on the destination board that you've arrived at a the seat of a mighty institution of research and teaching?

Although it somehow forgets to mention the University of Cambridge is also based there.

That certainly used to be the case at Cambridge - unsure about the North station.

(For others: the running-in boards on the station used to have "Home to Anglia Ruskin Univeraity" underneath them.)

(Extra marks for anyone who knew what 'running-in boards' were .... )

Ishmael_Z said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Ishmael_Z said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Ishmael_Z said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Ishmael_Z said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

kinabalu said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

WillG said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

kinabalu said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

kinabalu said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

kinabalu said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

kinabalu said:

Driver said:

kinabalu said:

Driver said:

kinabalu said:

Driver said:

kinabalu said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

kinabalu said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

kinabalu said:

ThomasNashe said:

kinabalu said:

ThomasNashe said:

kinabalu said:

Pulpstar said:

I'm not convinced house prices are going to drop too much with hugely negative real rates.

I'll stick with my 15% prediction for London.

There’s been a lot of building around here (Ealing) over the last few years. It feels like the supply will increase greatly, and I could see a big fall in prices. Probably a good thing overall.

Yes, defo a good thing overall - but better if it happens gradually and relatively with (other) prices & earnings inflation doing most of the work.

In any case 15% absolute is pretty big. Do you mean a lot more than that? That would surprise me actually.

No, but 20% wouldn’t surprise me either.

But each significant fall is likely to be met by an increase in first-time buyers at the point that they realise they can afford to buy. I.e. they won’t hang about for possible further falls.

Tough times, that's for sure. I can't recall when we last had all 3 of rampant inflation, terrible public finances, and a looming long recession.

2007, but Gordon Brown changed inflation from RPI which includes housing to the discredited CPI which does not, and Tory Chancellors have kept that change as it fraudulently pretended inflation had gone away.

Hmm not really like now. But you've managed to say "Gordon Brown" so job done there.

Its different to now, but it had all 3 that you mentioned. Over 11% inflation on some measures, over 4% in RPI, plus terrible public finances and a looming long recession.

I don't excuse Tory Chancellors for sticking to Brown's fraudulent scam that housing is somehow not real inflation, I've been critical on the Tories for that too for a long time. It suited Osborne et al to pretend somehow that inflation was lower than it really was by using Brown's dodgy data and the result was the Bank of England used dodgy data for their mandate.

I'd say you want housing costs (rent and rent equivalents for owners) in there not house prices.

Anyway "Brown's fraudulent scam" - well done again. But we'll stop now, I think, so you can't keep crowbarring Gordophobic abuse into the chat. Enough's enough. I won't be an enabler.

I can understand why from your point of view you don't like the fact that the current failed policies are those of the last 20 years, not just the last 12.

That is desperate - you must feel a bit funny after psyching up to say it.

And yet it's true - the consensus of the last 20 years is obvious if you're paying attention. Not everything is party politics.

Many consensuses have contributed to where we are today. Eg I'd pick out the one that said free markets can judge risk v reward, but there are loads. You've just picked a timeframe to get a bit of New Labour in there and exclude Thatcherism.

Not really - I've picked the timeframe from the biggest shift that I can remember - from Clarkism (kept on by Brown for the first term) to Brown/Osborne/Sunakism. I don't have many political memories before 1990.

Osborne was continuity Brown? That's an unusual take.

In areas like "inflation" (pretend it doesn't exist by excluding it where it does) etc absolutely Osborne was continuity Brown and I've criticised him for that.

It suited Osborne's interests to continue with Brown's scam.

"Brown's scam" - you are at it again! It's a good job he's not a protected characteristic or you'd be up before the Beak.

You can't help yourself, can you? You claimed you weren't going to engage, but here you are trying to claim that Brown rewriting inflation to exclude inflation in house costs wasn't a scam. It was. A scam that Ishmael sought to justify by suggesting that it was a good way to rip off those with indexed linked assets. A scam Osborne etc continued with.

Housing is a cost, not solely an asset. It is in fact the largest cost of living on average, more than electricity, or gas, or cars, or even food.

Any inflation figure that excludes the largest cost of living from its data is fake.

But the point is how to include it in official inflation. Do you use some sort of rental equivalent or do you just stick in the gross asset price change? The 2nd feels wrong - as per your exchange with OLB - but agree or not it's certainly not a "scam" to *not* do that. You're only saying so because of your Gordophobia, which you do suffer from and I'm being totally serious in saying this. You're a Gordophobe. You are simply incapable of assessing his record with any degree of accuracy or fairness. It renders your punditry on him next to worthless. Which is a shame since it's both passionate and copious.

Cars are measured in CPI as new car list price. https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/inflationandpriceindices/timeseries/d7e8/mm23

Second hand cars and inferred prices are excluded from CPI.

Houses could follow the same principle, a new build home is purely cost not anyone's asset and if the cost goes higher then that simply means the cost of purchasing has gone higher, just as if a new car cost goes higher.

Either way, excluding housing costs because that reduces the headline figure is a scam. I say the same about Osborne sticking with the scam, or Ishmael saying its a good thing because it defrauds people with indexed linked payments etc as if that's something I'd view as a positive?

Your weird Gordophilia that anything Brown did can't have any downsides is just odd. Forget Brown, rewriting inflation from including housing in RPIX to excluding it in CPI was plain dodgy data and has meant inflation has been wrongly and fallaciously claimed to be low for years.

In 1997 the average new build house price was £71,892
In 2022 the average new build house price is £292,773

Yet we're supposed to think that a change in cost from £71,892 to £292,773 is not a factor in inflation?

Only a dishonest fool could suggest such a thing.

Hardly a "scam", though, to take the view that rental equivalent is a better inclusion to cost-of-living inflation for housing costs than gross asset price change.

Still, cars are a slightly better analogy than your previous bog roll so that's a win right there.

Not really, since a cost is a cost and it is what people paying the cost have to pay. But either way the rental equivalent isn't in CPI though, thus making it a ... scam.

According to OBR data housing makes up more than a quarter of household expenditure, yet housing, water, electricity, gas and other fuels combined make up only 14% of the weighting of CPI. How can you justify that?

You don't need to do rent equivalent. You just do the average mortgage cost for the average house.

Or just the average cost of the average house. Or new ones, like cars.

Financing costs aren't done in CPI on car leases, or how much interest you pay on credit card purchases for your baked beans.

What weight would you put on house prices in your CPI-BR? Since buying a house isn't consumption it's hard to know how to calculate the weight. You couldn't use the share of consumption as you do for everything else.

Why is it not consumption? If you're paying for it, its a cost, even if you have a second hand asset at the end of it.

Weight it according to expenses as a proportion of expenditure for median or average households is the sensible solution, as opposed to homeowner households as is currently done. Indeed given that inflation is a sharper problem for those who have to pay housing as well as every other cost as opposed to those on the same income who live cost-free for housing, weighting it according to non-owners would make more sense than owners, but average is surely the only accurate choice?

Housing and energy is the highest expense for the average household, forming on OBR statistics 28-33% of household budgets. So it should be weighted 28-33% accordingly, instead home owner based CPI weights it combined to a meagre14%.

Telling households that inflation is low because housing, electricity, gas and water combined are only 14% of CPI when they actually account for 28-33% is false and misleading data.

How much of your house have you consumed this week then?

As much of it as I consumed my car, or my Laptop, or my Phone.

It kept a roof above my head and the wind and rain away which is its purpose and why it is the most expensive item in my budget.

You demolish your house and buy a new one every five years? No wonder you are composing Vogon poetry on the topic, as was aptly remarked yesterday.

The world is just one great big conspiracy to defraud Barty, and only a nimby scumbag would deny the fact.

Bellyflop of the month, though, thinking Brown changed inflation target from RPI with housing in it to CPI without, and being told the previous measure was RPIX, without housing in it. That stopped him in his tracks for half an hour but now he has found that RPIX includes the vat element of ground rent or some such shit while CPI doesn't, so he was right all along. Nimby Brown out to do Bart down.

And what he wants is a Heath Robinson arrangement anyway: put hpi into the inflation figures so the bank will notice and do something about it, when its primary effect will be an insane feedback loop simply increasing inflation. Instead of just giving the bank a separate, primary duty to control house prices.

You're full of shit. Housing always was in RPIX and I knew that even if you don't. Sorry if I was unable to respond to you within half an hour, I do have a life outside this website, but you were simply categorically wrong to think RPIX excludes housing costs in the same way CPI does.



Including HPI within inflation, weighted properly to what housing actually costs households, as happened until RPIX was dumped wouldn't be an insane feedback loop. Including MIPs instead of HPI would create a feedback loop which is why it very sensibly wasn't included in RPIX which I agree with. HPI and rent etc should take the full share of housing costs proportionately weighted to the average household budget not rate-sensitive MIPs.

Don't call me "full of shit," Bart. OPT you wrote

"2007, but Gordon Brown changed inflation from RPI which includes housing to the discredited CPI which does not, and Tory Chancellors have kept that change as it fraudulently pretended inflation had gone away."

Has anyone ever been more bang to rights?

I was completely right. RPI does include housing.

RPIX excludes the MIP to avoid the feedback loop problem which is entirely sensible, but it still includes housing with housing depreciation etc in a way that CPI doesn't.

If you think housing = MIP alone you couldn't be more wrong.

But it wasn't what Gordo changed from, was it now? RPIX is not RPI. If you meant RPIX you would have said RPIX. The End.

Your problem is that you don't understand that HPI is a conceptually different thing from CPI or RPI. No matter how house prices balloon there is a limit to what people can afford to spend to house themselves, what with needing to eat stuff and fuel their cars etc. and not being on unlimited wages. So there is NO proxy for HPI which you can plug into the other indices which will make the BoE say Lawks, CPI is running at 500% all of a sudden, we must crash the market to get back on target. It doesn't happen because it just doesn't work that way, not because of skulduggery by Brown or Osborne or anyone else.

Don't be a pedantic ignoramus, RPIX is a form of RPI and the inflation figure has typically been referred to as RPI even if it was technically RPIX. And it includes house prices (via depreciation), even if it excludes MIP to avoid the feedback loop problem.

There is a limit to what people can afford to spend to house themselves, which is why I didn't propose replacing CPI with HPI, but rather weighting it properly, but it is not just a part of household expenditure but on average the biggest part of household expenditure which is why it should be there and properly weighted. Are you familiar with the concept of weighting and understand what it means?

If housing and energy make up 28% of household expenditure, it should be weighted to 28% within CPI, not down-weighted to half that. If for some reason housing and energy proportionately cost less in an era of high-inflation, then the weightings should adapt and adjust accordingly. Unfortunately since CPI for no good reason excluded housing inflation and downweights housing and energy to half its real weighting, that makes CPI data completely flawed.

But how about you say what it should be instead? If housing and energy are 28% of expenditure on average, then should housing and energy in your eyes be weighted to

A: 14%
B: 28%

It makes no difference. CPIH is 31 or 32% housing costs. Look at the graph here

https://actuaries.blog.gov.uk/2021/08/23/measures-of-price-inflation-rpi-cpi-and-cpih/

and see how closely the two track each other since 2011.

JosiasJessop said:

ydoethur said:

JosiasJessop said:

Stuartinromford said:

Gosh it's tetchy this evening.

Can we have a nice chat about how Cambridge is really part of the North instead?

Well, it has a 'North' station, but no 'South' one - yet.

Is that the one which tells you on the destination board that you've arrived at a the seat of a mighty institution of research and teaching?

Although it somehow forgets to mention the University of Cambridge is also based there.

That certainly used to be the case at Cambridge - unsure about the North station.

(For others: the running-in boards on the station used to have "Home to Anglia Ruskin Univeraity" underneath them.)

(Extra marks for anyone who knew what 'running-in boards' were .... )

Ishmael_Z said:

williamglenn said:

Amazing tweet from Diane Abbott:

https://twitter.com/HackneyAbbott/status/1588158246900174851

Is it? If you have a 13 year old child in your custody, you have safeguarding duties. Don't like it, don't be Home Secretary.

Northern_Al said:

wooliedyed said:

Ishmael_Z said:

Norwich resident welcomes migrants

"This is an estate community and it is very close to the hotel.

"I don't want to be judgemental about the people coming in but we have had situations before because we are close-knit estate - and, if you are going to put people in a hotel near a close-knit estate, who knows what could happen?"

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-63500045.amp

Norwich. My fine city x

I spent critical years in Norwich - 14-18; 'O' and 'A' levels. Rapidly went downhill academically and in other ways. I blame it on the Norwich folk, especially teachers, not appreciating my earthy northern humour. Strange place. I liked it more when I returned later on to visit my parents, who stayed there until their demise.

Carnyx said:

Ishmael_Z said:

mwadams said:

JosiasJessop said:

ydoethur said:

JosiasJessop said:

Stuartinromford said:

Gosh it's tetchy this evening.

Can we have a nice chat about how Cambridge is really part of the North instead?

Well, it has a 'North' station, but no 'South' one - yet.

Is that the one which tells you on the destination board that you've arrived at a the seat of a mighty institution of research and teaching?

Although it somehow forgets to mention the University of Cambridge is also based there.

That certainly used to be the case at Cambridge - unsure about the North station.

(For others: the running-in boards on the station used to have "Home to Anglia Ruskin Univeraity" underneath them.)

(Extra marks for anyone who knew what 'running-in boards' were .... )

The terrible, terrible slogan that went with it.

"Not just an old University in Cambridge"

I love the thought of the good folk of Newtown, Mass deciding to rename the town at the same time as they renamed New College to Harvard. "After all, lads, it's not like we are treading on anyone's toes..."

They were obviously worried about being called the same as Newtown, Isle of Wight. (Which is BTW a fascinating place. This is the town hall in the middle of the picture. As you can see, the town plots have, erm, not remained densely occupied.)

https://www.google.com/maps/@50.7135612,-1.4008842,478m/data=!3m1!1e3

IanB2 said:

MPartridge said:

Advice appreciated - US Midterms

How much do people reckon Roe vs Wade is going to have an impact coming up?

Especially amongst young who are more politically motivated but generally underrepresented in polling due to normally lower turn outs.

Could the Dems hold onto more seats than expected as a result?

That was the way it looked when I was touring the US a few weeks back. Evidenced by record levels of female registration. Media suggests that economic difficulties have swung things back a little since?

IanB2 said:

The only strategy for Rishi with any significant prospect of payoff is to become the new Mrs T, take some really unpopular fiscal decisions with Hunt in the immediate term, and hope that some voters recognise you as a grown up politician and enough others see at least the beginnings of some green shoots come an election at the back end of 2024.

But neither his character nor his political capital appear up to the job. Is Rishi really going to break the triple lock (in such a way as to unlock sufficient financial headroom elsewhere), or take on the pensioners by merging tax and NI? To recognise the need for compromise with the EU and a softer Brexit? To start shifting taxation toward property wealth? To push up taxes on higher earners?

He’s boxed in by his party and his politics, and it’s hard to see him slipping into a phone box and re-emerging as a modern day superman.

LostPassword said:

Ishmael_Z said:

LostPassword said:

turbotubbs said:

Andy_JS said:

Wind power has dropped from 58% yesterday to 4% today.

https://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk

Is it thatCalm out there? Seems very low.

The isobars are very sparse over Britain at the moment. It happens.

Nice picture here

https://www.windy.com/?50.575,-4.196,5,m:ffWafCz

Dev n Corn seem to have cornered the market in wind.

Would be interesting to see that with the locations/sizes of wind farms included. The huge boom in North Sea windfarms is obviously great, but I think it means that our wind capacity is particularly concentrated there.

It's why it can make sense to put wind turbines up in places with less wind on average, because often those places will happen to be windy when the more windy places aren't.

Scott_xP said:

FFS so cynical of Braverman to use a military helicopter to spin her “invasion” inflammatory rhetoric.

When did Britain’s armed forces become props for a Conservative Home Secretary?
https://twitter.com/Kevin_Maguire/status/1588213796526608384
https://twitter.com/davidtwilcock/status/1588182567626366978

rcs1000 said:

MikeL said:

US polls are all over the place.

Georgia Senate - three polls out today (all fieldwork up to yesterday)

Survey USA - Warnock (D) +6
Echelon - Walker (R) +4
Remington - Walker (R) +4

But note Survey USA is A rated pollster per 538. Remington is B rated, Echelon B/C.

Literally anything could happen!

If I were a betting man, I would go with Walker 49, Warnock 47 (because of the presence of a libertarian candidate).

And then Warnock to win the run-off because Walker won't have the benefit of Kemp's coattails.

Andy_JS said:

Stuartinromford said:

Gosh it's tetchy this evening.

Can we have a nice chat about how Cambridge is really part of the North instead?

The headquarters of South Cambridgeshire district council are in Cambridge even though Cambridge is a separate council area. Useless fact.

Scott_xP said:

FFS so cynical of Braverman to use a military helicopter to spin her “invasion” inflammatory rhetoric.

When did Britain’s armed forces become props for a Conservative Home Secretary?
https://twitter.com/Kevin_Maguire/status/1588213796526608384
https://twitter.com/davidtwilcock/status/1588182567626366978

Andy_JS said:

Stuartinromford said:

Gosh it's tetchy this evening.

Can we have a nice chat about how Cambridge is really part of the North instead?

The headquarters of South Cambridgeshire district council are in Cambridge even though Cambridge is a separate council area. Useless fact.

Dura_Ace said:

Scott_xP said:

FFS so cynical of Braverman to use a military helicopter to spin her “invasion” inflammatory rhetoric.

When did Britain’s armed forces become props for a Conservative Home Secretary?
https://twitter.com/Kevin_Maguire/status/1588213796526608384
https://twitter.com/davidtwilcock/status/1588182567626366978

That will seem like a wizard wheeze until the Home Office gets the bill for the CH-47 hours from the MoD.

"Russia's ambassador to the UK has claimed Britain played a role in an attack on its warships - warning the country is 'too deep"' in the Ukraine war.

In an interview with Sky's Mark Austin, top diplomat Andrei Kelin claimed he had proof that UK special forces were involved in a Ukrainian drone assault on Russia's Black Sea fleet in Crimea and had handed 'evidence' to the British ambassador.

Asked to provide evidence of Russia's claims, Mr Kelin said: 'We perfectly know about [the] participation of British specialists in [the] training, preparation and execution of violence against the Russian infrastructure and the Russian fleet in the Black Sea. We know that it has been done.'

Pressed to give evidence to the public on Moscow's accusation the attack on the Russian fleet in the Black Sea was carried out under the guidance and leadership of British Navy specialists, Mr Kelin said it had been handed to the British ambassador and added that 'it will become public pretty soon,' perhaps today, perhaps tomorrow."

Luckyguy1983 said:

...

LostPassword said:

Ishmael_Z said:

LostPassword said:

turbotubbs said:

Andy_JS said:

Wind power has dropped from 58% yesterday to 4% today.

https://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk

Is it thatCalm out there? Seems very low.

The isobars are very sparse over Britain at the moment. It happens.

Nice picture here

https://www.windy.com/?50.575,-4.196,5,m:ffWafCz

Dev n Corn seem to have cornered the market in wind.

Would be interesting to see that with the locations/sizes of wind farms included. The huge boom in North Sea windfarms is obviously great, but I think it means that our wind capacity is particularly concentrated there.

It's why it can make sense to put wind turbines up in places with less wind on average, because often those places will happen to be windy when the more windy places aren't.

None of it makes sense at all if you're not storing the power.

SandyRentool said:

JosiasJessop said:

Andy_JS said:

Stuartinromford said:

Gosh it's tetchy this evening.

Can we have a nice chat about how Cambridge is really part of the North instead?

The headquarters of South Cambridgeshire district council are in Cambridge even though Cambridge is a separate council area. Useless fact.

They are not: South Cambridgeshire's HQ is in Cambourne; an easy ten-minute walk from where I am typing.

You're in Cornwall?

moonshine said:

FrankBooth said:

The prime cause of inflation is high energy prices. So what are we doing to bring those down? The government has talked a lot about supporting people with their bills but what about the basic price of gas? Other European countries seem to have been a lot more proactive on this front. Our gas prices have just shot up again. Is that Bailey's fault? Inflation is not just a matter of monetary policy. I'm sure they were behind the curve on rates but so too were others.

What is the reason why inflation is so low in places with a very high energy import dependency, like Switzerland? And so high in net energy exporter the US?

Clue: compare their monetary policy over a sustained period of time.

It is more useful to think of inflation as the value of money rather than the price of goods and services. When you do so, you realise how disgracefully our monetary policy has been run for a very very long time, largely in order to pay for our low productivity and twin deficit (fiscal and current acct) economic model.

rcs1000 said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

...

LostPassword said:

Ishmael_Z said:

LostPassword said:

turbotubbs said:

Andy_JS said:

Wind power has dropped from 58% yesterday to 4% today.

https://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk

Is it thatCalm out there? Seems very low.

The isobars are very sparse over Britain at the moment. It happens.

Nice picture here

https://www.windy.com/?50.575,-4.196,5,m:ffWafCz

Dev n Corn seem to have cornered the market in wind.

Would be interesting to see that with the locations/sizes of wind farms included. The huge boom in North Sea windfarms is obviously great, but I think it means that our wind capacity is particularly concentrated there.

It's why it can make sense to put wind turbines up in places with less wind on average, because often those places will happen to be windy when the more windy places aren't.

None of it makes sense at all if you're not storing the power.

That's not true.

If you have enough wind to power the country on a windy day, then you don't have to burn gas that day.

Of course, this is contingent on having lots of gas storage, which is rather where my plan falls down.

Dura_Ace said:

kle4 said:

Dura_Ace said:

Scott_xP said:

FFS so cynical of Braverman to use a military helicopter to spin her “invasion” inflammatory rhetoric.

When did Britain’s armed forces become props for a Conservative Home Secretary?
https://twitter.com/Kevin_Maguire/status/1588213796526608384
https://twitter.com/davidtwilcock/status/1588182567626366978

That will seem like a wizard wheeze until the Home Office gets the bill for the CH-47 hours from the MoD.

A bill later is always worth getting a photo with a cool thing.

I'm not entirely sure where using a £70m helicopter to go to fucking Ramsgate fits into Sunak's "Integrity, Professionalism, Accountability" agenda. It just looks like more stupid Johnson shit.

rcs1000 said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

...

LostPassword said:

Ishmael_Z said:

LostPassword said:

turbotubbs said:

Andy_JS said:

Wind power has dropped from 58% yesterday to 4% today.

https://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk

Is it thatCalm out there? Seems very low.

The isobars are very sparse over Britain at the moment. It happens.

Nice picture here

https://www.windy.com/?50.575,-4.196,5,m:ffWafCz

Dev n Corn seem to have cornered the market in wind.

Would be interesting to see that with the locations/sizes of wind farms included. The huge boom in North Sea windfarms is obviously great, but I think it means that our wind capacity is particularly concentrated there.

It's why it can make sense to put wind turbines up in places with less wind on average, because often those places will happen to be windy when the more windy places aren't.

None of it makes sense at all if you're not storing the power.

That's not true.

If you have enough wind to power the country on a windy day, then you don't have to burn gas that day.

Of course, this is contingent on having lots of gas storage, which is rather where my plan falls down.

MPartridge said:

Advice appreciated - US Midterms

How much do people reckon Roe vs Wade is going to have an impact coming up?

Especially amongst young who are more politically motivated but generally underrepresented in polling due to normally lower turn outs.

Could the Dems hold onto more seats than expected as a result?

Ishmael_Z said:

moonshine said:

Scott_xP said:

...

quite a lot of stereotypes in one cartoon there.

Also, very clever and funny.

rcs1000 said:

rcs1000 said:

MikeL said:

US polls are all over the place.

Georgia Senate - three polls out today (all fieldwork up to yesterday)

Survey USA - Warnock (D) +6
Echelon - Walker (R) +4
Remington - Walker (R) +4

But note Survey USA is A rated pollster per 538. Remington is B rated, Echelon B/C.

Literally anything could happen!

If I were a betting man, I would go with Walker 49, Warnock 47 (because of the presence of a libertarian candidate).

And then Warnock to win the run-off because Walker won't have the benefit of Kemp's coattails.

Here's all the latest polls for Georgia:

Benpointer said:

rcs1000 said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

...

LostPassword said:

Ishmael_Z said:

LostPassword said:

turbotubbs said:

Andy_JS said:

Wind power has dropped from 58% yesterday to 4% today.

https://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk

Is it thatCalm out there? Seems very low.

The isobars are very sparse over Britain at the moment. It happens.

Nice picture here

https://www.windy.com/?50.575,-4.196,5,m:ffWafCz

Dev n Corn seem to have cornered the market in wind.

Would be interesting to see that with the locations/sizes of wind farms included. The huge boom in North Sea windfarms is obviously great, but I think it means that our wind capacity is particularly concentrated there.

It's why it can make sense to put wind turbines up in places with less wind on average, because often those places will happen to be windy when the more windy places aren't.

None of it makes sense at all if you're not storing the power.

That's not true.

If you have enough wind to power the country on a windy day, then you don't have to burn gas that day.

Of course, this is contingent on having lots of gas storage, which is rather where my plan falls down.

Two things:

1. If you have enough wind power to power the country on a not very windy day, then you don't need to burn gas that day either. Sure, on a windy day you have redundant wind capacity you can't use but so what?

2. None of the above is dependent on gas storage.

SandyRentool said:

Dura_Ace said:

kle4 said:

Dura_Ace said:

Scott_xP said:

FFS so cynical of Braverman to use a military helicopter to spin her “invasion” inflammatory rhetoric.

When did Britain’s armed forces become props for a Conservative Home Secretary?
https://twitter.com/Kevin_Maguire/status/1588213796526608384
https://twitter.com/davidtwilcock/status/1588182567626366978

That will seem like a wizard wheeze until the Home Office gets the bill for the CH-47 hours from the MoD.

A bill later is always worth getting a photo with a cool thing.

I'm not entirely sure where using a £70m helicopter to go to fucking Ramsgate fits into Sunak's "Integrity, Professionalism, Accountability" agenda. It just looks like more stupid Johnson shit.

The only time I went to Ramsgate was behind D9000.

Choppers were more common going to Skegness.

Ishmael_Z said:

Carnyx said:

SandyRentool said:

JosiasJessop said:

Andy_JS said:

Stuartinromford said:

Gosh it's tetchy this evening.

Can we have a nice chat about how Cambridge is really part of the North instead?

The headquarters of South Cambridgeshire district council are in Cambridge even though Cambridge is a separate council area. Useless fact.

They are not: South Cambridgeshire's HQ is in Cambourne; an easy ten-minute walk from where I am typing.

You're in Cornwall?

That's Camborne, no U (except in nearby Redruth). It has, or had, a School of Mines, complete with an old tin mine for demos.

It is still CSoM but has moved to Penryn near Falmouth.

SandyRentool said:

Benpointer said:

rcs1000 said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

...

LostPassword said:

Ishmael_Z said:

LostPassword said:

turbotubbs said:

Andy_JS said:

Wind power has dropped from 58% yesterday to 4% today.

https://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk

Is it thatCalm out there? Seems very low.

The isobars are very sparse over Britain at the moment. It happens.

Nice picture here

https://www.windy.com/?50.575,-4.196,5,m:ffWafCz

Dev n Corn seem to have cornered the market in wind.

Would be interesting to see that with the locations/sizes of wind farms included. The huge boom in North Sea windfarms is obviously great, but I think it means that our wind capacity is particularly concentrated there.

It's why it can make sense to put wind turbines up in places with less wind on average, because often those places will happen to be windy when the more windy places aren't.

None of it makes sense at all if you're not storing the power.

That's not true.

If you have enough wind to power the country on a windy day, then you don't have to burn gas that day.

Of course, this is contingent on having lots of gas storage, which is rather where my plan falls down.

Two things:

1. If you have enough wind power to power the country on a not very windy day, then you don't need to burn gas that day either. Sure, on a windy day you have redundant wind capacity you can't use but so what?

2. None of the above is dependent on gas storage.

If you've got enough wind power on a not very windy day then you spend a fortune on curtailment payments when it is windy.

Or you install a shit load of electrolysers to make hydrogen from the excess wind power. Convert the gas network to hydrogen and then we can tell the Qataris to do one cos we won't need their gas no more.

Benpointer said:

1. If you have enough wind power to power the country on a not very windy day, then you don't need to burn gas that day either. Sure, on a windy day you have redundant wind capacity you can't use but so what?

DJ41 said:

https://news.sky.com/story/britain-too-deep-into-ukraine-war-russian-ambassador-says-12737416

"Russia's ambassador to the UK has claimed Britain played a role in an attack on its warships - warning the country is 'too deep"' in the Ukraine war.

In an interview with Sky's Mark Austin, top diplomat Andrei Kelin claimed he had proof that UK special forces were involved in a Ukrainian drone assault on Russia's Black Sea fleet in Crimea and had handed 'evidence' to the British ambassador.

Asked to provide evidence of Russia's claims, Mr Kelin said: 'We perfectly know about [the] participation of British specialists in [the] training, preparation and execution of violence against the Russian infrastructure and the Russian fleet in the Black Sea. We know that it has been done.'

Pressed to give evidence to the public on Moscow's accusation the attack on the Russian fleet in the Black Sea was carried out under the guidance and leadership of British Navy specialists, Mr Kelin said it had been handed to the British ambassador and added that 'it will become public pretty soon,' perhaps today, perhaps tomorrow."

turbotubbs said:

SandyRentool said:

Dura_Ace said:

kle4 said:

Dura_Ace said:

Scott_xP said:

FFS so cynical of Braverman to use a military helicopter to spin her “invasion” inflammatory rhetoric.

When did Britain’s armed forces become props for a Conservative Home Secretary?
https://twitter.com/Kevin_Maguire/status/1588213796526608384
https://twitter.com/davidtwilcock/status/1588182567626366978

That will seem like a wizard wheeze until the Home Office gets the bill for the CH-47 hours from the MoD.

A bill later is always worth getting a photo with a cool thing.

I'm not entirely sure where using a £70m helicopter to go to fucking Ramsgate fits into Sunak's "Integrity, Professionalism, Accountability" agenda. It just looks like more stupid Johnson shit.

The only time I went to Ramsgate was behind D9000.

Choppers were more common going to Skegness.

On my only visit to Ramsgate I watched a very drunk man try to eat the tablecloth in a curry house.

rcs1000 said:

moonshine said:

rcs1000 said:

moonshine said:

FrankBooth said:

The prime cause of inflation is high energy prices. So what are we doing to bring those down? The government has talked a lot about supporting people with their bills but what about the basic price of gas? Other European countries seem to have been a lot more proactive on this front. Our gas prices have just shot up again. Is that Bailey's fault? Inflation is not just a matter of monetary policy. I'm sure they were behind the curve on rates but so too were others.

What is the reason why inflation is so low in places with a very high energy import dependency, like Switzerland? And so high in net energy exporter the US?

Clue: compare their monetary policy over a sustained period of time.

It is more useful to think of inflation as the value of money rather than the price of goods and services. When you do so, you realise how disgracefully our monetary policy has been run for a very very long time, largely in order to pay for our low productivity and twin deficit (fiscal and current acct) economic model.

Switzerland doesn't actually have much dependence on gas in power gen, due to its extensive hydro resources.

Doesn’t produce much oil or have a lot of refining capacity though does it.

While that's true, the Swiss spend an extremely small share of their disposable income on petrol compared to most countries, heating is mostly electric and their electricity bills haven't moved meaningfully.

So, I don't think it's their monetary policy that is preventing a spike in their inflation rate.

pm215 said:

Benpointer said:

1. If you have enough wind power to power the country on a not very windy day, then you don't need to burn gas that day either. Sure, on a windy day you have redundant wind capacity you can't use but so what?

...but you've then paid an awful lot of money to build out and maintain that enormously over-sized quantity of infrastructure, much of which then sits idle the majority of the time when winds are moderate or stronger. Those costs get passed on and will come out as higher cost of electricity one way or another (or as government subsidy and higher taxation, if you prefer). Unused infrastructure capacity can be good, but it's never free.

Cookie said:

pm215 said:

Benpointer said:

1. If you have enough wind power to power the country on a not very windy day, then you don't need to burn gas that day either. Sure, on a windy day you have redundant wind capacity you can't use but so what?

...but you've then paid an awful lot of money to build out and maintain that enormously over-sized quantity of infrastructure, much of which then sits idle the majority of the time when winds are moderate or stronger. Those costs get passed on and will come out as higher cost of electricity one way or another (or as government subsidy and higher taxation, if you prefer). Unused infrastructure capacity can be good, but it's never free.

The trick will be when you can use surplus wind power to create hydrogen, which you can then store and turn back to electricity when you need it. Or when you find some other way of storing surplus electricity.

TimS said:

Cookie said:

pm215 said:

Benpointer said:

1. If you have enough wind power to power the country on a not very windy day, then you don't need to burn gas that day either. Sure, on a windy day you have redundant wind capacity you can't use but so what?

...but you've then paid an awful lot of money to build out and maintain that enormously over-sized quantity of infrastructure, much of which then sits idle the majority of the time when winds are moderate or stronger. Those costs get passed on and will come out as higher cost of electricity one way or another (or as government subsidy and higher taxation, if you prefer). Unused infrastructure capacity can be good, but it's never free.

The trick will be when you can use surplus wind power to create hydrogen, which you can then store and turn back to electricity when you need it. Or when you find some other way of storing surplus electricity.

Once the economics for mass energy storage add up I think we’ll see a huge leap in capacity. At the moment there’s not really much need because generators can sell all their output most of the time.

I think government intervention is still a good idea at domestic or corporate scale (eg incentivising rooftop solar for businesses, and ensuring planning is not too onerous) but otherwise the market is well placed to do the heavy lifting.