politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » This week’s PB/Polling Matters Podcast explores what it’s l

Glorious second!

Denied a medal by the Russian Federation...

FPT: Mr. Llama, I'll get a little work on that done now, but my time's quite limited (both this evening and over the weekend), as well as monitor concerns.

Anyway, glad it came back to life, even if it's a one-off, as I suspect my silence during an F1 weekend might cause a sigh of relief as wallets are not lightened by errant tips raised eyebrow here or there.

Russell Whiting was a leading figure in my campaign in 2010.

Evening all.

The 2015 Labour Party candidate for Suffolk Coastal looks about 14 - or am just getting old?

Well first post GOP debate poll, from Reuters/Ipsos (with changes since the debate):
http://polling.reuters.com/#poll/TR130/filters/LIKELY_PRIMARY15:1,PARTY_ID_:2/dates/20151107-20151113/type/day

Trump 42 (+10)
Carson 23 (-2)
Rubio 9.6 (+0.2)
Cruz 7.4 (- 3.5)
Bush 4.2 (+0.5)

Off now. Will post the pre-qualifying piece, if I can, tomorrow afternoon. Because it's in Brazil, everything's a bit later than usual (although, thankfully, earlier than the US/Mexico).

richardDodd said:

Speedy.. sound like the lad deserved it..my reaction would have been very similar to Clarksons..

I don't know the circumstances better than any viewer or reader, given Clarskon's temperament he wouldn't have discriminated punching people by nationality.

That 42% for Trump from Ipsos is a new record high for him with Ipsos and all the other pollsters even going back to August, it's also a first that Trump goes up after a debate instead of down:

http://polling.reuters.com/#poll/TR130/filters/LIKELY_PRIMARY15:1,PARTY_ID_:2/dates/20150807-20151113/type/day

Speedy said:

Well first post GOP debate poll, from Reuters/Ipsos (with changes since the debate):
http://polling.reuters.com/#poll/TR130/filters/LIKELY_PRIMARY15:1,PARTY_ID_:2/dates/20151107-20151113/type/day

Trump 42 (+10)
Carson 23 (-2)
Rubio 9.6 (+0.2)
Cruz 7.4 (- 3.5)
Bush 4.2 (+0.5)

Thanks Speedy - Cruz looks like a lay at 8.6 currently, Bush/Rubio for all their woes are the establishment candidates; and Trump/Carson are ahead in the polls !

James Frith came very close.

Ah, Nick Palmer (who has his own interesting story) gets a shout-out from Russell Whiting (who sounds very white and middle-class to me) due to joint campaigning in Broxtowe!

FPT

JosiasJessop said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

ReggieCide said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

The unregrettable demise of Jihadi John has to be seen in the context of fighting an asymmetric war against unconventional opponents, who rely heavily on disseminating videos of their gruesome activities as a deliberate part of their strategy. Up to now they've been able to do that, and be seen to do that, with a large measure of impunity.

It's important that we show that there is no impunity, therefore the tactical value of the drone strike is far in excess of just taking out one particularly unpleasant individual.

Whilst nobody will be weeping that another member of ISIS has shuffled off this mortal coil, I think it's the fact the Syrian army are at the gates of Palmyra that is showing ISIS there's no impunity. Not the death of one 'Martyr' in an organisation numbering 80,000.

This speaks nothing of any worthwhile military objective and everything of the sort of foreign policy panto (let's film our reactions to Osama getting popped) that the Americans go in for. It's Military entertainment for for the simple minded.

"Jihadi John" registers large multiples more with the general population than "Palmyra" or "Raqqa". JJ's demise, whilst not being immediately militarily significant, is very significant in the context of the whole conflict. That's the nature of propaganda and why protagonists employ it. To describe it as "panto" merely demonstrates your tendency towards the simple mindedness that you deride.

On the contrary, your post appears to agree with me. Surely the whole point of attacking ISIS is to eliminate them as a force, so they stop killing people, not score victories in the field of what you call propaganda (l agree) and I call pantomime.

Tell us how Russia's actions are in any way eliminating ISIS as a force, given their multinational nature?

I never mentioned Russia - I think you might be a tad obsessed?

Luckyguy1983 said:

FPT

JosiasJessop said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

ReggieCide said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

The unregrettable demise of Jihadi John has to be seen in the context of fighting an asymmetric war against unconventional opponents, who rely heavily on disseminating videos of their gruesome activities as a deliberate part of their strategy. Up to now they've been able to do that, and be seen to do that, with a large measure of impunity.

It's important that we show that there is no impunity, therefore the tactical value of the drone strike is far in excess of just taking out one particularly unpleasant individual.

Whilst nobody will be weeping that another member of ISIS has shuffled off this mortal coil, I think it's the fact the Syrian army are at the gates of Palmyra that is showing ISIS there's no impunity. Not the death of one 'Martyr' in an organisation numbering 80,000.

This speaks nothing of any worthwhile military objective and everything of the sort of foreign policy panto (let's film our reactions to Osama getting popped) that the Americans go in for. It's Military entertainment for for the simple minded.

"Jihadi John" registers large multiples more with the general population than "Palmyra" or "Raqqa". JJ's demise, whilst not being immediately militarily significant, is very significant in the context of the whole conflict. That's the nature of propaganda and why protagonists employ it. To describe it as "panto" merely demonstrates your tendency towards the simple mindedness that you deride.

On the contrary, your post appears to agree with me. Surely the whole point of attacking ISIS is to eliminate them as a force, so they stop killing people, not score victories in the field of what you call propaganda (l agree) and I call pantomime.

Tell us how Russia's actions are in any way eliminating ISIS as a force, given their multinational nature?

I never mentioned Russia - I think you might be a tad obsessed?

Are you saying you were referring to the UK and US eliminating ISIS as a force, and that Russia's actions are a pantomime?

dr_spyn said:

Another coal fired power station to close down.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-shropshire-34810806

Just in time for winter. We are ruled by pygmies.

Perhaps the National Grid can pay a few more factories to stop making things.

But never mind about energy security, that Dave Cameron does a lovely speech, and he always strikes the right note at the cenotaph.

Speedy said:

Well first post GOP debate poll, from Reuters/Ipsos (with changes since the debate):
http://polling.reuters.com/#poll/TR130/filters/LIKELY_PRIMARY15:1,PARTY_ID_:2/dates/20151107-20151113/type/day

Trump 42 (+10)
Carson 23 (-2)
Rubio 9.6 (+0.2)
Cruz 7.4 (- 3.5)
Bush 4.2 (+0.5)

To be honest, on those sorts of figures, mad as it is it might be worth backing Trump on the markets.

Casino_Royale said:

Speedy said:

Well first post GOP debate poll, from Reuters/Ipsos (with changes since the debate):
http://polling.reuters.com/#poll/TR130/filters/LIKELY_PRIMARY15:1,PARTY_ID_:2/dates/20151107-20151113/type/day

Trump 42 (+10)
Carson 23 (-2)
Rubio 9.6 (+0.2)
Cruz 7.4 (- 3.5)
Bush 4.2 (+0.5)

To be honest, on those sorts of figures, mad as it is it might be worth backing Trump on the markets.

As I suspected Trump's anti immigration rhetoric bombed with the GOP establishment but went down a storm with the GOP base

dr_spyn said:

Another coal fired power station to close down.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-shropshire-34810806

Just in time for winter. We are ruled by pygmies.

Do they find it easier to keep warm?

ReggieCide said:

dr_spyn said:

Another coal fired power station to close down.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-shropshire-34810806

Just in time for winter. We are ruled by pygmies.

Do they find it easier to keep warm?

Harder. They have a higher surface area to mass ratio and so lose heat more quickly...

...sorry I thought you were being serious for a moment :-)

AndyJS said:

Casino_Royale said:

James Frith came very close.

To be honest he should have won fairly comfortably, especially against a rather ideological MP in David Nuttall.

He seems to be the sort of candidate Labour could do with a lot more of.

Tim_B said:

HYUFD said:

Casino_Royale said:

Speedy said:

Well first post GOP debate poll, from Reuters/Ipsos (with changes since the debate):
http://polling.reuters.com/#poll/TR130/filters/LIKELY_PRIMARY15:1,PARTY_ID_:2/dates/20151107-20151113/type/day

Trump 42 (+10)
Carson 23 (-2)
Rubio 9.6 (+0.2)
Cruz 7.4 (- 3.5)
Bush 4.2 (+0.5)

To be honest, on those sorts of figures, mad as it is it might be worth backing Trump on the markets.

As I suspected Trump's anti immigration rhetoric bombed with the GOP establishment but went down a storm with the GOP base

I think you're right. But unfortunately an extended conversation on a deportation force to deport 10 + million illegals, splitting up families and invoking memories of Operation Wetback is going to cost Republicans the hispanic vote and the election if they keep it up.

Republicans need to reach out to hispanics, and this won't do it.

Indeed and if Trump is her opponent Hillary will almost certainly pick a young Hispanic like Julian Castro as her VP nominee

Richard_Tyndall said:

ReggieCide said:

dr_spyn said:

Another coal fired power station to close down.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-shropshire-34810806

Just in time for winter. We are ruled by pygmies.

Do they find it easier to keep warm?

Harder. They have a higher surface area to mass ratio and so lose heat more quickly...

...sorry I thought you were being serious for a moment :-)

I am of course now wiser.

Tim_B said:

HYUFD said:

Casino_Royale said:

Speedy said:

Well first post GOP debate poll, from Reuters/Ipsos (with changes since the debate):
http://polling.reuters.com/#poll/TR130/filters/LIKELY_PRIMARY15:1,PARTY_ID_:2/dates/20151107-20151113/type/day

Trump 42 (+10)
Carson 23 (-2)
Rubio 9.6 (+0.2)
Cruz 7.4 (- 3.5)
Bush 4.2 (+0.5)

To be honest, on those sorts of figures, mad as it is it might be worth backing Trump on the markets.

As I suspected Trump's anti immigration rhetoric bombed with the GOP establishment but went down a storm with the GOP base

I think you're right. But unfortunately an extended conversation on a deportation force to deport 10 + million illegals, splitting up families and invoking memories of Operation Wetback is going to cost Republicans the hispanic vote and the election if they keep it up.

Republicans need to reach out to hispanics, and this won't do it.

I think that they can replace that with protectionism that has a big appeal in the rust belt, in Florida most hispanics are actually cubans not mexicans, so they react differently about immigration from mexico.

Hispanics of mexican origin are a crucial block in most south western states, however with the exception of Texas and Arizona most of them vote democrat by large margins, only Nevada and perhaps Colorado are hispanic-mexican swing states but they only have 6 & 9 electoral votes respectively, while the industrial states of Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Michigan each have double that number.
Given that in the state polls Hillary is struggling in the industrial states against all republicans I would ditch the hispanic outreach strategy for a blue collar one, and it's not impossible because they all have elected republican governors and senators these past few years in the rust belt.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statewide_opinion_polling_for_the_United_States_presidential_election,_2016

JosiasJessop said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Um, no. I'm saying that US actions are a pantomime. What the UK's are I can only imagine - back end of the pantomime horse? I never mentioned Russia.

Not mentioning does not mean you were not implying. And I disagree with your views of US actions as a pantomime, as today's news show. Not only have they probably dispatched Jihad John, but they've helped the Kurds retake Sinjar.

Not exactly a pantomime, is it?

I will repeat what I've said before: Russia has no interest in 'defeating' ISIS. They are looking after their own interests, which is supporting a puppet Assad. That is a pantomime, and one people such as yourself are all too keen to watch and applaud.

I need some mind bleach. I just thought of Putin dressed up as Widow Twankey ...

Delighted that they've probably killed Jihadi John - only another 79,999 to go.

7 airstrikes a day. 7. 800 a day to get rid of Saddam - that's what the US does when it's actually interested in defeating someone. 7 to 'degrade' ISIS (whilst ISIS enjoy vast territorial expansion). And this is the farce that we've been asked to join.

You contradict yourself even within your own posts. To support Assad (which they have fully acknowledged, and is the most sensible way of resolving the situation) means ISIS must be defeated. The only side that ISIS' expansion benefits is the Saudi, Qatari, Turkey, US (sadly UK) axis, which is perhaps why 'coalition' airstrikes have been tickling their tummy for the past 13 months.

The truly scary prospect is that if the FBI investigations do actually come to anything (and I accept that is a very big 'if') then the US could be facing a choice between Trump and Sanders and there is a real danger Trump could actually win.

Richard_Tyndall said:

The truly scary prospect is that if the FBI investigations do actually come to anything (and I accept that is a very big 'if') then the US could be facing a choice between Trump and Sanders and there is a real danger Trump could actually win.

There is an equally strong danger Sanders could win as he has led Trump in several polls

Richard_Tyndall said:

The truly scary prospect is that if the FBI investigations do actually come to anything (and I accept that is a very big 'if') then the US could be facing a choice between Trump and Sanders and there is a real danger Trump could actually win.

I don't know if Hillary would win, she may have a lead on the nationwide polls however the election is determined in the electoral college, she may rank a huge lead in California and N.York but looking at the state polls she is losing or too close to call in Colorado, Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Iowa, and Michigan.
So best case for her is a repeat of 2012, worst case the biggest republican victory since 1988.

Speedy said:

Tim_B said:

HYUFD said:

Casino_Royale said:

Speedy said:

Well first post GOP debate poll, from Reuters/Ipsos (with changes since the debate):
http://polling.reuters.com/#poll/TR130/filters/LIKELY_PRIMARY15:1,PARTY_ID_:2/dates/20151107-20151113/type/day

Trump 42 (+10)
Carson 23 (-2)
Rubio 9.6 (+0.2)
Cruz 7.4 (- 3.5)
Bush 4.2 (+0.5)

To be honest, on those sorts of figures, mad as it is it might be worth backing Trump on the markets.

As I suspected Trump's anti immigration rhetoric bombed with the GOP establishment but went down a storm with the GOP base

I think you're right. But unfortunately an extended conversation on a deportation force to deport 10 + million illegals, splitting up families and invoking memories of Operation Wetback is going to cost Republicans the hispanic vote and the election if they keep it up.

Republicans need to reach out to hispanics, and this won't do it.

I think that they can replace that with protectionism that has a big appeal in the rust belt, in Florida most hispanics are actually cubans not mexicans, so they react differently about immigration from mexico.

Hispanics of mexican origin are a crucial block in most south western states, however with the exception of Texas and Arizona most of them vote democrat by large margins, only Nevada and perhaps Colorado are hispanic-mexican swing states but they only have 6 & 9 electoral votes respectively, while the industrial states of Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Michigan each have double that number.
Given that in the state polls Hillary is struggling in the industrial states against all republicans I would ditch the hispanic outreach strategy for a blue collar one, and it's not impossible because they all have elected republican governors and senators these past few years in the rust belt.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statewide_opinion_polling_for_the_United_States_presidential_election,_2016

Hillary had her best results in the 2008 primaries in the rusybelt and if she adds Nevada and Colorado she is almost unstoppable. Pennsylvania and Michigan even voted for Kerry they are not going to vote for Trump

HurstLlama said:

Speedy said:

HurstLlama said:

dr_spyn said:

Another coal fired power station to close down.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-shropshire-34810806

Just in time for winter. We are ruled by pygmies.

Well thanks goodness that another power station is to close (by the way, from the article it burns wood not coal). Someone is thinking of the polar bears.

However each day something like 25% of our electricity comes from coal burning power stations (and another 25% from filthy nuclear) so we still have a long way to go. Perhaps even higher taxes on electricity might be the right thing to do; those polar bears aren't going to save themselves.

Thank goodness that the hugely expensive and dangerous nuclear power is nowhere near 25%:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_the_United_Kingdom#/media/File:Electricity_Production_in_the_United_Kingdom.svg

Don't know where those figures meet reality. I just watch the National Grid's site which shows where the power is coming from hour by hour. Nuclear normally has a share of between 20 and 25%

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

So wind power (15.03%) produces almost the same amount as nuclear (17.59%), but nuclear power costs 7 billion pounds per reactor and they tend to explode leaving large areas uninhabited for decades.

Simply because nuclear power is old fashioned, dangerous and incredibly expensive, does not mean conservatives should support it.

I may support nuclear weapons but I'm not an idiot to support nuclear power, if even the japanese failed to master it then it's way too dangerous.

@paulwaugh: No more pesky 'unresignations'? Nigel Farage wants to abolish the Ukip body which can axe him as leader https://t.co/e2WyiuW1EN

HYUFD said:

Speedy said:

Tim_B said:

HYUFD said:

Casino_Royale said:

Speedy said:

Well first post GOP debate poll, from Reuters/Ipsos (with changes since the debate):
http://polling.reuters.com/#poll/TR130/filters/LIKELY_PRIMARY15:1,PARTY_ID_:2/dates/20151107-20151113/type/day

Trump 42 (+10)
Carson 23 (-2)
Rubio 9.6 (+0.2)
Cruz 7.4 (- 3.5)
Bush 4.2 (+0.5)

To be honest, on those sorts of figures, mad as it is it might be worth backing Trump on the markets.

As I suspected Trump's anti immigration rhetoric bombed with the GOP establishment but went down a storm with the GOP base

I think you're right. But unfortunately an extended conversation on a deportation force to deport 10 + million illegals, splitting up families and invoking memories of Operation Wetback is going to cost Republicans the hispanic vote and the election if they keep it up.

Republicans need to reach out to hispanics, and this won't do it.

I think that they can replace that with protectionism that has a big appeal in the rust belt, in Florida most hispanics are actually cubans not mexicans, so they react differently about immigration from mexico.

Hispanics of mexican origin are a crucial block in most south western states, however with the exception of Texas and Arizona most of them vote democrat by large margins, only Nevada and perhaps Colorado are hispanic-mexican swing states but they only have 6 & 9 electoral votes respectively, while the industrial states of Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Michigan each have double that number.
Given that in the state polls Hillary is struggling in the industrial states against all republicans I would ditch the hispanic outreach strategy for a blue collar one, and it's not impossible because they all have elected republican governors and senators these past few years in the rust belt.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statewide_opinion_polling_for_the_United_States_presidential_election,_2016

Hillary had her best results in the 2008 primaries in the rusybelt and if she adds Nevada and Colorado she is almost unstoppable. Pennsylvania and Michigan even voted for Kerry they are not going to vote for Trump

You are thinking about primary results in the democratic party from 7 years ago vs a GE election 1 year from now.
Kerry is not running for president and it's not 2004 likewise Obama is not Kerry and 2008 was not 2004 but he still won Virginia, Indiana, Nevada, Colorado, Iowa, Ohio, Florida and N.Carolina which Kerry did not.

If you look at presidential election maps you would see that from president to president the geographical support changes drastically.

My inherent mischieviousness likes the idea of Trump (or better still Carson) vs. Sanders.

In vino veritas or something.

However, when I've sobered up .....

Richard_Tyndall said:

Speedy said:

HurstLlama said:

dr_spyn said:

Another coal fired power station to close down.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-shropshire-34810806

Just in time for winter. We are ruled by pygmies.

Well thanks goodness that another power station is to close (by the way, from the article it burns wood not coal). Someone is thinking of the polar bears.

However each day something like 25% of our electricity comes from coal burning power stations (and another 25% from filthy nuclear) so we still have a long way to go. Perhaps even higher taxes on electricity might be the right thing to do; those polar bears aren't going to save themselves.

Thank goodness that the hugely expensive and dangerous nuclear power is nowhere near 25%:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_the_United_Kingdom#/media/File:Electricity_Production_in_the_United_Kingdom.svg

Not sure about 'nowhere near'. According to that chart in 2011 (the last year the chart covers) Nuclear accounted for around 18%, down from nearly 30% in 1998.

Given the number of coal fired power stations that have been closed it certainly wouldn't surprise me to find that nuclear share is now back up around 25%.

It's 18.01% right now.
http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/

HYUFD said:

Speedy said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

The truly scary prospect is that if the FBI investigations do actually come to anything (and I accept that is a very big 'if') then the US could be facing a choice between Trump and Sanders and there is a real danger Trump could actually win.

I don't know if Hillary would win, she may have a lead on the nationwide polls however the election is determined in the electoral college, she may rank a huge lead in California and N.York but looking at the state polls she is losing or too close to call in Colorado, Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Iowa, and Michigan.
So best case for her is a repeat of 2012, worst case the biggest republican victory since 1988.

Wrong she leads Trump in all those state polls with the possible exception of Florida and the Democrats now tend to poll slightly better in state polls than nationally

Being a hair's breadth ahead of a raving loon doesn't count as a qualification.

I read the claim on previous thread that David Cameron, as incumbent Prime Minister, gained votes and seats, which is very rare. However, it's not a correct claim. The correct claim is that he gained votes and seats as party leader.

Speedy said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Speedy said:

HurstLlama said:

dr_spyn said:

Another coal fired power station to close down.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-shropshire-34810806

Just in time for winter. We are ruled by pygmies.

Well thanks goodness that another power station is to close (by the way, from the article it burns wood not coal). Someone is thinking of the polar bears.

However each day something like 25% of our electricity comes from coal burning power stations (and another 25% from filthy nuclear) so we still have a long way to go. Perhaps even higher taxes on electricity might be the right thing to do; those polar bears aren't going to save themselves.

Thank goodness that the hugely expensive and dangerous nuclear power is nowhere near 25%:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_the_United_Kingdom#/media/File:Electricity_Production_in_the_United_Kingdom.svg

Not sure about 'nowhere near'. According to that chart in 2011 (the last year the chart covers) Nuclear accounted for around 18%, down from nearly 30% in 1998.

Given the number of coal fired power stations that have been closed it certainly wouldn't surprise me to find that nuclear share is now back up around 25%.

It's 18.01% right now.
http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/

Look at the French page (icon in top left), 88.89% nuclear!

EPG said:

I read the claim on previous thread that David Cameron, as incumbent Prime Minister, gained votes and seats, which is very rare. However, it's not a correct claim. The correct claim is that he gained votes and seats as party leader.

Call me dumb, but where is the distinction? Wasn't he PM at the time of the election?

Luckyguy1983 said:

JosiasJessop said:

Are you delighted that the Kurds have retaken Sinjar?

And I've not contradicted myself at all.

I must once again ask how you think ISIS is going to be 'defeated', and in fact what 'defeat' for that organisation would be. As I pointed out earlier, 'defeating' their ideology militarily is going to be exceptionally difficult given their multinational nature and ideology. Try having some original thoughts instead of regurgitating whatever rubbish you've read on some Putinist blog or other.

ISIS's expansion has served Russia very well, hasn't it? Its allowed them to create a puppet out of Assad and get a further foothold in the ME. It's been of zero benefit to either the US or UK.

" ... which is perhaps why 'coalition' airstrikes have been tickling their tummy for the past 13 months."

Yeah, right. Your knowledge of the situation and region really is most laughable and one-dimensional.

Of course - I'm delighted in any gains made by the enemies of ISIS. The Iraqi army has also been making very successful advances against ISIS forces.

None of this is of benefit to the UK - we have no dog in this fight. We are there because that's what the US wants. The American benefit is clear - they want to get rid of Assad. ISIS was not only the most effective force against the Assad Government, it also gave a pretext to impose a de facto no fly zone over Syria, to prevent Assad from using his air force to gain the upper hand.

'Yeah right' - great argument there. What do you call 7 air strikes a day against the biggest threat to humanity the 21st century has yet seen?

7 air strikes a day against Jeremy Corbyn?

Speedy said:

with a nuclear reactor a loose bolt could make Britain uninhabitable for decades.

What scaremongering!

Speedy said:

So wind power (15.03%) produces almost the same amount as nuclear (17.59%), but nuclear power costs 7 billion pounds per reactor and they tend to explode leaving large areas uninhabited for decades.

Simply because nuclear power is old fashioned, dangerous and incredibly expensive, does not mean conservatives should support it.

Forgive me. I wasn't aware of the tendency of nuclear reactors to explode and I have totally missed the news that chunks of the UK are uninhabitable as a result.

However, if you look at my original post on this matter up-thread you will see that I was suggesting that coal and nuclear power stations be shut down. We do have to think of the polar bears and the planet as a whole. I am delighted that the UK has a national target, backed by legislation, to reduce its carbon emissions etc. to less than 80% of the 1990 level.

Obviously that will mean sacrifices as the demand for electricity cannot be allowed to rise as it has over the last half-century or so. As someone, I forget who but it was one of the great and good, said we must accept that in future electricity will not be available on demand. So some form of rationing is inevitable. How to ration? Well, the great and the good cannot be expected to go without so price is the obvious mechanism.

Ken Clark tried this in the 1990s when he introduced VAT on domestic fuel. Labour kicked up a fearful stink, cut the VAT as far as the EU would let them and then a few years later introduced their own taxes on on energy but called them something else. So as both main parties are happy to agree that ordinary people should pay more for electricity the politics are settled; ordinary people are to have the electricity rationed.

Which is fine because, as I said those polar bears will not save themselves, and the UK by reducing its less than 2% share of nasty emissions will be a world leader. That won't make a sod's worth of difference to global warming but it will allow our politicians to strut their stuff on the world stage which is what matters. The unemployed industrial workers will be heartened to know that their sacrifice has been worth while.

Speedy said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Speedy said:

So wind power (15.03%) produces almost the same amount as nuclear (17.59%), but nuclear power costs 7 billion pounds per reactor and they tend to explode leaving large areas uninhabited for decades.

Simply because nuclear power is old fashioned, dangerous and incredibly expensive, does not mean conservatives should support it.

I may support nuclear weapons but I'm not an idiot to support nuclear power, if even the japanese failed to master it then it's way too dangerous.

Great if the wind keeps blowing. What do you do when it doesn't. We regularly have days where wind power produces around 1% of our power needs. The idea it is a reliable alternative is just nuts.

Tidal power is a good alternative, tides are more reliable and can produce power the same way as hydroelectric stations, as for the days of excess power and low power from wind you can alleviate that with pumped storage schemes like in Dinorwig:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinorwig_Power_Station

There are many cheaper and safer alternatives that produce the same results but are less sexy than nuclear power, with a nuclear reactor a loose bolt could make Britain uninhabitable for decades.

Tidal is a great idea. And there are many other variations of it that need to be explored. Same for hydro-electrical, hydrothermal and a whole host of other potential sources. What we are talking about here is wind and as a reliable alternative it doesn't even get off the starting blocks.

Luckyguy1983 said:

JosiasJessop said:

Are you delighted that the Kurds have retaken Sinjar?

And I've not contradicted myself at all.

I must once again ask how you think ISIS is going to be 'defeated', and in fact what 'defeat' for that organisation would be. As I pointed out earlier, 'defeating' their ideology militarily is going to be exceptionally difficult given their multinational nature and ideology. Try having some original thoughts instead of regurgitating whatever rubbish you've read on some Putinist blog or other.

ISIS's expansion has served Russia very well, hasn't it? Its allowed them to create a puppet out of Assad and get a further foothold in the ME. It's been of zero benefit to either the US or UK.

" ... which is perhaps why 'coalition' airstrikes have been tickling their tummy for the past 13 months."

Yeah, right. Your knowledge of the situation and region really is most laughable and one-dimensional.

Of course - I'm delighted in any gains made by the enemies of ISIS. The Iraqi army has also been making very successful advances against ISIS forces.

None of this is of benefit to the UK - we have no dog in this fight. We are there because that's what the US wants. The American benefit is clear - they want to get rid of Assad. ISIS was not only the most effective force against the Assad Government, it also gave a pretext to impose a de facto no fly zone over Syria, to prevent Assad from using his air force to gain the upper hand.

'Yeah right' - great argument there. What do you call 7 air strikes a day against the biggest threat to humanity the 21st century has yet seen?

Just those two words are better than your entire cumulative arguments.

You are wrong, because we wanted to get involved *before* ISIS was a significant power in the conflict. And that was mostly because of Assad's use of chemical weapons (yes, I know you don't believe he used them, but we can't help your utter lack of intellectual rigour).

'The American benefit is clear - they want to get rid of Assad.'

Really? They cared that much about Assad before he started gassing his own civilians in the civil war? What the west wanted was an end to the civil war, and Assad going was the easiest way for that to happen, especially once he used those weapons.

As usual, you apply utterly heinous and evil motives to the Americans, and pure and God-like ones to Putin and the Russians.

Omnium said:

HYUFD said:

Speedy said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

The truly scary prospect is that if the FBI investigations do actually come to anything (and I accept that is a very big 'if') then the US could be facing a choice between Trump and Sanders and there is a real danger Trump could actually win.

I don't know if Hillary would win, she may have a lead on the nationwide polls however the election is determined in the electoral college, she may rank a huge lead in California and N.York but looking at the state polls she is losing or too close to call in Colorado, Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Iowa, and Michigan.
So best case for her is a repeat of 2012, worst case the biggest republican victory since 1988.

Wrong she leads Trump in all those state polls with the possible exception of Florida and the Democrats now tend to poll slightly better in state polls than nationally

Being a hair's breadth ahead of a raving loon doesn't count as a qualification.

Historically after 8 years in the White House the opposing party should win, this is the GOP's election to lose, Hillary is running against history but she could yet join George HW Bush and Harry Truman to win an election for their party after more than two terms of their party in office

Scott_P said:

Speedy said:

Tidal power is a good alternative, tides are more reliable and can produce power the same way as hydroelectric stations

The Saltire Prize, an ambitious international contest designed to make Scotland a world leader in wave and tidal power development, was launched with great fanfare in 2008.

Earlier this year it was revealed none of the competitors could meet the qualifying criteria by the 2017 deadline.

Despite that, the Scottish Government remained committed to awarding the prize, though it has now emerged that new rules to make it winnable will not not be drawn up until next year, just months before the close of the contest.

Of the four remaining competitors, one, Aquamarine Power, called in administrators last month.

A fifth, Pelamis, pulled out after going into administration a year ago.

http://m.heraldscotland.com/news/13953190.Alex_Salmond_s_crisis_hit___10m_wave_power_prize__should_be_scrapped_/

Has the SNP managed to do anything right?

It's a bit of a stretch to describe wind power as poor value when we're currently producing enough of it to power the whole of the Netherlands.

Richard_Tyndall said:

Speedy said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Speedy said:

HurstLlama said:

dr_spyn said:

Another coal fired power station to close down.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-shropshire-34810806

Just in time for winter. We are ruled by pygmies.

Well thanks goodness that another power station is to close (by the way, from the article it burns wood not coal). Someone is thinking of the polar bears.

However each day something like 25% of our electricity comes from coal burning power stations (and another 25% from filthy nuclear) so we still have a long way to go. Perhaps even higher taxes on electricity might be the right thing to do; those polar bears aren't going to save themselves.

Thank goodness that the hugely expensive and dangerous nuclear power is nowhere near 25%:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_the_United_Kingdom#/media/File:Electricity_Production_in_the_United_Kingdom.svg

Not sure about 'nowhere near'. According to that chart in 2011 (the last year the chart covers) Nuclear accounted for around 18%, down from nearly 30% in 1998.

Given the number of coal fired power stations that have been closed it certainly wouldn't surprise me to find that nuclear share is now back up around 25%.

It's 18.01% right now.
http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/

Yep. In case you missed it it is bloody windy at the moment. It happens this time of year.

Try looking at some proper research into just how poorly we are served by wind turbines.

http://www.cityam.com/1414407936/wind-farms-unreliable-expensive-and-deeply-inefficient-study-claims

"UK wind farms top 80 per cent of their potential output for less than a week every year. It gets worse as, according to the study, wind turbines are only able to produce 90 per cent or more of their potential power output for a meagre 17 hours a year."

Speedy said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Speedy said:

So wind power (15.03%) produces almost the same amount as nuclear (17.59%), but nuclear power costs 7 billion pounds per reactor and they tend to explode leaving large areas uninhabited for decades.

Simply because nuclear power is old fashioned, dangerous and incredibly expensive, does not mean conservatives should support it.

I may support nuclear weapons but I'm not an idiot to support nuclear power, if even the japanese failed to master it then it's way too dangerous.

Great if the wind keeps blowing. What do you do when it doesn't. We regularly have days where wind power produces around 1% of our power needs. The idea it is a reliable alternative is just nuts.

Tidal power is a good alternative, tides are more reliable and can produce power the same way as hydroelectric stations, as for the days of excess power and low power from wind you can alleviate that with pumped storage schemes like in Dinorwig:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinorwig_Power_Station

There are many cheaper and safer alternatives that produce the same results but are less sexy than nuclear power, with a nuclear reactor a loose bolt could make Britain uninhabitable for decades.

There are only a limited number of places that a pump-storage scheme such as Dinorwig can be built in the UK because of the physical requirements of the site. They also have limited capacity - they're very good for short bursts, less so for longer periods. Windless periods can be very long - sometimes in the order of days.

*If* we need wind power, we'll need new technologies to perform the load balancing, whether that is flywheels, molten salts, compressed air, or a combination.

Speedy said:

Has the SNP managed to do anything right?

Win elections.

@ScottyNational: Today's #FMQs transcript :
MSP:Do you...
NS:Poll..
MSP :.have any..
NS:ratings..
MSP:.answers about..
NS:Poll...
Msp:
NS:ratings

Solar is the daftest option in the UK. Maximum output when you don't need it, zero output when you do.