Danny
Member
Posts: 9,832
|
Post by Danny on Aug 25, 2022 23:07:58 GMT
So whilst there are certainly a lot of homes that could be making good use of solar power, the variability seems huge even before you bring geography and climate into it. And presumably the panels cost the same wherever you put them, so I wonder how many houses it just wouldn't be worth the investment to install on? Although facing south probably maximises electricity production, we also need to generate electricity for the longest possible time. So deliberately facing some panels east and west maximises power at the start and end of the day. Current contracts don't take account that electricity is more valuable at certain times of day, especially the late afternoon early evening. This becomes increasingly important as the percentage of renewables increases. Using randomly positioned existing roof might in fact be an advantage.
|
|
|
Post by RAF on Aug 25, 2022 23:10:53 GMT
Worth remembering that Truss is the current UK Foreign Secretary. Yes but being antagonistic to France has pretty much been UK foreign policy for most of the last 1,000 years.
|
|
|
Post by graham on Aug 25, 2022 23:15:47 GMT
@jim Jam
At risk of perhaps being a bit pedantic the Tory GB lead in 1992 was 7.6% whereas in 2019 it was 11.6%. However, when allowance is made for Labour's loss of Scotland post 2014 the results are much closer. Had Labour already suffered its losses in Scotland by 1992 the Tory lead in GB that year would have been circa 9.5%. In terms of England & Wales the 2019 outcome falls somewhere between the 1987 and 1992 results.
graham - that's valid as far as it goes, but isn't it only half of the calculation? Had the seismic shift in Scottish voting habits already occurred at that point then Labour would have been (in those days) about 50 seats worse off too? What I mean is it's fair to say your % adjustment makes the 2019 vote share be in between the 1987 and 1992 ones, but by definition wouldn't it also make both of those election results strikingly worse defeats for Labour too? The answer to your last question is 'Most definitely - Without the Scotland seats Labour would have been at circa 180 in 1987 and circa 225 in 1992!' It also exposes the line that '2019 was Labour's worst election result since 1935' to be a load of tosh - certainly re- England & Wales. Labour's performance there was weaker in both 1983 and 1987 - and not so very much stronger in 1992!
|
|
|
Post by eor on Aug 25, 2022 23:34:15 GMT
No alec. If there is one big difference between the UK and (especially) New Zealand, it's that Covid arrived in the UK very early, and before anybody in the world really appreciated it. quite. But you will be aware I know of a traveller from wuhan arriving in hastings Kate 2019 Kate 2019 sounds a bit Phillip K Dick, this one might be worth reading... Time travel too! This is much better than usual. Going to assume that's a typo and that the Considerate Ions are some unexplained force that Kate 2019 can harness, perhaps to create immunity? Sleeper agents, nice touch! Can we make them Irish for the movie? The Americans love that. Split personality villains too? This is really good, people who are law-abiding citizens one moment and then get transformed into feckless rogues by their rage at COVID restrictions. Whole new twist. Might have to drop this bit as even a five year old could spot that Hong Kong is one of the closest places on earth to China yet has an above average COVID death rate, and Iceland is a very long way away but now doing better than New Zealand. But keep going! Avian flu twist, love it! Great angle to cast the initially concerned scientists as alarmists who've been wrong before. All in all, love to see a second draft, this material has real potential.
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Aug 25, 2022 23:39:40 GMT
mercian I appreciate that most of your posts are unserious and some do occasionally actually amuse me. I can also well understand, as you admit, that they all greatly amuse yourself. No problem with any of that but great humourists don't often have to signal when they are being humourous, nor do they berate their audience for failing to be amused by it. I only signal jokes because a lot of people don't seem to get my humour, and it is hard to convey things in writing that can be done by tone of voice for instance in real life. And I don't claim to be a great humourist! Anyway, here's little tale that I found amusing: The BBC was banging on about GCSE results and I said to Mrs Mercian "I don't know why people get so excited about these results. If you get good results you take one path, and if bad, another. So what?" To which she replied "That's because you don't think like normal people"! On reflection that might well be true but it's the first time in 44 years of marriage tomorrow that she's said that. It made me laugh anyway.
|
|
|
Post by eor on Aug 25, 2022 23:42:21 GMT
graham - that's valid as far as it goes, but isn't it only half of the calculation? Had the seismic shift in Scottish voting habits already occurred at that point then Labour would have been (in those days) about 50 seats worse off too? What I mean is it's fair to say your % adjustment makes the 2019 vote share be in between the 1987 and 1992 ones, but by definition wouldn't it also make both of those election results strikingly worse defeats for Labour too? The answer to your last question is 'Most definitely - Without the Scotland seats Labour would have been at circa 180 in 1987 and circa 225 in 1992!' It also exposes the line that '2019 was Labour's worst election result since 1935' to be a load of tosh - certainly re- England & Wales. Labour's performance there was weaker in both 1983 and 1987 - and not so very much stronger in 1992!
Yeah, but I guess where I'm coming from is for Labour to be the government again, it's harder now than it was before. And saying "ah well that's because this particular significant factor has made it worse" doesn't change that reality.
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 9,832
|
Post by Danny on Aug 25, 2022 23:46:11 GMT
Havnt looked at Iceland lately, but I did check HK. I posted it already but you must have missed it.
Deaths in HK have only come with the most recent strain of covid. Which fits perfectly with the idea china generally was immune to covid at outset, but because it has supressed exposure to new strains as they have come along, now has less immunity than at outset and is at risk. And indeed we see a recent surge of deaths in HK which you report.
Before I provided a link to the FT page where you can see the evolution of deaths in any country over time since April 2020. You may wish to hunt for the relevant post and look for yourself.
|
|
|
Post by graham on Aug 25, 2022 23:48:38 GMT
The answer to your last question is 'Most definitely - Without the Scotland seats Labour would have been at circa 180 in 1987 and circa 225 in 1992!' It also exposes the line that '2019 was Labour's worst election result since 1935' to be a load of tosh - certainly re- England & Wales. Labour's performance there was weaker in both 1983 and 1987 - and not so very much stronger in 1992!
Yeah, but I guess where I'm coming from is for Labour to be the government again, it's harder now than it was before. And saying "ah well that's because this particular significant factor has made it worse" doesn't change that reality. Labour might win back 10 - 15 of their Scotland seats.
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Aug 25, 2022 23:50:02 GMT
For me the fact that the geriatrics blighted the future of the young was Brexit's worst feature. The young, although my sample is drawn from the educated, middle-class households of my acquaintance, are far more mobile internationally than my stay-at-home generation, both with respect to their movements & their partners, and deserved better from their parents or more likely their grand-parents: but in the end the bastards did not vote. PS. I may be wrong on the 2016 voter analysis. We could do with more input on this & more recent polling from James E, that most lucid & affable of our polling experts. I have been stalking him & know that he logs-on at regular intervals: he just doesn't post. Another way of looking at it is that the 'geriatrics' had a better view of the long-term prospects than did the young, and voted for what they perceived would be their descendants' benefit. I certainly did. (by the way who's your latest avatar? Keir Hardie?)
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Aug 25, 2022 23:52:38 GMT
Those days have gone, but inflation detrimentally effects just about everyone and is usually electorally fatal for the incumbents. It's return after a 40 year absence is changing the political as well as economic landscape. If the Tories don't get the lid on it by 2024 I expect they'll be finished. For a while.
|
|
oldnat
Member
Extremist - Undermining the UK state and its institutions
Posts: 6,089
|
Post by oldnat on Aug 26, 2022 0:01:23 GMT
eor
"the seismic shift in Scottish voting habits"
I can understand that the shift in 2015 might seem "seismic" from the point of view of those primarily concerned with the composition of the UK HoC, but that might be a misreading of party preferences in Scotland. These significant alterations of the party with the greatest number of MPs from Scotland have been driven, not just by GB wide changes of mood, but also by voters opting to vote for what they see as best for Scotland.
In the 1950s the Scottish Unionist Party maintained the traditional line, and resisted centralisation in London in favour of continued Scots autonomy. In the 1960s, Labour, with Willie Ross as SoS, successfully (and often meaningfully) portrayed a party that protected Scottish interests and governed in our interests, while the Unionist Party threw away their advantage and merged with the English Conservatives. In the 1970s, Scots "flirted" with the SNP as the "too poor" argument weakened and Labour conceived the stratagem of legislative devolution in response. In the 1980s,90s and Noughties, Labour still held the prospect of better suiting Scots needs than the increasingly "English" Tory party that had developed under Thatcher, and had a strong advantage by re-establishing the Scottish Parliament. After 2014 and Labour's alliance with the Tories in "Better Together", they were largely rejected.
Those of who share moby 's analysis of the UK as a sinking ship, and that leaving it before it submerges would be a good idea : those who believe that Scotland would be much worse outwith the UK - even if their party was running it : those who don't give much of a damn as to the usefulness of any politicians - are generally on common ground as to wanting what's best for Scotland. If that includes what is best for rUK, that is a convenient aspect.
|
|
|
Post by eor on Aug 26, 2022 0:02:17 GMT
Yeah, but I guess where I'm coming from is for Labour to be the government again, it's harder now than it was before. And saying "ah well that's because this particular significant factor has made it worse" doesn't change that reality. Labour might win back 10 - 15 of their Scotland seats. I accept that they might, although little from the Scottish polling I've seen suggests that it's currently likely. But even if they did, that's still a massive deficit from pre-2015. My point was mostly that you consistently saying "ah but you can add 2% on for the loss of Scotland" to historical comparisons on VI is a bit bogus without also noting that it means also adding on the loss of 40 or 50 seats (depending which boundaries were in force at the time). Your reasoning would be fine if Scotland had left in 2014 and the next GE were to be conducted wholly in England & Wales and NI, but (as it stands now) it isn't.
|
|
oldnat
Member
Extremist - Undermining the UK state and its institutions
Posts: 6,089
|
Post by oldnat on Aug 26, 2022 0:05:52 GMT
Worth remembering that Truss is the current UK Foreign Secretary. Yes but being antagonistic to France has pretty much been UK foreign policy for most of the last 1,000 years. So, what was the "UK" that existed for the 700 years prior to 1707? The Union of the Heptarchy perhaps?
For much of that period, Scots foreign policy was to be in alliance with France.
History was, perhaps, not your best subject.
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Aug 26, 2022 0:06:03 GMT
You've been reading the Daily Mail again. I was only joking, guv. That and an inclination to want to take the piss out of the SNP from time to time. I find their schtick a bit holier than thou, bordering on residing up their own backsides. It's a shame when one has to explain one's jokes isn't it? 🙂
|
|
|
Post by graham on Aug 26, 2022 0:11:39 GMT
Labour might win back 10 - 15 of their Scotland seats. I accept that they might, although little from the Scottish polling I've seen suggests that it's currently likely. But even if they did, that's still a massive deficit from pre-2015. My point was mostly that you consistently saying "ah but you can add 2% on for the loss of Scotland" to historical comparisons on VI is a bit bogus without also noting that it means also adding on the loss of 40 or 50 seats (depending which boundaries were in force at the time). Your reasoning would be fine if Scotland had left in 2014 and the next GE were to be conducted wholly in England & Wales and NI, but (as it stands now) it isn't. I have never had a problem with making the adjustment you refer to - indeed I often do so myself as in my earlier response to you. I have made the point many times that without Scotland Labour would have been reduced to circa 170 seats in 1983 - well below the 203 won in 2019.
|
|
|
Post by eor on Aug 26, 2022 0:18:30 GMT
eor
"the seismic shift in Scottish voting habits"
I can understand that the shift in 2015 might seem "seismic" from the point of view of those primarily concerned with the composition of the UK HoC, but that might be a misreading of party preferences in Scotland. These significant alterations of the party with the greatest number of MPs from Scotland have been driven, not just by GB wide changes of mood, but also by voters opting to vote for what they see as best for Scotland.
In the 1950s the Scottish Unionist Party maintained the traditional line, and resisted centralisation in London in favour of continued Scots autonomy. In the 1960s, Labour, with Willie Ross as SoS, successfully (and often meaningfully) portrayed a party that protected Scottish interests and governed in our interests, while the Unionist Party threw away their advantage and merged with the English Conservatives. In the 1970s, Scots "flirted" with the SNP as the "too poor" argument weakened and Labour conceived the stratagem of legislative devolution in response. In the 1980s,90s and Noughties, Labour still held the prospect of better suiting Scots needs than the increasingly "English" Tory party that had developed under Thatcher, and had a strong advantage by re-establishing the Scottish Parliament. After 2014 and Labour's alliance with the Tories in "Better Together", they were largely rejected.
Those of who share moby 's analysis of the UK as a sinking ship, and that leaving it before it submerges would be a good idea : those who believe that Scotland would be much worse outwith the UK - even if their party was running it : those who don't give much of a damn as to the usefulness of any politicians - are generally on common ground as to wanting what's best for Scotland. If that includes what is best for rUK, that is a convenient aspect. In terms of who people have voted for, things have changed, very strikingly, first in elections wholly within Scotland and then in 2015 in the Westminster election too. All of which has happened in a relatively short space of time. And the Westminster changes weren't even on the polling horizon until the Referendum result and fallout, which was less than a year. So I'll stick with "seismic". If your wider point is that the underlying shift in sentiment is much more complicated then I'll readily accept that, I'm not trying to attach any meaning to why things changed. I'm just going on the voting people did, and, in that particular conversation, the effects it has on the makeup of the Westminster parliament.
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Aug 26, 2022 0:21:41 GMT
But there are other options. Why can't we cover superstore car parks with raised PV panels? Does anyone like getting into a car that has been sitting in the sun? There are acres of suitable warehouse roofs that could be targeted for PV too. I agree in principle, but let's not get carried away. I think I read somewhere that the UK's contribution to climate change is around 1% of the total, so while we should do what we can it's not exactly an emergency. It's a good idea, but can be done gradually unless you're of the opinion that we (UK for ON's benefit) are so significant that the world will follow our lead?
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Aug 26, 2022 0:25:40 GMT
It surprises me no one has started a business around renting, shared ownership, lease loan or other arrangements for solar installations based on shouldering the short-term cost for a longer term spread. Go for it! You've identified a gap in the market. (and this isn't a joke in case anyone's wondering)
|
|
oldnat
Member
Extremist - Undermining the UK state and its institutions
Posts: 6,089
|
Post by oldnat on Aug 26, 2022 0:27:41 GMT
In terms of who people have voted for, things have changed, very strikingly, first in elections wholly within Scotland and then in 2015 in the Westminster election too. All of which has happened in a relatively short space of time. And the Westminster changes weren't even on the polling horizon until the Referendum result and fallout, which was less than a year. So I'll stick with "seismic". If your wider point is that the underlying shift in sentiment is much more complicated then I'll readily accept that, I'm not trying to attach any meaning to why things changed. I'm just going on the voting people did, and, in that particular conversation, the effects it has on the makeup of the Westminster parliament. We aren't in any real disagreement. In terms of representation at HoC, there have been a number of "seismic" shifts. That none of them were "even on the polling horizon until" they happened isn't surprising - especially if the polling was at GB level.
|
|
|
Post by eor on Aug 26, 2022 0:34:01 GMT
I accept that they might, although little from the Scottish polling I've seen suggests that it's currently likely. But even if they did, that's still a massive deficit from pre-2015. My point was mostly that you consistently saying "ah but you can add 2% on for the loss of Scotland" to historical comparisons on VI is a bit bogus without also noting that it means also adding on the loss of 40 or 50 seats (depending which boundaries were in force at the time). Your reasoning would be fine if Scotland had left in 2014 and the next GE were to be conducted wholly in England & Wales and NI, but (as it stands now) it isn't. I have never had a problem with making the adjustment you refer to - indeed I often do so myself as in my earlier response to you. I have made the point many times that without Scotland Labour would have been reduced to circa 170 seats in 1983 - well below the 203 won in 2019. Fair play - perhaps I'm misreading you on this. To me it sounds like you're usually saying "Labour are closer to winning than you think". Whereas on the data you're citing I'd say it's more like "Labour are closer to winning in England & Wales than you think" which isn't the same thing now. A bit like how in 2017-19 you often used to conclude most polling posts by "adjusting for the effects of first-term incumbency" to show Labour would do better than polling suggested, yet I don't think have mentioned that potential factor at all since the Tories became the incumbents in most such seats. Doesn't mean you're wrong in either case of course, the next election and the prior one could be wildly different for so many reasons. Believing that is probably why a fair few of us are on this site at all
|
|
oldnat
Member
Extremist - Undermining the UK state and its institutions
Posts: 6,089
|
Post by oldnat on Aug 26, 2022 0:38:12 GMT
mercian
"we (UK for ON's benefit)"
I'm flattered by being selected for special mention, but a little concerned by your exclusion of all others resident outwith Mercia. I'm also concerned about the effects on your aging fingers and keyboard of the number of keystrokes that you used to type that out, when you could simply have typed "UK" instead of "we".
|
|
|
Post by graham on Aug 26, 2022 0:40:32 GMT
I have never had a problem with making the adjustment you refer to - indeed I often do so myself as in my earlier response to you. I have made the point many times that without Scotland Labour would have been reduced to circa 170 seats in 1983 - well below the 203 won in 2019. Fair play - perhaps I'm misreading you on this. To me it sounds like you're usually saying "Labour are closer to winning than you think". Whereas on the data you're citing I'd say it's more like "Labour are closer to winning in England & Wales than you think" which isn't the same thing now. A bit like how in 2017-19 you often used to conclude most polling posts by "adjusting for the effects of first-term incumbency" to show Labour would do better than polling suggested, yet I don't think have mentioned that potential factor at all since the Tories became the incumbents in most such seats. Doesn't mean you're wrong in either case of course, the next election and the prior one could be wildly different for so many reasons. Believing that is probably why a fair few of us are on this site at all The point I made re- first term incumbency was rather born out by the actual 2019 results - in that Labour did hang on to many of the gains made in 2017. I have also been happy to remind people that evidence of this factor does go back quite a long time - eg in 1964 the Tories held on to quite few seats which had not been won until 1959!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2022 4:07:40 GMT
mercian I appreciate that most of your posts are unserious and some do occasionally actually amuse me. I can also well understand, as you admit, that they all greatly amuse yourself. No problem with any of that but great humourists don't often have to signal when they are being humourous, nor do they berate their audience for failing to be amused by it. I only signal jokes because a lot of people don't seem to get my humour, and it is hard to convey things in writing that can be done by tone of voice for instance in real life. And I don't claim to be a great humourist! Anyway, here's little tale that I found amusing: The BBC was banging on about GCSE results and I said to Mrs Mercian "I don't know why people get so excited about these results. If you get good results you take one path, and if bad, another. So what?" To which she replied "That's because you don't think like normal people"! On reflection that might well be true but it's the first time in 44 years of marriage tomorrow that she's said that. It made me laugh anyway. D’you mean that all that time she’s let you think you were normal Pete? What a very nice 👩 woman.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2022 4:11:45 GMT
The limited publicity given to Truss’s embarrassing insult in respect of one of this country’s best allies speaks volumes about where we have got to as country ourselves.
The sooner she is in - and on her way out again- the better. Maybe the Conservative Party can then reinvent themselves as mainstream again. But I very much doubt it.
ps And what a really weird question from the interviewer and then ridiculous applause/guffaws from the Tory faithful at Truss’s response.
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,279
|
Post by steve on Aug 26, 2022 4:59:34 GMT
@crofty
The never-ending fight for the Surry golf club bore vote drags on and on.
It has however allowed the electorate the opportunity to realise how fucking useless the next prime minister will be before they've even had the chance to change the wallpaper in the downing street flat.
|
|
|
Post by jimjam on Aug 26, 2022 5:15:58 GMT
EOR, when you read - tonight probably.
I think you are on the same page as me as I was suggesting, whilst a tad inaccurate in my half the lead remark, that Blairs 14% direct Tory 1992 to Lab 1997 swing was from a much stronger position than Labour are in now.
Grahams point about Scotland, even if Labour did manage to take at the high end of his optimistic range from the SNP, supplements my notion.
The point about the LD vote share has been made and but the key for me is something CB has raised periodically that differential turnout is crucial.
Labour even with 1997 levels or above of vote taking from the Tories need a large number of Tory 2019 voters to, replicate what many '92 Tory voters did in '97, and stay at home with some choosing the LDs perhaps or other parties.
The political context is that Labour have to lower the fear factors for disillusioned Tories so they don't turnout in large numbers to keep Labour out. (In simple terms limit the AB Lab vote).
Sadly the price may be some slippage on the left from Labs 2019 voter base but in aggregate Labour will gain more seats moving towards the centre imo.
|
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,031
|
Post by neilj on Aug 26, 2022 5:50:00 GMT
Interesting discussion about solar panels. I am surprised for new house builds solar panels on roofs are not made compulsory (with perhaps limited exceptions when they aren't practical). There have been thousands of new houses built on my area alone and only a tiny amount have solar panels. Would also think it would work out cheaper to do a bulk order during the actual building. Also from what I can see FITs have not kept track with the huge rises in energy costs?
|
|
|
Post by alec on Aug 26, 2022 6:01:40 GMT
mercian - "I agree in principle, but let's not get carried away. I think I read somewhere that the UK's contribution to climate change is around 1% of the total, so while we should do what we can it's not exactly an emergency." On the contrary, countries like ours will be hit hardest by climate heating, in terms of the impacts on our lives, so yes, it really is an emergency - unless you're an elderly selfish person who doesn't care what comes next.
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 9,832
|
Post by Danny on Aug 26, 2022 6:02:41 GMT
The point I made re- first term incumbency was rather born out by the actual 2019 results - in that Labour did hang on to many of the gains made in 2017. I have also been happy to remind people that evidence of this factor does go back quite a long time - eg in 1964 the Tories held on to quite few seats which had not been won until 1959! Some of the gains labour made suggested underlying structural changes in seats, particularly it was suggested pro labour people moving out of London and turning some of the nearer tory shires red. Something similar but in reverse with the collapse of the northern red wall as former unionised industrial labour supporters die off. It struck me that the effect of a long term structural change is to eventually flip a seat and create a new incumbent. That new MP stands a good chance of avoiding losing their seat despite future national reverses of fortune for their party, because it was local changes not national which won it for them. Looked at overall this process would create a bias towards new incumbents keeping their seats more easily than challengers winning others. But the reason would not be because being in a seat for a term boosts your chances, but because underlying local factors won it for you in the first place and still apply. In the case of london red spreading outwards I would judge this is likely to have continued since. But if the red wall collapse was really because of support for brexit then this is much more likely to crumble as the post brexit economy collapses. There could be a southern apparent 'incumbency bonus' for labour but none for con in the north.
|
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,031
|
Post by neilj on Aug 26, 2022 6:16:31 GMT
Energy price cap to rise to £3549 for the average household Wonder if Truss will deign to actually talk about the biggest issue facing people now or still decide her priority is attacking 'woke' issues and generally stirring up 'culture wars'
|
|