Mr Poppy
Member
Teaching assistant and now your elected PM
Posts: 3,774
|
Post by Mr Poppy on Nov 29, 2022 13:33:01 GMT
I am genuinely curious, is that correct in respect of tidal, it seems counterintuitive. Tidal is intermittent but highly predictable - we know effectively indefinitely far ahead how quickly the tide will be flowing where. Wind is intermittent and moderately predictable - weather forecasts are now good enough at about a week out for wind generation in geographical area about the size of the UK Nuclear is mostly constant and very predictable, but when unpredicted outages happen they have a large impact because the quantum of generation is typically roughly 1.1GW which is a lot to replace at short notice Thank you posting once again. The conversation would be best placed on the Energy thread so folks don't loose track of the discussion (and people are very welcome to read the more detailed technical posts on the Energy thread for themselves rather than believe 'fake gotchas' from Alec the troll) However, since we're here then a couple of additional points (made before but worth repeating) 1/ Tidal Lagoons can be made to 'look' a lot like 'always on' base load with the addition of some short-term storage (eg batteries) to 'smooth' the supply between the predictable cycle of the tide (see discussion with leftieliberal on the Energy thread a while back). In a system with over-capacity (which is not today, but will be one day) then you could also 'clip off' the peaks and reduce the load factor occasionally (and ideally factor that into the contract terms so you don't then pay Tidal to not produce) 2/ UK (and France, others) have had issues with keeping some 'old-old' nuclear plants running past their anticipated life and 'new-old' plants being delayed (eg Hinckley Point C in UK is over 2years late and still suffering delays). Miliband wanted to build loads of 'new-old' nuclear and I was very supportive of that (eg New Wylfa was discussed on UKPR around the time of the Hitachi decision brought upon by 'dither and delay' from CON HMG). Sizewell C* has got the 'green light' but beyond that then hopefully we'll be building 'new-new' nuclear (eg RR's SMRs) as that is a better option in the near future (but was far less certain years ago)
* Sizewell C nuclear plant confirmed with £700m public stakewww.theguardian.com/business/2022/nov/29/sizewell-c-nuclear-plant-confirmed-edf-suffolk-jobs-ukPS c-a-r-f-r-e-w also posted a piece on 'pink' hydrogen on the Energy thread and we discussed how that 'new-new' nuclear could provided 'peaker plant' style back-up to the grid at times of peak demand. |
|
|
|
Post by Mark on Nov 29, 2022 13:35:49 GMT
6. Vistors? Not sure if the daily count is of separate visitors or the number includes those who log on more than once. Moddy Mark might know. Guests are individual guests, based on IP address, so the same guest viewing the site multiple times will only count as 1. The guest total also includes anyone not logged in, so any member that actively logs out, then reads some of the boards before logging in again will also count towards the guest count. Finally, the guest count also includes bots such as "googlebot" and "yahoo slurp spider" who come here to index the forum on search engines. Each of these also counts as 1 guest in a 24 hour period, irrespective of how many times they come here. |
|
|
|
Post by robbiealive on Nov 29, 2022 13:39:06 GMT
The forum is just over a year old. The grand total of posts is 61,000, about 160 per day, so yesterday was not unusual; it just felt like it. It's v quick to manipulate the data. Done fast. ....... 5) 1 Lib-Dem, 4 non-aligned, confused or both 18% I'm not aware of any pact between the Lib Dems, non-aligned and confused, but maybe they should consider it. In any case I think you've under-estimated these groups  1. I referred in detail only to the 21 club, 1,000+ posts each, of whom 1 is a Lib-Dem, Steve, & four are non-aligned, Danny, Carfrew (who knows, blue-nose) , Graham (will he, wont he, shilly-shally,) JIB (who knows .)2. To provide the stats I did is quick: to classify all posters would take a v long time: you can fill that gap. @crossbat. To classify posts by content or genre would take for ever. I;m backing yr point: that this forum is not an echo chamber. Moreover, there are say 6 or 7 LOCs who never stop criticising the Labour leadership. It won't make any difference. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 29, 2022 13:58:43 GMT
robbiealive“ 1. I referred in detail only to the 21 club, 1,000+ posts each, of whom 1 is a Lib-Dem, Steve, & four are non-aligned, Danny, Carfrew (who knows, blue-nose), Graham (will he, wont he, shilly-shally,) JIB (who knows… I think he’s L8b Dem isn’t he? Certainly writes about them a lot.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 29, 2022 14:03:42 GMT
Steady as we go. Not even a dead count bounce in this one for the Tories:- Field work for this was done nearly a week ago. Number-crunching can be quite a time-consuming exercise sometimes. |
|
|
|
Post by johntel on Nov 29, 2022 14:20:35 GMT
I'm not aware of any pact between the Lib Dems, non-aligned and confused, but maybe they should consider it. In any case I think you've under-estimated these groups would take a v long time: you can fill that gap. I wouldn't dare! I do appreciate your analysis, I hope it didn't come across as otherwise. |
|
|
|
Post by jimjam on Nov 29, 2022 14:21:09 GMT
Re: ''CON'19 voters are now:
CON: 44% - very low
DK: 23% - high
LAB: 12% - significant
RUK: 9% - 'one to watch'
WNV: 6%
LDEM: 3%''
When one takes out DKs/WV Tory '19 -Lab is a little under 18% so in line with the 14/16/19 that led to many a post.
A percent or so lower due to Labour '19-Tory - more of course after their movement to DK and WV factored in but less of an incremental increase than from Tory '19 as fewer of them.
Early on in this parliament I suggested Labour needed around 8-10% net Tory 2019 direct switchers to get to level pegging or a small lead at the GE in 24 (or whenever).
I reckoned on new (incl some 2019 abstainers) voters breaking Labour and lower LTV from 2019 Tories as for some it was a one-time Brexit delivery vote.
I did not foresee the level of churn through the LDs worth a couple of % swing at present or the possibility of even more Tories abstaining.
For me, though, the key number to watch is still direct switchers as intuitively if this falls so would other movements as the Tories being more attractive or Labour being less would be the main drivers.
Finally current direct switching has pretty consistent, or even better than currently when Truss was PM, for Labour for around 3 months now and IIRC in 1997 Labour took 14% or Tory 1992 voters.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 29, 2022 14:45:44 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Nov 29, 2022 14:48:28 GMT
With respect to @crossbat's comment on the LOC echo chamber. There were just over 200 posts today. (My count was v rapid). There is room for interpretation but my count is 86 Labour posts, 42 "other" including one or two posts by those LOCs who cannot make their minds up & Carfrew 22 posts (!) who seems more ROC than LOC to me but we count as other. Plus the following stridently anti-Labour voters Lexiteer 16. Colin 9. OldNat 17 Mercian 10 So 86 Labour. 64 Other. 52 Anti-Labour. 84 posts, or getting on for half, were contributed by 6 posters! of which 52 are anti-Labour, plus Carfrew (22) & Crossbat (10). Some LOC echo chamber. I object to the word 'stridently' applied to me. I certainly don't support Labour generally, but the other day I did post that if I saw the detail about HoL reform (and thought they meant it) I'd consider voting for them. |
|
|
|
Post by robbiealive on Nov 29, 2022 14:49:24 GMT
On Constitutions (Apologies for length).
1. As I said before, Britain does not have a fomral consitution because its government & ruling class have almost never experienced a total defeat in warfare or a Revolution, or both, the invariable prerequisites to new states/codfied constitutioms, which was demonstrated numerous times in Europe from 1789 to 1988 and beyond.
The only military defreat was in 1066, if we igonre events like Henry VII's "invasion" in 1485, which did draw on some foreign aid. There have been many rebellions in British history but only one revolution, in the 1648/9-60 interregnum, a revolution which succeeded because it combined, as most succceful revolutions do, popular opposition to the state and a split in the ruling class (plus external threat from Scotland). The 1660 Restoration of Charle II restored most of the monarchy's power, incudling its ability to rule without Parliament, as CII did after 1681. The last substantial invasions were in 1715 and '45, as Napoleon's & Hitler's barges never arrived. (Britain's strategic independence ended the day the first V2 hit London.)
2. The 1688/89 Glorious Revolution was occasioned by William of Orange's invasion but it was essentially a coup organised by the English ruling class. The monarachy remained powerful thereafter, and appointed the government, but its ministers were unable to govern effectively unless they could command a majority in the HOC, elected by the propertied classes. This system has been endlessly modified, & the Union was created, but the principles that representation is based on some form of FPTP and that a government has to have a majority in the HOC have persisted.
3. Oldnat has chastised the Labour government of 1697-2010 for not creating a codified constitution but this is easier said than done. Devolution was accomplished in Wales & Scotland in 1997 in the teeth of Tory opposition but required a confirming referendum in the two countries: in Wales achieved by a v small majority & in Scotland by v large one. Neither country was that enthused by constitutionalism: the turnout in both, esp Wales, was less than in the GE. The turnout in the Indy Ref in Scotland in 2014 was much higher than in any GE, presumably because the voters thought much more was at stake (as with Brexit).
4. To achieve a codified constitution for the UK post-'97 would have been much harder than Devolution, for any no of reasons.
(a) It did not form part of the '97 Labour manifeto (?) (b) it would have bogged down the Labour government in interminable constitutionalism, a quaqmire as we have discovered recently, when its priority was to restore the public services after the Tory neglect. (c) as with Scotland & Wales, but to a much greater degree, one doubts that there was much if any popular interest in constitutionalsim in the late '90s, esp with English & Tory voters. (d) Could the necessary referendum have been won without Tory support which would not have been forthcoming. In 2011 the modest AV poropsal was rejected by a v large majority on a pitiful turnout, tho it was not supported by either main party.
5. I doubt whether a codified UK constitution could be achieved now without the precursor of PR, which, as my good friend & Club 21 member Crofty has said, probably commands a majoirty on this forum. PR would be constitutionalism & the greatest change in British electoral politics since the 1832 Great Reform Act, which in any case didn't change as much as is generally thought.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 29, 2022 14:49:51 GMT
I'm self identifying as roc to add some balance. You'll never pull it off! (Good start for me posting less..) I’m already taking coloured ink “lessons”. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 29, 2022 14:50:44 GMT
With respect to @crossbat's comment on the LOC echo chamber. There were just over 200 posts today. (My count was v rapid). There is room for interpretation but my count is 86 Labour posts, 42 "other" including one or two posts by those LOCs who cannot make their minds up & Carfrew 22 posts (!) who seems more ROC than LOC to me but we count as other. Plus the following stridently anti-Labour voters Lexiteer 16. Colin 9. OldNat 17 Mercian 10 So 86 Labour. 64 Other. 52 Anti-Labour. 84 posts, or getting on for half, were contributed by 6 posters! of which 52 are anti-Labour, plus Carfrew (22) & Crossbat (10). Some LOC echo chamber. I object to the word 'stridently' applied to me. I certainly don't support Labour generally, but the other day I did post that if I saw the detail about HoL reform (and thought they meant it) I'd consider voting for them. Would that be before or after you reject the idea? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 29, 2022 14:54:27 GMT
Re: ''CON'19 voters are now: CON: 44% - very low DK: 23% - high LAB: 12% - significant RUK: 9% - 'one to watch' WNV: 6% LDEM: 3%'' When one takes out DKs/WV Tory '19 -Lab is a little under 18% so in line with the 14/16/19 that led to many a post. A percent or so lower due to Labour '19-Tory - more of course after their movement to DK and WV factored in but less of an incremental increase than from Tory '19 as fewer of them. Early on in this parliament I suggested Labour needed around 8-10% net Tory 2019 direct switchers to get to level pegging or a small lead at the GE in 24 (or whenever). I reckoned on new (incl some 2019 abstainers) voters breaking Labour and lower LTV from 2019 Tories as for some it was a one-time Brexit delivery vote. I did not foresee the level of churn through the LDs worth a couple of % swing at present or the possibility of even more Tories abstaining. For me, though, the key number to watch is still direct switchers as intuitively if this falls so would other movements as the Tories being more attractive or Labour being less would be the main drivers. Finally current direct switching has pretty consistent, or even better than currently when Truss was PM, for Labour for around 3 months now and IIRC in 1997 Labour took 14% or Tory 1992 voters. Do you think , that despite Tory DK's being described by TW as "high", they are not enough to bridge the VI lead , is an indicator that Starmer really has pushed Tories to the brink now. ? And they aren't all going to vote Tory anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Nov 29, 2022 14:56:12 GMT
'Most Important Election Issues' infographic from R&W's latest. Note Immigration is 3rd most important issue at 28% (+2 on the week). Folks can look for themselves lower down the list for things hardly anyone is interested in (although likely to be high variation between the nations on something like thinking Scottish Independence is an important issue) View AttachmentNo mention of Defence at a time when we're fighting a proxy war against a very powerful opponent? Even if it's included under Foreign Policy it's surprisingly low. Also some of the obsessives on here might note how low Brexit is. |
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,638
|
Post by steve on Nov 29, 2022 14:59:04 GMT
Attachment DeletedJust checking in with the new self identification it's a work in progress.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 29, 2022 15:01:34 GMT
With respect to @crossbat's comment on the LOC echo chamber. There were just over 200 posts today. (My count was v rapid). There is room for interpretation but my count is 86 Labour posts, 42 "other" including one or two posts by those LOCs who cannot make their minds up & Carfrew 22 posts (!) who seems more ROC than LOC to me but we count as other. Plus the following stridently anti-Labour voters Lexiteer 16. Colin 9. OldNat 17 Mercian 10 So 86 Labour. 64 Other. 52 Anti-Labour. 84 posts, or getting on for half, were contributed by 6 posters! of which 52 are anti-Labour, plus Carfrew (22) & Crossbat (10). Some LOC echo chamber. I object to the word 'stridently' applied to me. I certainly don't support Labour generally, but the other day I did post that if I saw the detail about HoL reform (and thought they meant it) I'd consider voting for them. Me too mercian . Starmer has made Labour no longer a no no for me-and I have said so often. Had Johnson been leading still it would have been difficult for me. But some on the LOC here don't actually read the detail. Once you are pigeon holed as ROC , thats it-persona non grata. No likes ( even if they did  ). There is a group of really partisan folk on LOC here for whom any ROC opinion or its provider are beyond the pale. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 29, 2022 15:04:33 GMT
'Most Important Election Issues' infographic from R&W's latest. Note Immigration is 3rd most important issue at 28% (+2 on the week). Folks can look for themselves lower down the list for things hardly anyone is interested in (although likely to be high variation between the nations on something like thinking Scottish Independence is an important issue) View AttachmentNo mention of Defence at a time when we're fighting a proxy war against a very powerful opponent? Even if it's included under Foreign Policy it's surprisingly low. Also some of the obsessives on here might note how low Brexit is. I think its a problem with the choices mercian . What would the rating for " Ukraine" have been ? or " Gas and Electricity prices" ? |
|
|
|
Post by wb61 on Nov 29, 2022 15:09:29 GMT
The Swansea Barrage was intended to be nowhere near the Severn Estuary but at the mouth of the River Tawe. There are no wetlands nearby and the river has already been made subject to a permanent barrage a little further upstream. If any wildlife was to be affected it would most likely be affected already by the regular dredging which keeps a deep-water channel for commercial shipping coming into Swansea docks, the environment is entirely different. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 29, 2022 15:15:15 GMT
The Swansea Barrage was intended to be nowhere near the Severn Estuary but at the mouth of the River Tawe. There are no wetlands nearby and the river has already been made subject to a permanent barrage a little further upstream. If any wildlife was to be affected it would most likely be affected already by the regular dredging which keeps a deep-water channel for commercial shipping coming into Swansea docks, the environment is entirely different. Apologies. I made an unwarranted assumption there. Will go read about Swansea. |
|
|
|
Post by wb61 on Nov 29, 2022 15:19:16 GMT
The Swansea Barrage was intended to be nowhere near the Severn Estuary but at the mouth of the River Tawe. There are no wetlands nearby and the river has already been made subject to a permanent barrage a little further upstream. If any wildlife was to be affected it would most likely be affected already by the regular dredging which keeps a deep-water channel for commercial shipping coming into Swansea docks, the environment is entirely different. Apologies. I made an unwarranted assumption there. Will go read about Swansea. Thank you, I am not innocent of such assumptions on occasion, and people in glass houses etc. |
|
|
|
Post by robbiealive on Nov 29, 2022 15:20:55 GMT
6. Vistors? Not sure if the daily count is of separate visitors or the number includes those who log on more than once. Moddy Mark might know. Guests are individual guests, based on IP address, so the same guest viewing the site multiple times will only count as 1. The guest total also includes anyone not logged in, so any member that actively logs out, then reads some of the boards before logging in again will also count towards the guest count.
Finally, the guest count also includes bots such as "googlebot" and "yahoo slurp spider" who come here to index the forum on search engines. Each of these also counts as 1 guest in a 24 hour period, irrespective of how many times they come here. Thanks for prompt reply. I have done what's in the middle para above & will avoid as it's better to have accurate figures of non-member use of the forum. |
|
|
|
Post by jimjam on Nov 29, 2022 15:22:58 GMT
Colin, re ''Do you think , that despite Tory DK's being described by TW as "high", they are not enough to bridge the VI lead , is an indicator that Starmer really has pushed Tories to the brink now. ?
And they aren't all going to vote Tory anyway.''
I try not to give too many opinions but I agree that the amount of Tory 2019 voters now saying DK is high and we know from past parliaments that not all will vote Tory.
The key for me is that if fewer 2019 voters are drawn to Labour than current polls suggest, and more importantly move back to Tory, the same factors and issues would be driving more Tory 2019 DKs back to the Tory fold.
To give an opinion, I think the James Es' rule of thumb which draws on ICMs methodology of net 50% returnees from DK is a reasonable estimate to use. (Eg 70% Tory, Lab 20%, other (inc DNV) 10% from the DKs).
This adds 5% or so back to Tory VI but to be accurate I would need to do the same for all parties 2019 base saying DK and then adjust notional turnout.
NB) On my rough calcs Opinium are giving back 45% or so of Tory 2019 DK/WV net worth about 4.5% of VI, over Labour, so a litte less than ICM would. (I have not turnout adjusted so actual impact on net VI will be different but doesn't alter the basic premise).
|
|
|
|
Post by johntel on Nov 29, 2022 15:27:34 GMT
Finally, the guest count also includes bots such as "googlebot" and " yahoo slurp spider" Don't like the sound of this one, they certainly weren't invited by me. Probably one of mercian 's mates. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 29, 2022 15:31:08 GMT
Colin, re ''Do you think , that despite Tory DK's being described by TW as "high", they are not enough to bridge the VI lead , is an indicator that Starmer really has pushed Tories to the brink now. ? And they aren't all going to vote Tory anyway.'' I try not to give too many opinions but I agree that the amount of Tory 2019 voters now saying DK is high and we know from past parliaments that not all will vote Tory. The key for me is that if fewer 2019 voters are drawn to Labour than current polls suggest, and more importantly move back to Tory, the same factors and issues would be driving more Tory 2019 DKs back to the Tory fold. To give an opinion, I think the James Es' rule of thumb which draws on ICMs methodology of net 50% returnees from DK is a reasonable estimate to use. (Eg 70% Tory, Lab 20%, other (inc DNV) 10% from the DKs). This adds 5% or so back to Tory VI but to be accurate I would need to do the same for all parties 2019 base saying DK and then adjust notional turnout. NB) On my rough calcs Opinium are giving back 45% or so of Tory 2019 DK/WV net worth about 4.5% of VI, over Labour, so a litte less than ICM would. (I have not turnout adjusted so actual impact on net VI will be different but doesn't alter the basic premise. Thanks. I'm not into the granular detail like you. I sense you becoming more confident ( no need to respond !). And I think you would have just cause. Even if Sunak can claim-lets say falling inflation, NIP/ NI Assembly & Albanian repatriations/less small boats-I think the damage to Party credibility is too great for him to overcome. All just opinions I know |
|
|
|
Post by leftieliberal on Nov 29, 2022 15:31:48 GMT
Tidal is intermittent but highly predictable - we know effectively indefinitely far ahead how quickly the tide will be flowing where. Wind is intermittent and moderately predictable - weather forecasts are now good enough at about a week out for wind generation in geographical area about the size of the UK Nuclear is mostly constant and very predictable, but when unpredicted outages happen they have a large impact because the quantum of generation is typically roughly 1.1GW which is a lot to replace at short notice Thank you, that has put me right. the reason I thought it was not intermittent was because my understanding of the proposed Swansea Barrage: it was described as having a dam and turbine system where the turbines would operate on both the incoming and outgoing tides. That is correct. Tidal power is intermittent (at least in the form proposed for the Swansea tidal lagoon) because there will always be times near high tide and low tide where the difference in water level between inside and outside is too low to generate electricity. The simplest way to get around this if you want continuous power generation is a double-lagoon system, where one lagoon is filled at high tide, the other lagoon is emptied at low tide and the turbines are in a barrage between the two. MacKay explains all this in detail in SEWTHA www.withouthotair.com/ (pp320-21). The problem that the UK has with tidal power generation is that the best sites are on western coasts (the North Sea has a low tidal range) and because locations like the Severn Estuary and Morecambe Bay are approximately six hours apart for high tides the highest tidal generation on the flood tide in one takes place at the same time as the highest tidal generation on the ebb tide at the other. This is something that the Swansea Bay people gloss over. Roughly the best you can do is 14 hours of generation out of every 24. Really, tidal power needs to be combined with some form of storage to be most effective and this could be pumped hydro (which is well-suited to rapid charging and discharging). If National Grid were to dust off the old plans for pumped storage in Wales they could add Bowydd and Cresor, (p 192) giving an extra 3.75 GW capacity (or about 2x Dinorwig), so a 5.65 GW baseload (including Dinorwig) if enough lagoons were built to charge them four times a day. To reduce the load on the Grid one wouldn't want to use pumped storage in Scotland for this. |
|
|
|
Post by wb61 on Nov 29, 2022 15:37:41 GMT
Thank you, that has put me right. the reason I thought it was not intermittent was because my understanding of the proposed Swansea Barrage: it was described as having a dam and turbine system where the turbines would operate on both the incoming and outgoing tides. That is correct. Tidal power is intermittent (at least in the form proposed for the Swansea tidal lagoon) because there will always be times near high tide and low tide where the difference in water level between inside and outside is too low to generate electricity. The simplest way to get around this if you want continuous power generation is a double-lagoon system, where one lagoon is filled at high tide, the other lagoon is emptied at low tide and the turbines are in a barrage between the two. MacKay explains all this in detail in SEWTHA www.withouthotair.com/ (pp320-21). The problem that the UK has with tidal power generation is that the best sites are on western coasts (the North Sea has a low tidal range) and because locations like the Severn Estuary and Morecambe Bay are approximately six hours apart for high tides the highest tidal generation on the flood tide in one takes place at the same time as the highest tidal generation on the ebb tide at the other. This is something that the Swansea Bay people gloss over. Roughly the best you can do is 14 hours of generation out of every 24. Really, tidal power needs to be combined with some form of storage to be most effective and this could be pumped hydro (which is well-suited to rapid charging and discharging). If National Grid were to dust off the old plans for pumped storage in Wales they could add Bowydd and Cresor, (p 192) giving an extra 3.75 GW capacity (or about 2x Dinorwig), so a 5.65 GW baseload (including Dinorwig) if enough lagoons were built to charge them four times a day. To reduce the load on the Grid one wouldn't want to use pumped storage in Scotland for this. Thanks not my field at all. I did wonder however why turbine, before I was told I imagined a float and piston system with appropriate gearing transmission direct to the magnetic turbine producing the electricity, (I think this is because I saw a Scottish experimental system with a long float on the news once, but it might have been an episode of Red Dwarf, who knows)  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 29, 2022 15:39:38 GMT
I object to the word 'stridently' applied to me. I certainly don't support Labour generally, but the other day I did post that if I saw the detail about HoL reform (and thought they meant it) I'd consider voting for them. Me too mercian . Starmer has made Labour no longer a no no for me-and I have said so often. Had Johnson been leading still it would have been difficult for me. But some on the LOC here don't actually read the detail. Once you are pigeon holed as ROC , thats it-persona non grata. No likes ( even if they did ). There is a group of really partisan folk on LOC here for whom any ROC opinion or its provider are beyond the pale. Hear Hear. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 29, 2022 15:42:21 GMT
Finally, the guest count also includes bots such as "googlebot" and " yahoo slurp spider" Don't like the sound of this one, they certainly weren't invited by me. Probably one of mercian 's mates. I though “Batty” was the only “mate” that “Mercian” had. (Haven’t got the “hang” of COLOURED “ink” yet but other elements are going very well.) |
|
|
|
Post by leftieliberal on Nov 29, 2022 15:43:51 GMT
On Constitutions (Apologies for length). 1. As I said before, Britain does not have a fomral consitution because its government & ruling class have almost never experienced a total defeat in warfare or a Revolution, or both, the invariable prerequisites to new states/codfied constitutioms, which was demonstrated numerous times in Europe from 1789 to 1988 and beyond. The only military defreat was in 1066, if we igonre events like Henry VII's "invasion" in 1485, which did draw on some foreign aid. There have been many rebellions in British history but only one revolution, in the 1648/9-60 interregnum, a revolution which succeeded because it combined, as most succceful revolutions do, popular opposition to the state and a split in the ruling class (plus external threat from Scotland). The 1660 Restoration of Charle II restored most of the monarchy's power, incudling its ability to rule without Parliament, as CII did after 1681. The last substantial invasions were in 1715 and '45, as Napoleon's & Hitler's barges never arrived. (Britain's strategic independence ended the day the first V2 hit London.) 2. The 1688/89 Glorious Revolution was occasioned by William of Orange's invasion but it was essentially a coup organised by the English ruling class. The monarachy remained powerful thereafter, and appointed the government, but its ministers were unable to govern effectively unless they could command a majority in the HOC, elected by the propertied classes. This system has been endlessly modified, & the Union was created, but the principles that representation is based on some form of FPTP and that a government has to have a majority in the HOC have persisted. 3. Oldnat has chastised the Labour government of 1697-2010 for not creating a codified constitution but this is easier said than done. Devolution was accomplished in Wales & Scotland in 1997 in the teeth of Tory opposition but required a confirming referendum in the two countries: in Wales achieved by a v small majority & in Scotland by v large one. Neither country was that enthused by constitutionalism: the turnout in both, esp Wales, was less than in the GE. The turnout in the Indy Ref in Scotland in 2014 was much higher than in any GE, presumably because the voters thought much more was at stake (as with Brexit). 4. To achieve a codified constitution for the UK post-'97 would have been much harder than Devolution, for any no of reasons. (a) It did not form part of the '97 Labour manifeto (?) (b) it would have bogged down the Labour government in interminable constitutionalism, a quaqmire as we have discovered recently, when its priority was to restore the public services after the Tory neglect. (c) as with Scotland & Wales, but to a much greater degree, one doubts that there was much if any popular interest in constitutionalsim in the late '90s, esp with English & Tory voters. (d) Could the necessary referendum have been won without Tory support which would not have been forthcoming. In 2011 the modest AV poropsal was rejected by a v large majority on a pitiful turnout, tho it was not supported by either main party. 5. I doubt whether a codified UK constitution could be achieved now without the precursor of PR, which, as my good friend & Club 21 member Crofty has said, probably commands a majoirty on this forum. PR would be constitutionalism & the greatest change in British electoral politics since the 1832 Great Reform Act, which in any case didn't change as much as is generally thought. Well put, and apart from the tiny error of 1697 instead of 1997 entirely correct. |
|
|
|
Post by hireton on Nov 29, 2022 15:53:01 GMT
Interesting to see the various comments on Labour's approach to opposition and the classification of posters as roc, loc, anti-labour etc. I think I'm classified as "Nat:anti-labour". I understand that the classifications are necessarily broad brush and not to be taken too seriously or to heart. However, I think there can be a tendency to over-simplify viewpoints and affiliations so here are a few comments on that. Personally, I'm anti-Labour in Scotland because it is a pro-Brexit party and opposed to Scotland's right to choose its own future. It is also working hand in glove with Tories in local government in Scotland for example in Edinburgh as it did in Aberdeen. I accept that Labour is probably the best choice in England but it is only because the other options are worse in a FPTP system (and I say that as somebody who voted Labour consistently from the time I was able to vote to my early 40s.) I don't accept the argument that Labour and Starmer will suddenly be transformed in office and will act differently to his public statements. As with Blair, what you hear is what you will get. This is a well-written article by a loc and 2014 No Voter about the current position on independence and Labour: bylines.scot/news/scotland/independence/is-the-union-still-a-voluntary-one/This is the section on Labour which is relevant: "There is still a positive, progressive case to be made for the Union. It’s a tricky one, because it needs to be based on an acknowledgement that Brexit and all that has ensued from it is a disaster, and a resolution to overturn it and come through these disastrous years all the stronger. And it would need, of course, to be based on a reinforced sense that the Union really is voluntary, underpinned by a clearly set out route to independence in the event that Scots one day sought it. The problem is that Labour, the party you would expect to fill this gap, is not doing so. Where we would expect a Labour party to trumpet its internationalism, we hear its leader trying to outdo the Tories on immigration. Where we would expect a Labour party to condemn in the strongest terms the evils of the Tories’ Rwanda policy, we see a leadership which focuses instead on the impracticality, thus helping to normalise the evil and leaving room for Nicola Sturgeon to make the speech about refugees that you’d expect to hear from Labour. Where I would like a Labour party to tell me how my children can regain the freedom of movement that has been taken from them, I hear Labour not only telling me that they can’t but chiding me for wanting it. Where I see an electoral system desperately in need of reform so that we are never again held hostage by First Past the Post to socially conservative voters in a small group of English constituencies, I see a Labour party that shows no sign of wanting to reform that system. “We have to say these things”, they will tell you, “because the system forces us to”. Thus reinforcing the case for independence. And on it goes." |
|
). 
