|
|
Post by mercian on Jul 20, 2023 23:19:37 GMT
I’m looking at it from a dog’s point of view. It is not a quick game is it? Not so relevant nowadays but there's an old story about an American being told about cricket and saying in total bafflement "You mean you could play for 5 days and it's still a draw?" Are your dogs American? If so they should be deported. |
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Jul 20, 2023 23:22:15 GMT
Nick Watt is a gushing, overexcited bore. I'd never heard of him and had to look him up, but apparently he went to university which would explain a lot. |
|
|
|
Post by leftieliberal on Jul 20, 2023 23:22:21 GMT
Norman Baker is a d**khead. Based on cost/person the UK monarchy is one of the lowest-cost in Europe. The spokesperson did not dispute that the sovereign grant would be £124.8m from 2025. However, she said that the increase would be “temporary, only for the financial years of 2025-6 and 2026-7” and would be used to complete renovation works at Buckingham Palace.So Charles has gone from paying an effective tax rate of 75% to an effective tax rate of 88% on income from the Crown Estates. If only the other billionaires resident in the UK paid as much. We need to remember that the change to linking the sovereign grant to Crown Estates income came about because inflation had so much reduced the original sovereign grant set in 1952 when the late Queen acceded to the throne. |
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Jul 20, 2023 23:24:55 GMT
Norman Baker is a d**khead. Based on cost/person the UK monarchy is one of the lowest-cost in Europe. The spokesperson did not dispute that the sovereign grant would be £124.8m from 2025. However, she said that the increase would be “temporary, only for the financial years of 2025-6 and 2026-7” and would be used to complete renovation works at Buckingham Palace.So Charles has gone from paying an effective tax rate of 75% to an effective tax rate of 88% on income from the Crown Estates. If only the other billionaires resident in the UK paid as much. We need to remember that the change to linking the sovereign grant to Crown Estates income came about because inflation had so much reduced the original sovereign grant set in 1952 when the late Queen acceded to the throne. I believe that Charles is planning some big new wind farms and will donate any profits to the nation. He has some good points. |
|
|
|
Post by leftieliberal on Jul 20, 2023 23:30:19 GMT
Norman Baker is a d**khead. Based on cost/person the UK monarchy is one of the lowest-cost in Europe. The spokesperson did not dispute that the sovereign grant would be £124.8m from 2025. However, she said that the increase would be “temporary, only for the financial years of 2025-6 and 2026-7” and would be used to complete renovation works at Buckingham Palace.So Charles has gone from paying an effective tax rate of 75% to an effective tax rate of 88% on income from the Crown Estates. If only the other billionaires resident in the UK paid as much. We need to remember that the change to linking the sovereign grant to Crown Estates income came about because inflation had so much reduced the original sovereign grant set in 1952 when the late Queen acceded to the throne. I believe that Charles is planning some big new wind farms and will donate any profits to the nation. He has some good points. He's not actually planning them himself, but the seabed is Crown Land so all the rents from the wind farms go to the Crown Estates. This is one of the reasons that Crown Estate revenues have risen so much. |
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Jul 20, 2023 23:31:36 GMT
Turnout in Uxbridge 46%. That seems quite high for a by-election. Good for Labour?
|
|
|
|
Post by mandolinist on Jul 20, 2023 23:32:29 GMT
Just popped in to see what news on the Westminster by-elections - which can be equally accurately described as being in England, GB, or UK. Which rather makes so obvious that the cretins at YG are not only ignorant of political geography, but consequently phrase their question in a stupid and misleading way. "Tory rebels are seeking to amend onshore wind rules that are so strict they effectively constitute a ban in England
72% of Britons say new onshore wind farms should be allowed in the UK, with only 8% saying they should be banned.
Do you think new onshore wind farms should be allowed in the UK or should be banned?"While Westminster claims to be able to make the rules for anywhere in the UK, it would be totally irrelevant to those in GB if it covered Northern Ireland in windfarms, or had none there at all, as it isn't part of the GB electricity network, but the Irish one. As foolishly phrased, some respondents may have said Yes as they wish more wind farms in GB to be built in Scotland (where we already have many, and are building more) or Wales, so as not to sully England. Since the question is clearly intended to refer to the restrictions in England imposed by the UKGE that they elected, it would have been more useful to have asked about windfarms in England, and not UK. This isn't just pedantry. Most people are not aware of the geographic limitations that currently apply, and so the question implies (wrongly) that "the UK" has a single set of planning laws which Westminster/UKGov administers. I doubt that YG does this deliberately. They are just arrogant, ill-educated and pathetically ignorant. _______________________________________________________________________________ Danny spoke about ScotGov wanting the power to " legalise drugs". I don't blame him for that error, but the news source that provided that information - possibly the BBC. The power sought is to decriminalise drug possession when for personal use. The distinction is important - "The key difference to a criminal model is that in a decriminalised model, while penalties still apply for use and possession of drugs, they are no longer criminal charges. Decriminalisation is not legalisation. If drug possession and personal use are decriminalised, it is still illegal to possess and use drugs."adf.org.au/talking-about-drugs/law/decriminalisation/overview-decriminalisation-legalisation/#:~:text=The%20key%20difference%20to%20a,to%20possess%20and%20use%20drugs. Well, that's a relief, I thought something dreadful had happened to you. Welcome back. |
|
|
|
Post by graham on Jul 20, 2023 23:45:20 GMT
Turnout in Uxbridge 46%. That seems quite high for a by-election. Good for Labour? Not at all high historically. In the 1980s we saw by election turnouts above 80% - Darlington - March 1983 - Brecon & Radnor - July 1985. |
|
|
|
Post by RAF on Jul 20, 2023 23:45:24 GMT
Turnout in Uxbridge 46%. That seems quite high for a by-election. Good for Labour? A little above average perhaps but nothing out of the ordinary. I expect it means that it's going to be close, as even a win by either side by 5-6% would only amount to a difference of 1,000-1,500 votes. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 20, 2023 23:46:59 GMT
Sky rolling news along the bottom of the screen says LDEM claim they have gained Somerton and Frome from CON. As steve noted, to be so confident at this early stage suggests a pretty damn big win is on the cards for them. |
|
|
|
Post by joeboy on Jul 20, 2023 23:47:30 GMT
Turnout in Uxbridge 46%. That seems quite high for a by-election. Good for Labour? Labour/Tory dynamics make it difficult to call. Lets be honest Tories are far more likely to be motivated to turn out to stop Labour than the Lib Dems. I think given Labour already dominates London, Uxbridge will be a bit misleading about the broader national mood., Selby is far more interesting, and will send shivers down Tory spines if it goes Red. Rather like Ashfield for Labour in 77, there's that moment when you think we're really fu**ed here. Labour had 'sunny Jim' at the helm to keep them in the game, and tbf 79 was a defeat not a disaster. Sunak is no Callaghan and the Tories know that, but they've run out of leadership options. |
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Jul 20, 2023 23:53:15 GMT
Turnout in Uxbridge 46%. That seems quite high for a by-election. Good for Labour? Not at all high historically. In the 1980s we saw by election turnouts above 80% - Darlington - March 1983 - Brecon & Radnor - July 1985. That may be true, but rather than 40 years ago, what are by-election turnouts like this century? I'm not going to look it up, even if that would have been quicker than typing this. Cider beginning to kick in. I had a chat to friends tonight about morphine dreams. We all agreed that it's good stuff but IMO cider is better.  |
|
|
|
Post by peterbell on Jul 20, 2023 23:54:48 GMT
Sam Coates on Sky has said that a couple of Lab supporters at Selby are becoming increasingly optimistic.
|
|
|
|
Post by lens on Jul 20, 2023 23:56:32 GMT
Danny, you're getting into a minutiae of detail and not seeing the wood for the trees. Regardless of the technology, *ANY* operator would like their generation output to be of their own choosing - "if we can generate, we'd like to do so, and be paid for it". To a market dictated by demand somebody is going to have to be disappointed - no point in generating if there's no customer. And grid demand is obviously highly variable - both on a daily basis and also seasonal. That's true of generating plant be it nuclear, wind, gas, oil, coal or whatever. You seem to be making the case for having one unified state power generation system, which chooses what to switch on and off without paying compensation to anyone. The insanity of running it the way we do is starting to show when people are required to pay top rate for electricity when the real cost of generation through renewables is a fraction of this. I tend to believe one unified system is probably best, but it's largely a red herring here. The core argument is that to guarantee the lights won't go out, you need a lot of spare capacity most of the time. The system needs redundancy. But redundancy is expensive. It really matters less whether such redundancy comes about via the current payments system - or this unified system building a lot of plant which they don't need to utilise much of the time. If the system is to break even the redundant plant can only push up the overall cost, and hence mean a higher average price. The short answer is simply because when they do get it, the energy is cheap. The raw energy is the valuable item, not the plant itself. No - not necessarily. We need to get away from necessarily thinking of energy as a physical entity - be it gas, oil, coal, or even firewood gathered by our ancestors in the forest. As a thought experiment, imagine your energy needs fluctuates between 1MW and 4 MW, with an average of (say) 2.5MW. Do you build a windfarm capable of 2.5MW over the year, together with necessary hydrogen production, storage, and generation plant - or just overbuild a windfarm to the extent you know it will always be capable of meeting demand? That's unanswerable (and idealistic!!) without knowing a lot of relative costs, but get the idea? If windturbines are cheap enough, then why bother with all the other plant, why bother with storage, if we always know enough will be generated all the time to satisfy need? (Yes, an idealised case, but get the idea?) Hmm. Shame there are more public charging points in westminster than six nothern cities put together. Yes that is an alternative possibility for storing energy, but developing that one isnt going well either. And while we might persuade people to charge off peak (tricky if that means on street parking for all on bright sunny days, no one is installing it), I dont see much scope to drain that power back into the grid, which is what we really need to do. We need to store energy in summer for winter and hydrogen can do that. Danny - in this context, bringing up public charging points are a complete red herring. Currently, about 80% (I believe?) of the electricity used by BEVs is via home charging overnight. And if you read what I put, there's no mention of such being put back into the grid. That's another red herring. Typically people get home around 6 o'clock, plug in the car, and forget about it until going to work at say 8am. Without smart charging it may draw 7kW from 6pm until 11-12pm - right through peak demand period when cookers, kettles, TVs and whatever are drawing power. With smart metering the owner still gets a fully charged car at 8am - but with power drawn at times most advantageous to the grid, times of natural trough. If you could smooth the grid perfectly (match demand perfectly to supply) any need for any storage would be eliminated totally. That's unlikely to ever happen, but there is huge scope for other means of controlling demand with clever consumer pricing apart from EV charging. And please, can I suggest that if you want to continue this any further, it's done on the dedicated energy thread? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2023 0:00:37 GMT
Turnout in Uxbridge 46%. That seems quite high for a by-election. Good for Labour? Labour/Tory dynamics make it difficult to call. Lets be honest Tories are far more likely to be motivated to turn out to stop Labour than the Lib Dems. I think given Labour already dominates London, Uxbridge will be a bit misleading about the broader national mood., Selby is far more interesting, and will send shivers down Tory spines if it goes Red. Rather like Ashfield for Labour in 77, there's that moment when you think we're really fu**ed here. Labour had 'sunny Jim' at the helm to keep them in the game, and tbf 79 was a defeat not a disaster. Sunak is no Callaghan and the Tories know that, but they've run out of leadership options. I remember staying up for that election night when I was still at school. From memory, it was the same night as Grimsby, which received all the publicity, and which LAB just hung on to, to their massive relief. Then shortly after, 'safe' Ashfield declared and was a CON gain. That was a bit of a choker. |
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Jul 21, 2023 0:06:50 GMT
And please, can I suggest that if you want to continue this any further, it's done on the dedicated energy thread? 👍 |
|
|
|
Post by Rafwan on Jul 21, 2023 0:19:16 GMT
Rafwan "Nobody beforehand really thought Corbyn could or would achieve the result in 2017" Oh I don't know I was reasonably confident he would lose just the 60 seats and a million votes more and he would have proved me wrong. Well, that is very impressive, steve, well done. But I demand evidence!! Send me a photo of your lower jaw at 1min past 10 on election day, just after the exit poll. If it is not sitting on the floor, like everyone else’s in the country, I will be persuaded. |
|
|
|
Post by joeboy on Jul 21, 2023 0:19:41 GMT
Labour/Tory dynamics make it difficult to call. Lets be honest Tories are far more likely to be motivated to turn out to stop Labour than the Lib Dems. I think given Labour already dominates London, Uxbridge will be a bit misleading about the broader national mood., Selby is far more interesting, and will send shivers down Tory spines if it goes Red. Rather like Ashfield for Labour in 77, there's that moment when you think we're really fu**ed here. Labour had 'sunny Jim' at the helm to keep them in the game, and tbf 79 was a defeat not a disaster. Sunak is no Callaghan and the Tories know that, but they've run out of leadership options. I remember staying up for that election night when I was still at school. From memory, it was the same night as Grimsby, which received all the publicity, and which LAB just hung on to, to their massive relief. Then shortly after, 'safe' Ashfield declared and was a CON gain. That was a bit of a choker. Austin Mitchell won Grimsby as I remember without googling. A strange and ominous night! |
|
|
|
Post by graham on Jul 21, 2023 0:26:19 GMT
I remember staying up for that election night when I was still at school. From memory, it was the same night as Grimsby, which received all the publicity, and which LAB just hung on to, to their massive relief. Then shortly after, 'safe' Ashfield declared and was a CON gain. That was a bit of a choker. Austin Mitchell won Grimsby as I remember without googling. A strange and ominous night! It was rather amusing in that the entire programme was focussed on Grimsby - nobody believed Ashfield to be in doubt and no cameras covered the declaration there. A recount took place at Grimsby with Labour eventually holding on by 500 or so to general surprise. The programme was about to go off the air when - after a pause - there was a brief flash on the screen of the Ashfield result - greeted in stunned silence! |
|
|
|
Post by joeboy on Jul 21, 2023 0:31:18 GMT
Austin Mitchell won Grimsby as I remember without googling. A strange and ominous night! It was rather amusing in that the entire programme was focussed on Grimsby - nobody believed Ashfield to be in doubt and no cameras covered the declaration there. A recount took place at Grimsby with Labour eventually holding on by 500 or so to general surprise. The programme was about to go off the air when - after a pause - there was a brief flash on the screen of the Ashfield result - greeted in stunned silence! Rather like Queen Victoria, I'm still not amused by the Ashfield result 46 years on! |
|
|
|
Post by Rafwan on Jul 21, 2023 0:35:19 GMT
pjw1961 I do agree with much of what you say. I just don’t think that poor old history should get the blame for it! Also I am not nearly as certain as you. It depends on the programme offered, and who is offering it and how credible they are. I mean how did the Labour Party get going in the first place? The Greens don’t really have anything that might be called a coherent left wing programme. Nobody beforehand really thought Corbyn could or would achieve the result in 2017. And Livingstone achieved an astonishing result with the 2000 London mayoralty. And what is your betting on Jamie Driscoll? Simply saying it could never happen is a big mistake. For my part, I really don’t want it to happen, but like many, I despair at the benefit cap and at what has happened to Driscoll and others. It seems so terribly ill-judged and based on highly suspect data. Kettle’s piece this morning was mildly encouraging, and Stephen Bush had an interesting FT piece over the weekend and seemed certain that a Labour government would reverse the regardless of what it says now. I didn't say it could never happen, just not on a long term sustained basis. If you want the most successful historical example it would be the Independent Labour Party (ILP) which having been part of the Labour movement, somewhat split itself off in 1931 - although only rarely did ILP and Labour directly oppose each other - and succeeded in electing MPs 1931-45. The reason for this success was it had a specific power-base in Glasgow ('Red Clydeside') - it never made significant inroads anywhere else. The ILP was effectively re-absorbed by Labour in the 1940s. A group of left wing Labour MPs rebelled against the Labour in the 1945-50 parliament (the Labour Independent Group) - they were crushed in the 1950 election, all losing their seats. Most other Labour splinters have been on the right. All have failed in the short to medium term. Conservative splinters have fared just as badly. UKIP (with a couple of defecting Tour MPs) polled 12.6% of the UK vote in 2015 and got 1 MP. FPTP is ruthless in crushing small parties. Actually, I was really just spoiling for a big row with you about whether history teaches us anything. Settle for a draw? If not, we may have to call in independent referees! I think you said you are off to get sleep, now. Hope you waken to loads of splendid news!! |
|
|
|
Post by graham on Jul 21, 2023 0:43:34 GMT
It was rather amusing in that the entire programme was focussed on Grimsby - nobody believed Ashfield to be in doubt and no cameras covered the declaration there. A recount took place at Grimsby with Labour eventually holding on by 500 or so to general surprise. The programme was about to go off the air when - after a pause - there was a brief flash on the screen of the Ashfield result - greeted in stunned silence! Rather like Queen Victoria, I'm still not amused by the Ashfield result 46 years on! And the result proved decisive in defeating the Callaghan Govt by one vote in the March 79 Confidence vote. Had Labour held Ashfield the Government would have survived by one vote. |
|
|
|
Post by peterbell on Jul 21, 2023 0:55:32 GMT
recount at Uxbridge
|
|
|
|
Post by joeboy on Jul 21, 2023 0:57:01 GMT
Rather like Queen Victoria, I'm still not amused by the Ashfield result 46 years on! And the result proved decisive in defeating the Callaghan Govt by one vote in the March 79 Confidence vote. Had Labour held Ashfield the Government would have survived by one vote. Yep that's true. Of course 13 Liberals and 11 Scots Nats also sold us down the river that night, but they're great children of the enlightenment according to their modern day supporters. |
|
|
|
Post by peterbell on Jul 21, 2023 0:58:26 GMT
REturning officer did not state who had requested the recount but it is the Tory and Lab votes which are being counted
|
|
|
|
Post by peterbell on Jul 21, 2023 1:03:21 GMT
Lib Dems saying they have won a resounding victory at Somerton although result has not been announced.
|
|
|
|
Post by mandolinist on Jul 21, 2023 1:05:14 GMT
REturning officer did not state who had requested the recount but it is the Tory and Lab votes which are being counted I hear a great clanging of a ming vase hitting the floor....or leaves on the line de-railing the train. Disapointing night for Labour I think, whatever the final result. Time to stop triangulating and to begin offering some sort of vision for what the future should actually look like. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2023 1:05:28 GMT
San Coates, (Sky), 'hears' CON are c400 ahead in Uxbridge.
|
|
|
|
Post by RAF on Jul 21, 2023 1:06:35 GMT
I'm not sure what the recount limit is in Westminster by-elections, but I would guess the margin must be less than 500 votes. |
|
|
|
Post by peterbell on Jul 21, 2023 1:08:25 GMT
Sam Coates believes Lab are winning in Selby but are second in Uxbridge
|
|
