pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,577
|
Post by pjw1961 on Nov 2, 2024 18:43:01 GMT
thylacine My vote for the leadership of the lib dems went to Layla Moran who not surprising is female, but is also the first mp of Palestinian descent and the first openly pansexual MP. I suspect Turk might have lost his shit if she'd won. The next lib dem leader almost certainly will be current deputy leader Daisy Cooper There has to be a very good chance of the next Labour leader being a woman - we shall see. And just for the record Margaret Beckett, Harriet Harman and Angela Rayner have all been deputy leader of the Labour Party, with Beckett acting as leader from May to July 1994 after John Smith's death and Harman having two spells as acting leader (May to Sept 2010 and May to Sept 2015). Therefore Labour has indeed had female leaders, just not a permanent one yet. |
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,577
|
Post by pjw1961 on Nov 2, 2024 18:44:34 GMT
No one trusted her enough to give her one of the big departments of state. You’d prefer Hancock in charge of health, being as he was more “trusted”? I'd prefer neither of them to be anywhere near power ever again. |
|
|
|
Post by alec on Nov 2, 2024 19:22:59 GMT
RAF - "Oh an John Ralston is an undoubted expert but always pessimistic for the Dems." Thanks. I didn't know that. steve, neilj and pjw1961 - likewise. I didn't know anything about Ruffini but that's kind of what I mean - I can't really make head nor tail of what is really going on, because there seems to be a dearth of genuinely informative unbiased information. I don't think we have the same tradition of trying to manipulate polls like they do over there, which makes interpreting everything very hard. You really have to study it very carefully, whereas I'm dipping my toe in now and again, and apart from trying to understand the endless acronyms the yanks use in election chats, I really struggle to place people's biases.
|
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,392
Member is Online
|
Post by neilj on Nov 2, 2024 19:42:12 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by EmCat on Nov 2, 2024 20:01:08 GMT
.....not forgetting new style stories of payroll tax raid on the Social Care sector putting providers.at risk of closure. The NHS is going to need more beds. Good job they got all the money. Still a policy row about effect of taxation. Not stupidity about rainbow lanyards etc Which tends to show that, while there may be disagreements on here about which is the better approach to use for steering the country through the current trials and tribulations, all sides generally agree that country above party is (most of the time) the better option. Now if only the UKPR luminaries were the ones in Parliament (whether in Government or Opposition), rather than the MPs, then things might, mostly, work out for overall benefit to the country. |
|
|
|
Post by EmCat on Nov 2, 2024 20:33:28 GMT
Interesting to note from the election the tory party membership has fallen to 131,680, I think the lowest on record Also interesting to note that, proportionately, the Tories in Scotland have still collapsed relative to the rest of UK. With roughly 8% of UK population, Scotland would expect to have around 10,500 members. The recent Scottish Tory leadership elections shows the electorate was only just under 7,000 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_Scottish_Conservatives_leadership_election#Result |
|
|
|
Post by hireton on Nov 2, 2024 20:34:31 GMT
New Scottish Parliament poll from Norstat:
Constituency
SNP 33%
Labour 23%
Tories 15%
Reform 11%
LibDems 10%
Greens 6%
List:
SNP 29%
Labour 22%
Tories 14%
Reform 11%
Libdems 9%
Greens 9%
Seat projection:
SNP 51
Labour 29
Tories 16
Reform 12
Lib Dems 11
Greens 10
Edit:
Labour consituency vote share is -7 pts and List is -6pts since last Norstat poll in August
|
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Nov 2, 2024 20:40:21 GMT
hiretonIf that happened it would be quite a breakthrough for Reform. I don't remember UKIP/Brexit/Reform making any kind of impact north of the border before.
|
|
|
|
Post by pete on Nov 2, 2024 20:44:41 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by shevii on Nov 2, 2024 20:49:07 GMT
BMG looks a bit like an outlier at this stage. SFL a bit naughty comparing to the General Election but the (budget) movements from last poll are nothing for Lab/Con/Ref and LD -2 Green +2 which is margin of error.
Stats for Lefties 🍉🏳️⚧️
@leftiestats
·
36m
🗳️ POLL: Labour lead by 7% (-4)
🟥 LAB 31% (-4)
🟦 CON 24% (-)
🟪 REF 20% (+5)
🟧 LD 10% (-3)
🟩 GRN 10% (+3)
Via
@opiniumresearch
, 30-31 Oct (+/- vs GE2024)
|
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,577
|
Post by pjw1961 on Nov 2, 2024 21:10:10 GMT
RAF - "Oh an John Ralston is an undoubted expert but always pessimistic for the Dems." Thanks. I didn't know that. steve , neilj and pjw1961 - likewise. I didn't know anything about Ruffini but that's kind of what I mean - I can't really make head nor tail of what is really going on, because there seems to be a dearth of genuinely informative unbiased information. I don't think we have the same tradition of trying to manipulate polls like they do over there, which makes interpreting everything very hard. You really have to study it very carefully, whereas I'm dipping my toe in now and again, and apart from trying to understand the endless acronyms the yanks use in election chats, I really struggle to place people's biases. I think there is something a bit odd going on with the swing state polling. No idea whether it is pollsters herding, or voters behaving differently because they know they are in a swing state or some sort of manipulation, but what is going on there is out of kilter with the polling in safer Republican and Democratic states. The latter are polled much less frequently, so it may be that the polls there are unrepresentative, but nevertheless they have tended to move as the national picture has moved, whereas the swing states have been very stable for months. It doesn't stack up somehow. For example, in Democrat states when Biden began to falter the Democrat leads slipped - enough in a few cases for Trump to move into contention. Then when Harris replaced Biden the Democrat position recovered and she is enjoying healthy leads. Even more interesting is that in certain types of Republican state Trump's performance is rather mediocre. He is OK in the extremely redneck areas of the west and south, but in less rock solid Republican areas his leads are smaller than you would expect. I could give several examples, but one than popped up recently is Kansas. That state doesn't get polled much as it is safe Republican. In fact before this month it was last polled in October 2023 when Trump led Biden in a poll of registered voters by 18%, as you might expect. However, a poll of register voters this month showed Trump leading Harris by 5%. Now for Trump to be showing relative weakness in Republican areas, but rock solid strength in the swing states feels very strange. I'm not saying it is wrong, but something peculiar is going on. |
|
|
|
Post by eor on Nov 2, 2024 21:24:14 GMT
alecWould that be the 20+ year veteran republican activist Patrick Ruffini and senior figure in polling company Emerson insights the same right wing biased Emerson insights that's just published a poll showing Trump up 6% in Pennsylvania when pretty much every other pollster has it a dead heat. Or is it a different Patrick Ruffini that might have some credibility as an objective observer. Just to avoid confusion, steve is referring to Echelon not Emerson. The latter are one of the top-rated US pollsters. |
|
|
|
Post by eor on Nov 2, 2024 22:01:40 GMT
I think there is something a bit odd going on with the swing state polling. No idea whether it is pollsters herding, or voters behaving differently because they know they are in a swing state or some sort of manipulation, but what is going on there is out of kilter with the polling in safer Republican and Democratic states. The latter are polled much less frequently, so it may be that the polls there are unrepresentative, but nevertheless they have tended to move as the national picture has moved, whereas the swing states have been very stable for months. It doesn't stack up somehow. For example, in Democrat states when Biden began to falter the Democrat leads slipped - enough in a few cases for Trump to move into contention. Then when Harris replaced Biden the Democrat position recovered and she is enjoying healthy leads. Even more interesting is that in certain types of Republican state Trump's performance is rather mediocre. He is OK in the extremely redneck areas of the west and south, but in less rock solid Republican areas his leads are smaller than you would expect. I could give several examples, but one than popped up recently is Kansas. That state doesn't get polled much as it is safe Republican. In fact before this month it was last polled in October 2023 when Trump led Biden in a poll of registered voters by 18%, as you might expect. However, a poll of register voters this month showed Trump leading Harris by 5%. Now for Trump to be showing relative weakness in Republican areas, but rock solid strength in the swing states feels very strange. I'm not saying it is wrong, but something peculiar is going on. On my phone so linking and quoting is a bit messy but for example; projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/2024/pennsylvania/biden-trump/projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/2024/pennsylvania/Just picked Pennsylvania but is that not broadly in line with national shifts from pre-debate to pretty recently? |
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,649
|
Post by steve on Nov 2, 2024 22:21:00 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Nov 2, 2024 22:22:57 GMT
RAF - "Oh an John Ralston is an undoubted expert but always pessimistic for the Dems." Thanks. I didn't know that. steve , neilj and pjw1961 - likewise. I didn't know anything about Ruffini but that's kind of what I mean - I can't really make head nor tail of what is really going on, because there seems to be a dearth of genuinely informative unbiased information. I don't think we have the same tradition of trying to manipulate polls like they do over there, which makes interpreting everything very hard. You really have to study it very carefully, whereas I'm dipping my toe in now and again, and apart from trying to understand the endless acronyms the yanks use in election chats, I really struggle to place people's biases. I think there is something a bit odd going on with the swing state polling. No idea whether it is pollsters herding, or voters behaving differently because they know they are in a swing state or some sort of manipulation, but what is going on there is out of kilter with the polling in safer Republican and Democratic states. The latter are polled much less frequently, so it may be that the polls there are unrepresentative, but nevertheless they have tended to move as the national picture has moved, whereas the swing states have been very stable for months. It doesn't stack up somehow. For example, in Democrat states when Biden began to falter the Democrat leads slipped - enough in a few cases for Trump to move into contention. Then when Harris replaced Biden the Democrat position recovered and she is enjoying healthy leads. Even more interesting is that in certain types of Republican state Trump's performance is rather mediocre. He is OK in the extremely redneck areas of the west and south, but in less rock solid Republican areas his leads are smaller than you would expect. I could give several examples, but one than popped up recently is Kansas. That state doesn't get polled much as it is safe Republican. In fact before this month it was last polled in October 2023 when Trump led Biden in a poll of registered voters by 18%, as you might expect. However, a poll of register voters this month showed Trump leading Harris by 5%. Now for Trump to be showing relative weakness in Republican areas, but rock solid strength in the swing states feels very strange. I'm not saying it is wrong, but something peculiar is going on. There are such vast amounts of money sloshing around in the election (not least from Musk) it makes one wonder how much it would cost to get a polling company to 'adjust' their figures in a particular way? |
|
|
|
Post by matt126 on Nov 2, 2024 22:28:24 GMT
One thing I find contradictory in the US polls is the difference between the Senate and President polls in each state. From polling you hear that Harris is popular amongst Democrat supporters and there is a section of Republican Voters who will not vote for Trump yet if you compare the President and Senate Polls , Trump usually polls better than the Republican Senate candidate in each state, and sometimes the difference is considerable.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimjam on Nov 2, 2024 22:44:12 GMT
EOR,
I guess we shouldn't 'hire echelon'
|
|
|
|
Post by bedknobsandboomstick on Nov 2, 2024 23:03:33 GMT
Yo yo yo!
It strikes me that, with the US polls looking screwy, they are very unlikely to be correct. It also feels like the polls as they are are as good as things could possibly be for Trump.
Therefore, there will be a polling error in Harris' favour and a comfortable win for her.
Happy to have set everyone's and at rest with my irrefutable logic.
|
|
|
|
Post by eor on Nov 2, 2024 23:06:30 GMT
One thing I find contradictory in the US polls is the difference between the Senate and President polls in each state. From polling you hear that Harris is popular amongst Democrat supporters and there is a section of Republican Voters who will not vote for Trump yet if you compare the President and Senate Polls , Trump usually polls better than the Republican Senate candidate in each state, and sometimes the difference is considerable. The swing states that have Senate elections this time generally have Democrat incumbents running for re-election, so looked at the other way around it wouldn't be a surprise if it turned out they'd outperformed Harris in their states. |
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Nov 2, 2024 23:36:15 GMT
Just been watching some of the latest US election videos. This one is from a very measured Democrat supporter who I've watched a few times. He seems genuinely shocked and at a loss for words at Trump's latest performance. www.youtube.com/watch?v=1AebaA1AF9wI find it absolutely incredible that this man can get anywhere near power, let alone possibly win the next election. I know that we all have our own pet hate figures in our own politics but I can't imagine that Trump would get more than 2% support in any other country if he was even allowed to run, as he is a convicted criminal awaiting sentencing. |
|
|
|
Post by laszlo4new on Nov 2, 2024 23:42:12 GMT
Without going into too much details (partly because the information is limited). Much of the US state-level polling is done through social media and through links. It can introduce a massive problem, but the scale of it remains a problem as the methodology is not detailed (e.g. how the averages are created once the random responses are collected).
There is another way, but it is very expensive (Gallup uses it), but it is only for the client and it is not published).
|
|
|
|
Post by eor on Nov 2, 2024 23:49:26 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by lens on Nov 3, 2024 0:34:26 GMT
So let's say I buy a farm. Most of the time I can sell my crop, sometimes at an elevated price (when there's a shortage) though at other times I end up with a surplus which I'm unable to sell. A smart salesman comes to my farm and says "you don't want to chuck that part of your crop away, do you!?" He then goes on to persuade me to buy expensive freezing and packaging equipment (together with employing extra staff) to use at the times I would otherwise have been throwing the crop away. "There you are, sir," he says, "much better to use the crop for something else, rather than chucking it away, eh?" Well, no wasted crop. But..... I find the extra I can make from the frozen food sales, is much LESS than what I had to pay for installing and operating all the extra equipment, given that most of the time I can just sell my crop as is and the plant sits there idle. Financially, much more sensible to just accept a certain level of wastage than pay over the odds to avoid it. And don't forget, electricity to hydrogen for energy storage is a relatively inefficient process. Most of the electrical energy gets wasted in the process - don't for one moment believe a kWh of electricity will translate to a kWh equivalent of hydrogen. There is also the problem of what then to do with the hydrogen - it's far more difficult to transport than such as diesel or petrol due to the weight of containment vessel. Likewise the business of the necessary compression or liquefaction. So yes - depending on circumstance, "chucking the leccy away" can indeed be the most sensible thing to do - at least when hydrogen is involved as an alternative. And "use it for something else" increasingly doesn't mean electrolysis and hydrogen. Increasingly, battery storage, improved grid connections, and smart tariffing make far more sense than conversion to hydrogen, at least in respect to dealing with what would otherwise be surpluses. The best way to use electricity is as electricity directly. If all else fails, then just heating water (to later use the heat directly) can be far more efficient than anything involving hydrogen - an immersion heater is far cheaper and needs a lot less maintenance than electrolysis plant! .Yes I wasn’t putting the full case for making hydrogen, which is why I said we shall see if they start fitting electrolysers. I have made abundantly clear in the past in our discussions that the full case for it depends on things like demand for hydrogen, fall in equipment costs etc. etc. It may also depend on other things you don’t consider, like making other more lucrative things with the leccy. But none of that alters the point I was making: that at present we are chucking away leccy surplus to grid requirements and paying to do that. Coming home after a day away I find multiple posts from you - but it's a shame you don't seem to have properly read what I posted? Regarding "other things {I} don't consider", then try reading the last paragraph of mine that you quoted above. Yes, no less than four things which I considered as "other more lucrative things to do". I'll spell them out, put them as bullet points, and even make them bold. Will that help? *Battery storage*Improved grid connections*Smart tariffs*Thermal storage via waterOK? Other things I considered? Now cost. In order. Battery storage may not be cheap, but neither is hydrogen electrolysis/compression and then transport. And localised battery storage can bring other benefits than simple curtailment avoidance, such as reducing the size of the grid connection that any given solar or wind project may need. Improved grid connection? Yes, a cost - but in many cases grid improvement may be necessary anyway. Smart tariffs. No extra hardware needed, and smart metering is being rolled out anyway. Just encourage usage when supply would exceed demand, and discourage when demand would be high. Thermal storage. Similar to smart tariffs, it is theoretically possible to implement such without any extra hardware cost. Just automatically turn on immersion heaters when tariffs are low. That could be existing residential hot water tanks or much larger and commercial projects - public swimming pools, maybe? None may be a magic bullet in itself, and some may make more sense on a localised (eg single wind farm) level, others on a more global scale, and there are others as well. The point is that there are many (better) things to do to avoid curtailment of surplus than have electrolysis plant sitting idle much of the time. I'll respond to just one other point you made: Regarding mindsets, what comes across to me is that you are trying to find ways to just make a hydrogen solution work - whereas the real engineering challenge is a far broader one. It's how to make the energy supply greener, as cheaply as possible. It may be that some years ago electrolysis may have seemed sensible as part of the intermittency solution - but times have moved on and now other (and better) approaches are coming about. Keep an open mind, but isn't the practical engineering mindset to then concentrate of these, rather than struggling to persevere with trying to make any hydrogen solution work? Especially when so many of the issues there are fundamental ones of physics? (eg Extremely low temperature of liquid hydrogen, inability to compress much beyond 700 bar etc etc?) There's a good practical case to point to, and worth reading a research paper trying to make exactly the case for using "surplus" generated electricity in a wind farm for electrolysis - cronfa.swan.ac.uk/Record/cronfa59457/DetailsFrom my reading, I can't fault any of the assumptions or detail within it, but even trying hard to make a positive case it still struggles with the hydrogen viability economics in most scenarios. And there is one huge problem. A gigantic one. Not a fault of the author, but of timing. It was totally out of date almost as soon as written, because it doesn't consider the alternative of local large battery storage - something which hardly existed when the paper was being written, and that only about 4-5 years ago. (!!) Something which totally turns the economics on it's head and destroys any case for electrolysis etc that may ever have existed at all. Apart from reducing curtailment, battery smoothing may also enable a smaller (and cheaper) grid connection. It's possible hydrogen production plant may get somewhat cheaper - but that's expected to be even more the case for batteries. I emphasise that I am **NOT** arguing against green hydrogen production per se. Quite the contrary. I hope for increasing amounts to supply industrial processes. It's the belief that it will ever be an oh so cheap process because it will be simply able to use otherwise curtailed electricity. That's just wishful thinking by those with vested commercial interests. |
|
c-a-r-f-r-e-w
Member
A step on the way toward the demise of the liberal elite? Or just a blip…
Posts: 6,728
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Nov 3, 2024 5:36:03 GMT
Good spot John! pjw1961 I suppose my yardstick for royally effing up might be something like Hancock No one trusted her enough to give her one of the big departments of state Then they made her leader... 😮 Morning all … |
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,649
|
Post by steve on Nov 3, 2024 5:47:35 GMT
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,649
|
Post by steve on Nov 3, 2024 6:02:14 GMT
|
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,392
Member is Online
|
Post by neilj on Nov 3, 2024 6:15:19 GMT
Agree, they have been very close to nationwide results in the past If this happens again Harris has won easily Ann Saltzer History polls vs Results 2024 President: D+3 2022 Senate: R+12 (R+12) 2020 President: R+7 (R+8) 2020 Senate: R+4 (R+7) 2018 Governor: D+2 (R+3) 2016 President: R+7 (R+9) 2014 Senate: R+7 (R+8) 2012 President: D+5 (D+6) |
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,649
|
Post by steve on Nov 3, 2024 6:19:31 GMT
A single poll in Iowa showing Harris up 3% in Iowa isn't game over. However when it's conducted by the polling company Des Moines Register/Mediacom Selzer poll with one of the best track record for accuracy in the U.S. it is worth considering.It's a change for them from a 4% Trump lead in September an 18% lead in June. If the result is anywhere reflective of actual national voting then it's the result any sane person should wish for. youtu.be/Bl6Wz8BPvXk?si=puOmXE-u0DMwYs9HIncidentally if it's on the money Harris could be looking at 400+ in electoral college votes. Possibly sufficient to see off the most egregious elements of the inevitable attempt to undermine the results. |
|
c-a-r-f-r-e-w
Member
A step on the way toward the demise of the liberal elite? Or just a blip…
Posts: 6,728
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Nov 3, 2024 6:34:43 GMT
Data on Tory membership turnout in the leader votes since 1998 (from the Telegraph) Attachments:
|
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,392
Member is Online
|
Post by neilj on Nov 3, 2024 6:52:41 GMT
Data on Tory membership turnout in the leader votes since 1998 (from the Telegraph) Not only was it a low percentage of members voting for her, tory party total membership has fallen to a record low of 131,680 Just 2 years ago it was 172,000 and has been dropping fir the last 20 years With an increasingly older membership and a failure to attract young people it's only going one way. This has real world effects in not having enough grass roots membership to get the vote out and run an effective ground campaign |
|
