IMHO, for what it's worth, independents without a solid local base (think Kidderminster) have got nowhere in British politics since 1945. Martin Bell had a base, in that some at least of the local Lab and LD machines worked for him, and of course the national press gave both him, and his opponent's peccadillos, lots of coverage.
Edited FFS.
I reckon Hamilton will end up leader of UKIP at some point after Batten implodes (which can't be far away).
The latest YouGov opinion poll records 45% as saying they are 10/10 certain to vote for the European elections. A further 20% say they are more than 5/10 certain to vote. Turnout in 2014 was 35.6%.
Two questions:
1) how likely does the brains trust think that turnout will be somewhere above 55%? 2) if not, will any party be disproportionately likely to be overegged in the polls, and if so which?
I suspect that the turnout will be lower than 2014, and that it will be Labour and Conservatives that suffer the most. Why would anyone bothered by Euro issues turn out for either?
Both In the teens imo which might save the greens LDs and change from underrepresentation
And yet there is significant support and grass roots meetings etc being set up on social media and despite not getting their act together they are polling 8% for the Euros on almost zero media exposure. They are polling 4% or do for a GE, they are a factor and aren't just going to fold because Labour hate splitters. Once Watsons gang of nobodies does nothing further defections are possible.
Well I live in a constituency represented by one of the TIGs and I have many contacts in Labour and other community groups locally and I have not heard of any TIG activity or meetings at the local level at all. The MP send out occasional emails but these are just the usual constituency activity and the TIG motherhood and apple pie "policy" positions.
The latest YouGov opinion poll records 45% as saying they are 10/10 certain to vote for the European elections. A further 20% say they are more than 5/10 certain to vote. Turnout in 2014 was 35.6%.
Two questions:
1) how likely does the brains trust think that turnout will be somewhere above 55%? 2) if not, will any party be disproportionately likely to be overegged in the polls, and if so which?
I suspect that the turnout will be lower than 2014, and that it will be Labour and Conservatives that suffer the most. Why would anyone bothered by Euro issues turn out for either?
I suspect that plenty of people will want to register their view on Brexit, one way or another. Be surprised if its lower than 2014.
And yet there is significant support and grass roots meetings etc being set up on social media and despite not getting their act together they are polling 8% for the Euros on almost zero media exposure. They are polling 4% or do for a GE, they are a factor and aren't just going to fold because Labour hate splitters. Once Watsons gang of nobodies does nothing further defections are possible.
Well I live in a constituency represented by one of the TIGs and I have many contacts in Labour and other community groups locally and I have not heard of any TIG activity or meetings at the local level at all. The MP send out occasional emails but these are just the usual constituency activity and the TIG motherhood and apple pie "policy" positions.
Well all I can say is the meetings are occurring and being posted on social media and they had a massive take up for euro candidacy. The will is there if they can get a team in place to organize
They'd be far better off blocking the M25 but then theyd be out of their Central London comfort zone.
It’s really all irrelevant anyway, since it doesn’t matter how much the U.K. government does, it will do naff all to global emissions. They’d be better off protesting in China.
The reason that we are less bothered by the climate change potential catastrophe, is much the same reason we pile on the pounds knowing that junk food is bad for us. Consumerist pleasure now beats long term interest fairly easily most of the time.
Yes, that is the bottom line, I guess. Although, interestingly, deferred gratification is what contributes more than most things to upward social mobility. But it loses attraction as a concept when the gratification is deferred to beyond the grave.
Not quite, at least not according to Danny Kahneman...Its not immediate, its not personalized, it is remote, abstract, not a clear and present danger.
The latest YouGov opinion poll records 45% as saying they are 10/10 certain to vote for the European elections. A further 20% say they are more than 5/10 certain to vote. Turnout in 2014 was 35.6%.
Two questions:
1) how likely does the brains trust think that turnout will be somewhere above 55%? 2) if not, will any party be disproportionately likely to be overegged in the polls, and if so which?
People tend to overstate their willingness to go out and vote. FWIW, I think turnout will be higher than usual, but I'd be amazed if it went above 50%, say 45-50%.
Most polls (including this morning's YouGov ) show a greater readiness on the part of Remainers than Leavers to vote (and a very low readiness to vote of people who did not vote in the EU referendum). OTOH, yesterday's YouGov Poll for Peoples' Vote suggested that gap had closed, which probably accounts for the Brexit Party's very strong showing. I don't know yet if that was just a one-off, or indeed each side will be equally enthusiastic. I suspect that Farage probably has enthused some people who would otherwise have abstained.
As for (ii), Andrea Leadsom would be asking whether you have children.
On (i) it depends how serious you think the threat is. Not much point in the long term elimination of xenophobia if there won't be any more foreigners.
My view is the defeatist one that if it is a real problem, it may be too big a problem for us to solve. The thing about catastrophes is, they are usually irreversible - you can steam full speed into the iceberg, you can't extricate yourself by going full speed astern.
Yes, have miniatures. Blessing and a curse.
I'm more positive than you on the issue itself. I have quite a lot of faith that advancements in science and technology will solve the problem - to the extent that it can be solved, and if it can't well then it can't, que sera sera, whatever will be will be or not be.
But let's stay sunny side up. It will be solved and this will be despite the politics rather than because of them.
Maybe you realise at heart that the demands of the protesters are anti-humane.
Not familiar with the specific policy demands TBH. Certainly if they require the junking in sort order of our western consumer lifestyle that is not going to happen.
What I would quite like to see is Caroline Lucas via the Greens doing similar to what Nigel Farage did with Ukip.
Take a single issue, climate change in this case rather than the EU, and use it to drive her party up the polls to levels that scare the mainstream parties.
She's good, Lucas, so I could see that happening at some point. Perhaps more chance of doing so if they (the Greens) don't get sidetracked onto other matters.
Would you approve of them joining in with the EDL?
Do the EDL dance and sing?
More grunts and salutes with that lot.
Mostly football chants from the pre enlightenment era when they came to Leicester.
I was on call in casualty that day in Leicester. EDL are a truly embareassing bunch for any real Englishman. The fear in the faces of our BME staff is something I never want to see again. It is easy to be blase about those arseholes when you are not on the receiving end.
A few years ago, I went to Chelsea v Spurs, and was treated to chants of "The Yids, The Yids, We've Gotta Get Rid of the Yids" as well as the old favourite "Spurs Are on their way to Auschwitz".
Were the Labour Party having a day out at the football?
Some Chelsea supporters seem to be to the right of the BNP! And, AIUI, they're Tory supporters. But Spurs have been known as the Kids for years. No idea, quite frankly, why.
I believe that a number of orthodox Jews in the traditional funky gear would make the trip from Whitechapel to WHL, as opposed to the shorter journey to West Ham, because of the electric tram service which they were allowed to use on the sabbath when they're not allowed to use combustion engines. Other teams' fans noticed these obviously Jewish fans so Spurs became the Yids.
Any good points in there are overwhelmed by the oddness of hanging the whole article round the idea that a man who shares a surname with a company that shut down in South Bend a generation before Pete Buttigieg was born is going to have any special insight.
They'd be far better off blocking the M25 but then theyd be out of their Central London comfort zone.
It’s really all irrelevant anyway, since it doesn’t matter how much the U.K. government does, it will do naff all to global emissions. They’d be better off protesting in China.
IMHO, for what it's worth, independents without a solid local base (think Kidderminster) have got nowhere in British politics since 1945. Martin Bell had a base, in that some at least of the local Lab and LD machines worked for him, and of course the national press gave both him, and his opponent's peccadillos, lots of coverage.
Edited FFS.
I reckon Hamilton will end up leader of UKIP at some point after Batten implodes (which can't be far away).
The splitters don't have much in common with each other never mind with the LibDems and Greens.
Don’t they? It looks to me like a massive error by CHUK not to join the LibDems from the off. Unless they really thought dozens of other Labour MPs would join them at carefully calibrated intervals in the weeks following their departure.
But the Lib Dems are still doing really badly, even in EU polling where they are the absolute Remain party.
Yes Change want to absorb them once past them, why join a dying brand?
I think we will see in the Locals who is dying, and who is reviving.
If the Lib Dems want the limit of their ambitions to be pointing at potholes, then that will indeed be the limit of their ambition. They might well make some gains on councils where they've historically had some strength but nationally, their brand is tarnished beyond repair and their infrastructure shot to pieces.
By far the best way to revive would be to merge the Lib Dems, their members, data and infrastructure into a new party with Change UK. However, Change have probably screwed that possibility up by making such a horlicks of their own strategy: launching late with a silly name and no attempt to build a movement. If they'd ridden the Revoke wave, they could have 100k+ members now.
I have always said it will be a slow rebuild, but winning over councils is a very good place to start.
I know that you are just getting your excuses in early, but the Locals are likely to be less diastrous for the Tories than any national election.
No, it's not a good place to start. It's a repetition of the previous, disastrous 'bandwagon' strategy that results in extreme localism, no coherent national message, a confusion of tactical voting advice and the inevitable consequence that if several decades of hard work do pay off with a place in government, the whole thing comes crashing down as a result of those internal contradictions.
That both Change and Brexit have caught or passed the Lib Dems in the space of weeks should show the extent to which the Lib Dems need to unhypnotise themselves from a failed mantra.
None of which has anything to do with the Tories, the problems of which need not just a separate post but an entire library.
Mr. JohnL, and yet he isn't sharing it. Osborne made all the running on the economy, Hammond's a gloom merchant who rarely speaks up, and when he does it's about mitigating the woe.
Osborne was a disaster for the economy, at least at first. Ed Balls' hand gestures were right. Osborne's Plan A would only have worked when Europe was expanding, and the Germans put the kibosh on that.
I've seen the cost of Osborne's austerity put at 10k/household. That's much more than Brexit, although I suppose in the long run Brexit will probably do the greater economic damage.
At the peak, the government was *borrowing* around £10k per family of 4, per year. It's hardly surprising that getting the books back close to balance has involved spending reductions and tax increases of around that order. But this is not a 'cost' as such; it's simply reining back previous overspending. Setting the entitlement at that baseline is something that has bedevilled politics in this country for a decade. We were paying ourselves an income that we weren't earning.
They'd be far better off blocking the M25 but then theyd be out of their Central London comfort zone.
It’s really all irrelevant anyway, since it doesn’t matter how much the U.K. government does, it will do naff all to global emissions. They’d be better off protesting in China.
The latest YouGov opinion poll records 45% as saying they are 10/10 certain to vote for the European elections. A further 20% say they are more than 5/10 certain to vote. Turnout in 2014 was 35.6%.
Two questions:
1) how likely does the brains trust think that turnout will be somewhere above 55%? 2) if not, will any party be disproportionately likely to be overegged in the polls, and if so which?
Don’t know about brains but I will be surprised if turnout exceeds 35%. The Tories are the least likely to vote, at least for their own party, and are quite likely to undershoot even the current abysmal forecasts. I can still see them getting more credit by simply standing all their candidates down. At least there would then be an excuse for the Brexit Party’s success.
Any good points in there are overwhelmed by the oddness of hanging the whole article round the idea that a man who shares a surname with a company that shut down in South Bend a generation before Pete Buttigieg was born is going to have any special insight.
I was more interested in the purported facts - which if correct (and not misleadingly selective) will provide ammunition for his opponents. His record is bound to come under scrutiny.
They'd be far better off blocking the M25 but then theyd be out of their Central London comfort zone.
It’s really all irrelevant anyway, since it doesn’t matter how much the U.K. government does, it will do naff all to global emissions. They’d be better off protesting in China.
Places to watch are those like Vietnam, who are powering their economic rise with coal-fired power stations, using coal imported from Indonesia.
Of course, Wales could have been generating all its requirements from tidal power within the decade, if it weren't for our idiot of a Minister.....
China is a problem but "China is the world's leading country in electricity production from renewable energy sources, with over double the generation of the second-ranking country, the United States. In 2013 the country had a total capacity of 378 GW of renewable power, mainly from hydroelectric and wind power. China's renewable energy sector is growing faster than its fossil fuels and nuclear power capacity." Also the world's largest electric car company isn't Tesla https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2019-04-16/the-world-s-biggest-electric-vehicle-company-looks-nothing-like-tesla
Makes Rees Mogg's champagne celebrations look really good, doesn't it?
All they had to do was vote for Brexit, and they could have been blind drunk since the end of March.
But no...
Tell me how all the ERG voting for Brexit would have got May's Shit Deal over the line?
ERG are a sideshow. But they provide excellent cover for all those Labour MPs in Brexit-voting seats.....
About 20 Labour MPs would have voted for the Deal had most of the ERG done so and it was going to pass but they did not as there is no point rebelling if you lose
Don’t know about brains but I will be surprised if turnout exceeds 35%. The Tories are the least likely to vote, at least for their own party....
Who else do you think are putting the Brexit Party on close to 30%?
Indeed. I just think we are leaving so we see no point in taking part would be a better line. For a start it would instantly make the Brexit party look a bit silly. I mean, I know that they don’t really need any help with that but why not?
Tell me how all the ERG voting for Brexit would have got May's Shit Deal over the line?
ERG are a sideshow. But they provide excellent cover for all those Labour MPs in Brexit-voting seats.....
You second stanza is the answer to your first...
The ERG have the political savvy of an amoeba. But when it comes down to it, they couldn't have got Brexit over the line without the DUP. And as the DUP weren't going to budge, I guess they just thought "to thine self be true."
Don’t know about brains but I will be surprised if turnout exceeds 35%. The Tories are the least likely to vote, at least for their own party....
Who else do you think are putting the Brexit Party on close to 30%?
The only question is whether those selfsame people will continue to reach for the sal volatile over Labour anti-Semitism after voting for a party that has managed in its first month to lose its chief executive over anti-Islam tweets and its treasurer over a smorgasbord of antisemtism, racism, homophobia and general xenophobia.
(Spoiler, of course they will, because they are rampant hypocrites.)
Don’t know about brains but I will be surprised if turnout exceeds 35%. The Tories are the least likely to vote, at least for their own party....
Who else do you think are putting the Brexit Party on close to 30%?
Indeed. I just think we are leaving so we see no point in taking part would be a better line. For a start it would instantly make the Brexit party look a bit silly. I mean, I know that they don’t really need any help with that but why not?
And the evidence for the assertion that we are leaving? (Asks the Brexit Party....)
The latest YouGov opinion poll records 45% as saying they are 10/10 certain to vote for the European elections. A further 20% say they are more than 5/10 certain to vote. Turnout in 2014 was 35.6%.
Two questions:
1) how likely does the brains trust think that turnout will be somewhere above 55%? 2) if not, will any party be disproportionately likely to be overegged in the polls, and if so which?
The last few Yougov polls before the 2014 EP elections had 10/10 turnout in the early 50s. Actual turnout 35.6%
The latest YouGov opinion poll records 45% as saying they are 10/10 certain to vote for the European elections. A further 20% say they are more than 5/10 certain to vote. Turnout in 2014 was 35.6%.
Two questions:
1) how likely does the brains trust think that turnout will be somewhere above 55%? 2) if not, will any party be disproportionately likely to be overegged in the polls, and if so which?
If you compare to the YouGov poll at about the same lead time in 2014 then it also has 48% of respondents saying they are 10/10 likely to vote, and a further 35% are 5/10 or above.
So, assuming consistency, it looks like turnout will be down on 2014.
In 2014 it was mainly Labour and the Lib Dems who were overegged in the polls, to the benefit of the Tories and the Greens.
Don’t know about brains but I will be surprised if turnout exceeds 35%. The Tories are the least likely to vote, at least for their own party....
Who else do you think are putting the Brexit Party on close to 30%?
The only question is whether those selfsame people will continue to reach for the sal volatile over Labour anti-Semitism after voting for a party that has managed in its first month to lose its chief executive over anti-Islam tweets and its treasurer over a smorgasbord of antisemtism, racism, homophobia and general xenophobia.
To be fair, at least the Brexit Party has indeed lost them.
They'd be far better off blocking the M25 but then theyd be out of their Central London comfort zone.
It’s really all irrelevant anyway, since it doesn’t matter how much the U.K. government does, it will do naff all to global emissions. They’d be better off protesting in China.
Places to watch are those like Vietnam, who are powering their economic rise with coal-fired power stations, using coal imported from Indonesia.
Of course, Wales could have been generating all its requirements from tidal power within the decade, if it weren't for our idiot of a Minister.....
China is a problem but "China is the world's leading country in electricity production from renewable energy sources, with over double the generation of the second-ranking country, the United States. In 2013 the country had a total capacity of 378 GW of renewable power, mainly from hydroelectric and wind power. China's renewable energy sector is growing faster than its fossil fuels and nuclear power capacity." Also the world's largest electric car company isn't Tesla https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2019-04-16/the-world-s-biggest-electric-vehicle-company-looks-nothing-like-tesla
Frankly the amount of renewable energy is in itself irrelevant. The amount of CO2 pushed into the atmosphere is the important measurement. If renewables lead to a reduction in fossil feul use, then they are very helpful. Unfortunatley so far the global C02 production has not fallen despite increased renewable energy.
They'd be far better off blocking the M25 but then theyd be out of their Central London comfort zone.
It’s really all irrelevant anyway, since it doesn’t matter how much the U.K. government does, it will do naff all to global emissions. They’d be better off protesting in China.
Places to watch are those like Vietnam, who are powering their economic rise with coal-fired power stations, using coal imported from Indonesia.
Of course, Wales could have been generating all its requirements from tidal power within the decade, if it weren't for our idiot of a Minister.....
China is a problem but "China is the world's leading country in electricity production from renewable energy sources, with over double the generation of the second-ranking country, the United States. In 2013 the country had a total capacity of 378 GW of renewable power, mainly from hydroelectric and wind power. China's renewable energy sector is growing faster than its fossil fuels and nuclear power capacity." Also the world's largest electric car company isn't Tesla https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2019-04-16/the-world-s-biggest-electric-vehicle-company-looks-nothing-like-tesla
Frankly the amount of renewable energy is in itself irrelevant. The amount of CO2 pushed into the atmosphere is the important measurement. If renewables lead to a reduction in fossil feul use, then they are very helpful. Unfortunatley so far the global C02 production has not fallen despite increased renewable energy.
Totally agree. Part of the answer is more renewables.
Maybe you realise at heart that the demands of the protesters are anti-humane.
Not familiar with the specific policy demands TBH. Certainly if they require the junking in sort order of our western consumer lifestyle that is not going to happen.
What I would quite like to see is Caroline Lucas via the Greens doing similar to what Nigel Farage did with Ukip.
Take a single issue, climate change in this case rather than the EU, and use it to drive her party up the polls to levels that scare the mainstream parties.
She's good, Lucas, so I could see that happening at some point. Perhaps more chance of doing so if they (the Greens) don't get sidetracked onto other matters.
Problem is that UKIP managed to boil down a whole world vote into their single issue, and that world vote was only sort of represented by one wing of the Tory party. Climate change, green agenda, all that is nodded to by Labour and the Lib Dems. It's not a social pariah platform like UKIPism was.
Well the Climate protest is certainly working in the sense of garnering attention. Me, I'm conflicted on it. I think the cause is important and just. I accept the consensus view that the issue must be tackled as a matter of great urgency. I think those who do not accept this are deniers not skeptics.
However, despite that I cannot get enthused about the green agenda. I've tried, since I know I should be into it, but in all honesty I can't. I can fake it to virtue signal but that's about it.
Not sure why this is, but I have a couple of theories.
(i) I have no room for it. I get myself in a total tizz about inequality, xenophobia, reactionary social attitudes, all of that, and it leaves very little left over for other progressive concerns such as the environment.
(ii) I am old in body and spirit, in the process of 'going over', at the start of it at least, and therefore not enormously invested in the long term future. The idea of the planet struggling with dangerously rising temperatures over the next century or so does not feel real to me because it never will be.
I would like to think it's more (i), but if I was betting on it I would go with (ii).
Maybe you realise at heart that the demands of the protesters are anti-humane.
Not quite sure why they want to target public transport (like the DLR).
There's no need for public transport if you want to get rid of over 90% of the population.
Of course that's rubbish. I'm with kinabalu here, Climate Change should be taken much more seriously. The present government has if anything rowed back recently e.g on solar feed in tariff which ended in March and the cancelled Swansea Bay tidal lagoon. Government action is needed for large projects and for helping in the introduction of new clean technologies such as electric cars and buses and hydrogen powered trains. Extinction Rebellion's plans are unattainable over their timescale, but we need to get there quicker than we are doing. I hope that all of the protesters and their sympathisers also vote. The politicians take notice of votes.
Extinction Rebellion sound like Khmer Rouge.
Anyone heard of Earth Day 1970? It's been the subject of protests mostly very peaceful for all my adult life. Almost nothing was done, except that I'd say that decent things started to happen during the 1974-79 Lab/Lib-Lab government. Something must have happened in 1979, but these reports for serious action in the energy policy field all rather ground to a halt by the mid-1980s. I wonder why ...
John Gummer is probably genuine in his concern but are any other Tories, or is it still 'green crap'?
They'd be far better off blocking the M25 but then theyd be out of their Central London comfort zone.
It’s really all irrelevant anyway, since it doesn’t matter how much the U.K. government does, it will do naff all to global emissions. They’d be better off protesting in China.
Places to watch are those like Vietnam, who are powering their economic rise with coal-fired power stations, using coal imported from Indonesia.
Of course, Wales could have been generating all its requirements from tidal power within the decade, if it weren't for our idiot of a Minister.....
China is a problem but "China is the world's leading country in electricity production from renewable energy sources, with over double the generation of the second-ranking country, the United States. In 2013 the country had a total capacity of 378 GW of renewable power, mainly from hydroelectric and wind power. China's renewable energy sector is growing faster than its fossil fuels and nuclear power capacity." Also the world's largest electric car company isn't Tesla https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2019-04-16/the-world-s-biggest-electric-vehicle-company-looks-nothing-like-tesla
Frankly the amount of renewable energy is in itself irrelevant. The amount of CO2 pushed into the atmosphere is the important measurement. If renewables lead to a reduction in fossil feul use, then they are very helpful. Unfortunatley so far the global C02 production has not fallen despite increased renewable energy.
Renewables are just being added to the relentless use of fossil fuels overall.
They'd be far better off blocking the M25 but then theyd be out of their Central London comfort zone.
It’s really all irrelevant anyway, since it doesn’t matter how much the U.K. government does, it will do naff all to global emissions. They’d be better off protesting in China.
Places to watch are those like Vietnam, who are powering their economic rise with coal-fired power stations, using coal imported from Indonesia.
Of course, Wales could have been generating all its requirements from tidal power within the decade, if it weren't for our idiot of a Minister.....
China is a problem but "China is the world's leading country in electricity production from renewable energy sources, with over double the generation of the second-ranking country, the United States. In 2013 the country had a total capacity of 378 GW of renewable power, mainly from hydroelectric and wind power. China's renewable energy sector is growing faster than its fossil fuels and nuclear power capacity." Also the world's largest electric car company isn't Tesla https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2019-04-16/the-world-s-biggest-electric-vehicle-company-looks-nothing-like-tesla
Frankly the amount of renewable energy is in itself irrelevant. The amount of CO2 pushed into the atmosphere is the important measurement. If renewables lead to a reduction in fossil feul use, then they are very helpful. Unfortunatley so far the global C02 production has not fallen despite increased renewable energy.
Precisely, the atmosphere doesn’t give a shit how many hydroelectric dams you have if you are spewing out ever more CO2 at an exponential rate.
It’s China that will drown the Polar Bears, not us.
Anyone heard of Earth Day 1970? It's been the subject of protests mostly very peaceful for all my adult life. Almost nothing was done, except that I'd say that decent things started to happen during the 1974-79 Lab/Lib-Lab government. Something must have happened in 1979, but these reports for serious action in the energy policy field all rather ground to a halt by the mid-1980s. I wonder why ...
John Gummer is probably genuine in his concern but are any other Tories, or is it still 'green crap'?
Who was the scientist who in the 1980s told the Royal Society that "There is a danger that ‘we have unwittingly begun a massive experiment with the system of this planet itself’?"
Oops. Although I do wonder if there is some expectations management going on.
Not really. That is my expectation.
Ouch. And thanks.
A few months ago the BBC repeated a series from about 2012, where a presented (Davies?) showed how Britain was finally getting massive infrastructure projects right. I think the BBC schedulers were having some fun...
Oops. Although I do wonder if there is some expectations management going on.
Not really. That is my expectation.
Ouch. And thanks.
A few months ago the BBC repeated a series from about 2012, where a presented (Davies?) showed how Britain was finally getting massive infrastructure projects right. I think the BBC schedulers were having some fun...
Like all railway projects Crossrail massively underestimated the time required to do systems integration in its programme. WCML was the same. HS2 will be worse - there’s no way that’s opening in 2026. The huge delay on bringing into use the Waterloo international platforms is another example.
Railways are very regulated and black and white as it’s a completely interlocked system from head to toe. Either everything is finished or nothing is finished. Either it’s completely safe or it doesn’t open.
Any big railway should have 4-5 years for this stuff.
AFAICR HS1 phase 1 and 2 were not too bad timescale-wise (though financially they were poor). But they were (relatively) fresh railways. the WCML and GWML updates are trying to upgrade hundreds of miles of operating railway.
I've just re-read 'I tried to run a railway', by Gerard Fiennes. In it, he states how for the GEML electrification in the 1960s it would have been far easier just to shut the railway for a few months.
It seems we don't learn from history ...
HS1 was a far simpler project and its legal authority and planning went all the way back to 1996, which was well advanced by the the time construction got underway.
Oops. Although I do wonder if there is some expectations management going on.
Not really. That is my expectation.
2018 2019 2020 2021
Perhaps Crossrail 2 should be cancelled before it is allowed to begin.
So speaks a voice of ignorance.
We get this all the time.
What are you complaining about ?
Its over budget and years behind schedule.
You get this all the time because these projects go wrong all the time.
Why don't you try under-promising and over-delivering if you want praise.
You are ignorant of the subject matter and yet feel wholly qualified to pronounce judgment on it despite your utter ignorance. Your posts read like a Daily Mail headline.
All railway industry and project experts estimated 10-12 years for Crossrail back in 2009 (long before the first spade was turned in 2010) and all the risk and contingency was clipped back by the Treasury to give it an undeliverable horizon of 2018, because they don’t understand systems integration and wanted to bugger about with the fiscal/economic model. That was further messed around with in the CSR of 2010 to get it past George Osborne.
The programme is performing as i’d expect it to given the capacity constraints of the industry and the sheer complexity of what we’re trying to do.
Don’t know about brains but I will be surprised if turnout exceeds 35%. The Tories are the least likely to vote, at least for their own party....
Who else do you think are putting the Brexit Party on close to 30%?
The only question is whether those selfsame people will continue to reach for the sal volatile over Labour anti-Semitism after voting for a party that has managed in its first month to lose its chief executive over anti-Islam tweets and its treasurer over a smorgasbord of antisemtism, racism, homophobia and general xenophobia.
To be fair, at least the Brexit Party has indeed lost them.
But Nigel Farage once had dinner with the brother in law of a prominent graduate of a Bavarian School who sat detention in 1983 with an AfD canvasser, so we are all Nazi's (who must hold out an olive branch to the people calling us Nazi's or be deemed unreasonable Nazi's)
They'd be far better off blocking the M25 but then theyd be out of their Central London comfort zone.
It’s really all irrelevant anyway, since it doesn’t matter how much the U.K. government does, it will do naff all to global emissions. They’d be better off protesting in China.
They'd be far better off blocking the M25 but then theyd be out of their Central London comfort zone.
It’s really all irrelevant anyway, since it doesn’t matter how much the U.K. government does, it will do naff all to global emissions. They’d be better off protesting in China.
Indeed, what we do is largely irrelevant and the EU and UK are already doing reasonably well cutting carbon emissions.
Getting China, India and the USA to switch to renewable and nuclear energy is the main battle
Nuclear looks like a non starter increasingly. Too expensive by a long chalk
Look at Germany, ditching nuclear for coal!
Without being a total dingbat once we reach the technological singularity AI ought to be able to solve zero point energy and the like I mean we are on the verge of quantum computing but we need to burn shit to power it? Laughable
They'd be far better off blocking the M25 but then theyd be out of their Central London comfort zone.
It’s really all irrelevant anyway, since it doesn’t matter how much the U.K. government does, it will do naff all to global emissions. They’d be better off protesting in China.
Places to watch are those like Vietnam, who are powering their economic rise with coal-fired power stations, using coal imported from Indonesia.
Of course, Wales could have been generating all its requirements from tidal power within the decade, if it weren't for our idiot of a Minister.....
China is a problem but "China is the world's leading country in electricity production from renewable energy sources, with over double the generation of the second-ranking country, the United States. In 2013 the country had a total capacity of 378 GW of renewable power, mainly from hydroelectric and wind power. China's renewable energy sector is growing faster than its fossil fuels and nuclear power capacity." Also the world's largest electric car company isn't Tesla https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2019-04-16/the-world-s-biggest-electric-vehicle-company-looks-nothing-like-tesla
Frankly the amount of renewable energy is in itself irrelevant. The amount of CO2 pushed into the atmosphere is the important measurement. If renewables lead to a reduction in fossil feul use, then they are very helpful. Unfortunatley so far the global C02 production has not fallen despite increased renewable energy.
Precisely, the atmosphere doesn’t give a shit how many hydroelectric dams you have if you are spewing out ever more CO2 at an exponential rate.
It’s China that will drown the Polar Bears, not us.
China is taking serious steps to cut emissions now, partly driven by pollution of its cities of course, but some of the measures it has taken are more draconian than in Europe. In Shanghai, for instance, only electric scooters and bikes are allowed, there are no petrol-driven bikes. And I would say the proportion of hybrid vehicles is much higher than in the UK. It has also built 25000 km of high speed rail which must reduce aircraft/vehicle pollution.
They'd be far better off blocking the M25 but then theyd be out of their Central London comfort zone.
It’s really all irrelevant anyway, since it doesn’t matter how much the U.K. government does, it will do naff all to global emissions. They’d be better off protesting in China.
Indeed, what we do is largely irrelevant and the EU and UK are already doing reasonably well cutting carbon emissions.
Getting China, India and the USA to switch to renewable and nuclear energy is the main battle
Right, so it's OK for me to chuck my single use plastic bags in the ocean because as a percentage of the total amount of plastic waste it is negligible. Even my 4 year old can see through that
They'd be far better off blocking the M25 but then theyd be out of their Central London comfort zone.
It’s really all irrelevant anyway, since it doesn’t matter how much the U.K. government does, it will do naff all to global emissions. They’d be better off protesting in China.
Change 9% for Westminster! Labour 33 for the euros is utterly farcical
I am not sure the polling models are coping with the vast number of options. We saw how they broke when the Lib Dems got some traction, let alone now having another 27 parties in the mix.
The trend is clear though, Labour down, but Tory down shit loads.
Anyone heard of Earth Day 1970? It's been the subject of protests mostly very peaceful for all my adult life. Almost nothing was done, except that I'd say that decent things started to happen during the 1974-79 Lab/Lib-Lab government. Something must have happened in 1979, but these reports for serious action in the energy policy field all rather ground to a halt by the mid-1980s. I wonder why ...
John Gummer is probably genuine in his concern but are any other Tories, or is it still 'green crap'?
Who was the scientist who in the 1980s told the Royal Society that "There is a danger that ‘we have unwittingly begun a massive experiment with the system of this planet itself’?"
Yes but she didn't have the courage to do something and her mentors were Enoch Powell and Keith Joseph. Limited UK progress 1974-79 couldn't have continued under a 'market will provide' economic policy. Government intervention as accepted 1945-79 (if not earlier) was no longer acceptable.
The US government was about to regulate aircraft fuel efficiency in the late 1970s. Reagan (and lower oil prices) saw that off.
Odd though that they also have a rather low figure for the Brexit Party (and a high figure for Labour) in the Euros - very different from the YouGov figures.
HYFUD's comment about the public trolling the politicians a couple of week's back is really coming to sound like the best analysis available.
So the European Election polls are showing that the punters are warming to literally the most single issue party that there has ever been. It has no policies, no membership and can't even be asked to stand for local government elections.
It makes you wonder if the Greeks should have not bothered with democracy and just spent more time on the kebab.
Anyone heard of Earth Day 1970? It's been the subject of protests mostly very peaceful for all my adult life. Almost nothing was done, except that I'd say that decent things started to happen during the 1974-79 Lab/Lib-Lab government. Something must have happened in 1979, but these reports for serious action in the energy policy field all rather ground to a halt by the mid-1980s. I wonder why ...
John Gummer is probably genuine in his concern but are any other Tories, or is it still 'green crap'?
Who was the scientist who in the 1980s told the Royal Society that "There is a danger that ‘we have unwittingly begun a massive experiment with the system of this planet itself’?"
Yes but she didn't have the courage to do something and her mentors were Enoch Powell and Keith Joseph. Limited UK progress 1974-79 couldn't have continued under a 'market will provide' economic policy. Government intervention as accepted 1945-79 (if not earlier) was no longer acceptable.
What are you going on about? Labour, both in government and opposition, was trying to maximise the burning of coal.
They'd be far better off blocking the M25 but then theyd be out of their Central London comfort zone.
It’s really all irrelevant anyway, since it doesn’t matter how much the U.K. government does, it will do naff all to global emissions. They’d be better off protesting in China.
Odd though that they also have a rather low figure for the Brexit Party (and a high figure for Labour) in the Euros - very different from the YouGov figures.
I would think asking for Westminster and EU Parliament VI in the same poll distorts the figures for the latter because people would be more likely to repeat their Westminster answer.
By the way, all those who think that turnout at the EU elections will be far below what was indicated by the YouGov poll should note that in the same poll only 54% said they would 10/10 vote in a general election tomorrow and only a further 21% said they were above 5/10 to do so. Turnout at the last general election was 68.8%, and this polling implies a lower turnout than that.
Perhaps people estimate their likelihood to vote at a general election more accurately or perhaps turnout will be well down at the next general election. But the comparison with the high self-assessed turnout for the EU election is striking.
I’d be very dubious of the EU polling because of the big issue with turnout . It could be that we see some big differences between polling companies because of that.
They'd be far better off blocking the M25 but then theyd be out of their Central London comfort zone.
It’s really all irrelevant anyway, since it doesn’t matter how much the U.K. government does, it will do naff all to global emissions. They’d be better off protesting in China.
Places to watch are those like Vietnam, who are powering their economic rise with coal-fired power stations, using coal imported from Indonesia.
Of course, Wales could have been generating all its requirements from tidal power within the decade, if it weren't for our idiot of a Minister.....
China is a problem but "China is the world's leading country in electricity production from renewable energy sources, with over double the generation of the second-ranking country, the United States. In 2013 the country had a total capacity of 378 GW of renewable power, mainly from hydroelectric and wind power. China's renewable energy sector is growing faster than its fossil fuels and nuclear power capacity." Also the world's largest electric car company isn't Tesla https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2019-04-16/the-world-s-biggest-electric-vehicle-company-looks-nothing-like-tesla
Frankly the amount of renewable energy is in itself irrelevant. The amount of CO2 pushed into the atmosphere is the important measurement. If renewables lead to a reduction in fossil feul use, then they are very helpful. Unfortunatley so far the global C02 production has not fallen despite increased renewable energy.
Precisely, the atmosphere doesn’t give a shit how many hydroelectric dams you have if you are spewing out ever more CO2 at an exponential rate.
It’s China that will drown the Polar Bears, not us.
China is taking serious steps to cut emissions now, partly driven by pollution of its cities of course, but some of the measures it has taken are more draconian than in Europe. In Shanghai, for instance, only electric scooters and bikes are allowed, there are no petrol-driven bikes. And I would say the proportion of hybrid vehicles is much higher than in the UK. It has also built 25000 km of high speed rail which must reduce aircraft/vehicle pollution.
The argument that others are worse than us, so we don't have to do anything is spurious.
They'd be far better off blocking the M25 but then theyd be out of their Central London comfort zone.
It’s really all irrelevant anyway, since it doesn’t matter how much the U.K. government does, it will do naff all to global emissions. They’d be better off protesting in China.
Comments
https://twitter.com/Oldfirmfacts1/status/1118834333832372225
Getting China, India and the USA to switch to renewable and nuclear energy is the main battle
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GA8mqoPVIzo
Most polls (including this morning's YouGov ) show a greater readiness on the part of Remainers than Leavers to vote (and a very low readiness to vote of people who did not vote in the EU referendum). OTOH, yesterday's YouGov Poll for Peoples' Vote suggested that gap had closed, which probably accounts for the Brexit Party's very strong showing. I don't know yet if that was just a one-off, or indeed each side will be equally enthusiastic. I suspect that Farage probably has enthused some people who would otherwise have abstained.
I'm more positive than you on the issue itself. I have quite a lot of faith that advancements in science and technology will solve the problem - to the extent that it can be solved, and if it can't well then it can't, que sera sera, whatever will be will be or not be.
But let's stay sunny side up. It will be solved and this will be despite the politics rather than because of them.
https://benjaminstudebaker.com/2019/04/05/let-a-studebaker-tell-you-whats-wrong-with-the-mayor-of-south-bend/
What I would quite like to see is Caroline Lucas via the Greens doing similar to what Nigel Farage did with Ukip.
Take a single issue, climate change in this case rather than the EU, and use it to drive her party up the polls to levels that scare the mainstream parties.
She's good, Lucas, so I could see that happening at some point. Perhaps more chance of doing so if they (the Greens) don't get sidetracked onto other matters.
That both Change and Brexit have caught or passed the Lib Dems in the space of weeks should show the extent to which the Lib Dems need to unhypnotise themselves from a failed mantra.
None of which has anything to do with the Tories, the problems of which need not just a separate post but an entire library.
But no...
ERG are a sideshow. But they provide excellent cover for all those Labour MPs in Brexit-voting seats.....
Also the world's largest electric car company isn't Tesla
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2019-04-16/the-world-s-biggest-electric-vehicle-company-looks-nothing-like-tesla
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-47969220
(Spoiler, of course they will, because they are rampant hypocrites.)
Step forward the two men who have done more than anyone else to create today's Conservative Party.
David Cameron and Boris Johnson.
You may applaud now.
So, assuming consistency, it looks like turnout will be down on 2014.
In 2014 it was mainly Labour and the Lib Dems who were overegged in the polls, to the benefit of the Tories and the Greens.
Climate change, green agenda, all that is nodded to by Labour and the Lib Dems. It's not a social pariah platform like UKIPism was.
John Gummer is probably genuine in his concern but are any other Tories, or is it still 'green crap'?
It’s China that will drown the Polar Bears, not us.
It’s systems integration that kills you.
All railway industry and project experts estimated 10-12 years for Crossrail back in 2009 (long before the first spade was turned in 2010) and all the risk and contingency was clipped back by the Treasury to give it an undeliverable horizon of 2018, because they don’t understand systems integration and wanted to bugger about with the fiscal/economic model. That was further messed around with in the CSR of 2010 to get it past George Osborne.
The programme is performing as i’d expect it to given the capacity constraints of the industry and the sheer complexity of what we’re trying to do.
Look at Germany, ditching nuclear for coal!
I mean we are on the verge of quantum computing but we need to burn shit to power it? Laughable
https://twitter.com/ComRes/status/1118853594806091777
That said, China has the biggest scope to make a difference... and being a centrally controlled economy, it probably will.
Labour 33 for the euros is utterly farcical
The trend is clear though, Labour down, but Tory down shit loads.
The US government was about to regulate aircraft fuel efficiency in the late 1970s. Reagan (and lower oil prices) saw that off.
So the European Election polls are showing that the punters are warming to literally the most single issue party that there has ever been. It has no policies, no membership and can't even be asked to stand for local government elections.
It makes you wonder if the Greeks should have not bothered with democracy and just spent more time on the kebab.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1118845290721812480
Perhaps people estimate their likelihood to vote at a general election more accurately or perhaps turnout will be well down at the next general election. But the comparison with the high self-assessed turnout for the EU election is striking.
https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/cgi-bin/usercode.py?CON=23&LAB=33&LIB=7&UKIP=14&Green=3&NewLAB=&TVCON=&TVLAB=&TVLIB=&TVUKIP=&TVGreen=&SCOTCON=&SCOTLAB=&SCOTLIB=&SCOTUKIP=&SCOTGreen=&SCOTNAT=&display=AllChanged&regorseat=(none)&boundary=2017
Note to mods: If I am not allowed to post Electoral Calculus results here please feel free to delete this post
Also fascinating Brexit+UKIP on 19% at Westminster, given the latter may not have the funds to stand in most seats.