Also In The News

[Innovindil]

19 minutes ago, yorkie1999 said:

Well how about actually putting an infrastucture in place before he starts talking about something that's not going to happen, not whilst he's in any position of accountability anyway. It's very easy to talk the talk, as we all know, but all he's going to accomplish is basically fvck up what left of the UK's car industry in about 5 years time, unless he feels a 75 grand jag epace is going to solve all our problems. 

I'd say infrastructure will grow as the need for it grows. Electric cars so far account for the sum of bugger all, but there's 11,000 (last I saw) charging points across the UK, of course, it needs to grow massively, somewhere into the millions, but again you have to start somewhere. Also, yeah, electric cars are hella expensive right now, but will they be in 15 years time? As these bans get closer and closer car makers will have to switch to alternative cars, better technology will be made available and who knows, maybe it will become possible. 

 

I'd rather us actually try than just go naaah, too hard, let's give up. That's why nothing ever gets done in this country. 

[Guest MattP]

3 hours ago, leicsmac said:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-51470088

 

Bernie wins in NH - more importantly, the person most likely to challenge him (Biden) fell hard again, which gives him some momentum going into primaries in areas where he might not be as strong.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-51466036

 

There's a good start to your campaign, Mike.

Bloomberg is my pick to win this now with Biden out the running. It's absolutely perfect for him to storm through.

 

BOOTEDGEEDGE is a decent outsider but I get the feeling he will be swept away by the above.

 

He might be the favourite but the Democrats just aren't dumb enough to seriously put Bernie Sanders up as their candidate for election. Imagine actually selecting someone who makes Donald Trump the stable, sensible and fiscally sound choice.

[Carl the Llama]

34 minutes ago, MattP said:

Bloomberg is my pick to win this now with Biden out the running. It's absolutely perfect for him to storm through.

 

BOOTEDGEEDGE is a decent outsider but I get the feeling he will be swept away by the above.

 

He might be the favourite but the Democrats just aren't dumb enough to seriously put Bernie Sanders up as their candidate for election. Imagine actually selecting someone who makes Donald Trump the stable, sensible and fiscally sound choice.

For someone who apparently wouldn't have voted for him you're having a surprising difficult time pulling yourself away from playing the Goebbels role for him.

[Carl the Llama]

3 hours ago, Stadt said:

I can't say I know too much but I get the impression he actually embodies the gentle, kinder politics that Corbyn tried to embrace as the modern left. Sanders seems a pretty genuine bloke without the baggage of being a professional protestor, seems a bit more pragmatic too.

He's a politician who genuinely concerns himself with what's best for the people, rather than his people.  But don't worry there'll be plenty along to point out that he's had a relatively successful career and has more money than most therefore he must be a terrible person and a hypocrite.  The same people will continue to be shocked, utterly shocked, when the leopards they keep company with eat their faces.

[Alf Bentley]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-51478855

 

"A 52-year-old man has been charged with the murder of journalist Lyra McKee in Londonderry.

He is also charged with possession of a firearm with intent to endanger life and professing to be a member of a proscribed organisation. Ms McKee, who was 29, was observing rioting in Derry's Creggan estate when she was shot on 18 April 2019.

The 52-year-old, who is from Derry, is due to appear at Londonderry Magistrates' Court on Thursday. Det Supt Jason Murphy said a number of individuals were involved with the gunman on the night Ms McKee was killed.

"And while today is significant for the investigation the quest for the evidence to bring the gunman to justice remains active and ongoing," he added.

 

Sounds like good news, if he's guilty. The way it's phrased, though, sounds like "joint enterprise", not the actual gunman - presumably a hardened old dissident Provo type who handed his gun to a young hothead?

[Guest MattP]

24 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

For someone who apparently wouldn't have voted for him you're having a surprising difficult time pulling yourself away from playing the Goebbels role for him.

I'm on the record as saying I wouldn't, you just don't like that because you want to associate me with him and the other causes I support.

 

I'll tell you one thing though, in Trump v Sanders I'd certainly be voting for him. Unless you've got absolutely nothing anyway I can't think of a single reason to let a man with Bernie's beliefs on the economy of a major nation.

[Carl the Llama]

7 minutes ago, MattP said:

I'm on the record as saying I wouldn't, you just don't like that because you want to associate me with him and the other causes I support.

 

I'll tell you one thing though, in Trump v Sanders I'd certainly be voting for him. Unless you've got absolutely nothing anyway I can't think of a single reason to let a man with Bernie's beliefs on the economy of a major nation.

You're also on the record as saying you wouldn't vote for Boris if he hid from Andrew Neil.  You're literally the only person on here with a track record of voting for people you said you wouldn't so you'll have to forgive my scepticism given that and your incessant fawning over the guy. 

 

[Leicester_Loyal]

That ban on petrol and diesel cars by 2035 will not happen for multiple reasons:

 

• The infrastructure we have atm is poor, it will take a lot longer than 15 years in order to sort it all out.
• The price of electric cars, they're sky high vs. older second hand cars, not everyone can afford 10k on a bog standard car.
• The range of the batteries, it's nowhere near enough to suit most people, although this should massively improve over the next 15 years.

If he said 2050 that might make it more realistic, but 15 years is not enough time for us to massively change our motoring world. It takes us about 10 years to decide whether to go ahead with a new airport runway or railway track ffs.

[twoleftfeet]

At present break even in terms of co2 for an electric vehicle over a petrol or diesel car is 60000 miles or about 5 years. Unless we drastically come up with a lot more clean electricity to charge said vehicles or a way that doesnt use power to create hydrogen then we will have a problem.

[Lionator]

1 hour ago, MattP said:

Bloomberg is my pick to win this now with Biden out the running. It's absolutely perfect for him to storm through.

 

BOOTEDGEEDGE is a decent outsider but I get the feeling he will be swept away by the above.

 

He might be the favourite but the Democrats just aren't dumb enough to seriously put Bernie Sanders up as their candidate for election. Imagine actually selecting someone who makes Donald Trump the stable, sensible and fiscally sound choice.

I know Clinton was leading Trump in the polls last time but Sanders leads Trump in pretty much every poll going. Trump has the economy on his side, Sanders pretty much everything else.

[Alf Bentley]

19 minutes ago, Lionator said:

I know Clinton was leading Trump in the polls last time but Sanders leads Trump in pretty much every poll going. Trump has the economy on his side, Sanders pretty much everything else.

 

It just occurred to me that in 2021 we could end up with PM Johnson negotiating a free trade agreement with President Sanders......

 

Probably won't happen, but I wonder how that would work out?

 

Quick glance at Bernie's Wiki.... 

"Believing greater emphasis is needed on labor rights and environmental concerns when negotiating international trade agreements, Sanders voted against and has long spoken against NAFTA, CAFTA & PNTR with China. He has called them a "disaster for the American worker", saying that they have resulted in American corporations moving abroad. He also strongly opposes the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which he says was "written by corporate America and the pharmaceutical industry and Wall Street." On May 1, 2019, he tweeted: "Since the China trade deal I voted against, America has lost over three million manufacturing jobs. It's wrong to pretend that China isn't one of our major economic competitors"

[Guest MattP]

26 minutes ago, Lionator said:

I know Clinton was leading Trump in the polls last time but Sanders leads Trump in pretty much every poll going. Trump has the economy on his side, Sanders pretty much everything else.

Pretty sure Trump would also have national security on his side in that debate. Polling means very little in terms of the electoral college anyway.

 

Ten million under 40's on the East and West coast coming out for Bernie means absolutely nothing if the people of Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin are going to stay with the Republicans. 

 

There is a reason why the shorter Bernie gets in the betting to win the Democratic nomination the shorter Trump gets as well. He would the same sort of price Obama was to beat Romney.

 

At this point in time I can only see him losing Florida to anybody unless there is a serious change in the outlook of the Democrats.

[WigstonWanderer]

1 hour ago, twoleftfeet said:

At present break even in terms of co2 for an electric vehicle over a petrol or diesel car is 60000 miles or about 5 years. Unless we drastically come up with a lot more clean electricity to charge said vehicles or a way that doesnt use power to create hydrogen then we will have a problem.

Do you have a source for that figure? I’d be interested to know if it fully takes account of the production and running costs (in terms of CO2), including replacement batteries, etc, and if it is based on the current mix of energy sources that produce electricity. If so, 5 years isn’t too bad for break even vs petrol cars.

 

I think that use of electric cars to reduce CO2 emissions has always been predicated on fully replacing current electricity production with a clean alternative in the long run. I’m hoping for development of a safer form of nuclear energy such as fusion or molten salt reactors plus of course wind and solar.

 

My fear has always been that use of lithium ion batteries (and their CO2 cost, including replacements over the life of the vehicle) might actually make things worse. I’m still to be convinced that lithium ion battery production in the quantities required to fully replace fossil fuel transport is viable. Perhaps there is an alternative battery technology in the offing?

 

Then there’s the problem that people have mentioned regarding charging points for those who don’t have off street parking.

 

Hydrogen is an energy storage mechanism, not a source of energy in its own right. Not sure if it is a practical alternative to batteries, given safety concerns when deployed en masse.

Edited 12 February 2020 by WigstonWanderer

[WigstonWanderer]

56 minutes ago, Lionator said:

I know Clinton was leading Trump in the polls last time but Sanders leads Trump in pretty much every poll going. Trump has the economy on his side, Sanders pretty much everything else.

Don’t claim to have followed American politics that much (apart from deploring Trump), but I quite like what Sanders has to say about taking on the vested interests. But is he too old? Could he really beat Trump? For me (and I believe for the sake of the environment and world peace), it’s anyone but Trump.

 

For that matter, is it possible for anyone to take on the vested interests in America?

Edited 12 February 2020 by WigstonWanderer

[yorkie1999]

2 hours ago, Innovindil said:

I'd say infrastructure will grow as the need for it grows. Electric cars so far account for the sum of bugger all, but there's 11,000 (last I saw) charging points across the UK, of course, it needs to grow massively, somewhere into the millions, but again you have to start somewhere. Also, yeah, electric cars are hella expensive right now, but will they be in 15 years time? As these bans get closer and closer car makers will have to switch to alternative cars, better technology will be made available and who knows, maybe it will become possible. 

 

I'd rather us actually try than just go naaah, too hard, let's give up. That's why nothing ever gets done in this country. 

It's not a case of just going naah, too hard, it's a case of where's the money going to come from to pay for it? The government would need to raise taxes massively, that wouldn't go down too well with voters. The oil companies, who already pay a substantial amount into the system, are just going to go fvck you, it's our industry you're trying to shut down, the manufacturors of new electric vehicles, no chance are they going to basically produce cars for free to pay for the infrastucture to allow their cars to work,  and then where's the lost petro revenue that's supposed to pay for the upkeep of the roads going to come from, huge increases in electricity bills! which basically goes back to massive increases in tax in a system that's already struggling to keep up with public spending, so in 10 years time when there's another  million cival servants and public workers  drawing a wedge from the coffers in pensions, there ain't going to be any money. I suggest the government cancel hs2 now, because they're going to need that money.

[Legend_in_blue]

4 hours ago, yorkie1999 said:

Well how about actually putting an infrastucture in place before he starts talking about something that's not going to happen, not whilst he's in any position of accountability anyway. It's very easy to talk the talk, as we all know, but all he's going to accomplish is basically fvck up what left of the UK's car industry in about 5 years time, unless he feels a 75 grand jag epace is going to solve all our problems. 

 

I read your first statement, immediately thought of this and had to .  It's so true though, unfortunately!

 

 

 

 

 

 

[fuchsntf]

4 hours ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

That ban on petrol and diesel cars by 2035 will not happen for multiple reasons:

 

• The infrastructure we have atm is poor, it will take a lot longer than 15 years in order to sort it all out.
• The price of electric cars, they're sky high vs. older second hand cars, not everyone can afford 10k on a bog standard car.
• The range of the batteries, it's nowhere near enough to suit most people, although this should massively improve over the next 15 years.

If he said 2050 that might make it more realistic, but 15 years is not enough time for us to massively change our motoring world. It takes us about 10 years to decide whether to go ahead with a new airport runway or railway track ffs.

My 2-4 simple question would be ,and this for  all european countries ...Then far flung nations across the world..!!!

 

# Even in 20years, more People than Not will Not be able to afford an Electric car..

# If all todays & future Drivers were able to afford   E-cars,where will the Finance come from for the needed Technical Infrastructure developement..

    It is Not and wont be in the near future,just like plugging in your TV, or kettle...!!!

#  How will the Grid handle 40  Million ( presently  33 mill) Cars charging over the day/Night ,plus the busses and Business vehicles

    No matter,where the experts consider locations appropiate charging point should be...At home..and local/national Garages for top ups....

 

And throw in a Curve ball...After 2-5-10 yrs Time of use,no matter how good Batterie Development advances,plus old charging Station equipment..!!

where/how  in Devils name do we handle in a "green,green world".  ...100 of millions of old batteries/ or future modern Accus!!.....

Because so far this World hasnt shown any intelligence in organising,waste, Nor corrupt and abusive dumping thereof..!!

 

an example of how we and politicians Con & kid ourselves today....

NOT EVERYBODY HAS A PC AT HOME,OR ACCESS TO ONE, PLUS THERE ARE MILLIONS AROUND EUROPE,WHO ARE NOT INTERESTED

IN EVEN HAVING ONE..!!!     This will carry on for years,because many people are still Really not interested in IT technology. 

We assume und presume, far far Too much,so do the so called leaders in our societies...!!! ( Not just old fuddy-duddies,young intelligent People also)

 

I doubt After 20yrs I have to worry or Think about it, But Technology has Advanced quickly,and tremendously over the last 20 years,even during the last 10.

I just cant see us developing the infrastructure-technology,and accu-recycling  developement Plus nations Infrastructure platforms in this time..

 I mean ffs the HS2 idea and Realisation in Britain is 40+ years behind its time....

 

[leicsmac]

8 hours ago, MattP said:

Bloomberg is my pick to win this now with Biden out the running. It's absolutely perfect for him to storm through.

 

BOOTEDGEEDGE is a decent outsider but I get the feeling he will be swept away by the above.

 

He might be the favourite but the Democrats just aren't dumb enough to seriously put Bernie Sanders up as their candidate for election. Imagine actually selecting someone who makes Donald Trump the stable, sensible and fiscally sound choice.

....I'm not sure how well Bloomberg is going to go down in states with high minority populations given what he said about them, do you?

 

It's been said before but it's going to to be said again here: painting Sanders as some kind of economic extremist is smoke and mirrors when by the standards of pretty much every OECD country outside the US (and maybe the UK) his policies are pretty much centre verging towards centre-left. The only reason the "COMMIE!" dog-whistle can be used effectively over there is because they're a statistical outlier, and that can be changed.

[Guest MattP]

6 hours ago, leicsmac said:

....I'm not sure how well Bloomberg is going to go down in states with high minority populations given what he said about them, do you?

Don't think it will make a difference, when it comes to the ballot box people will decide eho they think their lives will improve under, rather than a few comments from years ago.

 

As per usual, it's mainly white liberals getting upset on others behalf rather than the BAME community themselves over this sort of stuff, who in the main probably couldn't care less.

 

Using that logic you wouldn't pick Sanders given his misogynistic rape fantasies from the past.

[Aus Fox]

13 hours ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

That ban on petrol and diesel cars by 2035 will not happen for multiple reasons:

 

• The infrastructure we have atm is poor, it will take a lot longer than 15 years in order to sort it all out.
• The price of electric cars, they're sky high vs. older second hand cars, not everyone can afford 10k on a bog standard car.
• The range of the batteries, it's nowhere near enough to suit most people, although this should massively improve over the next 15 years.

If he said 2050 that might make it more realistic, but 15 years is not enough time for us to massively change our motoring world. It takes us about 10 years to decide whether to go ahead with a new airport runway or railway track ffs.

I agree, and I think the best thing they could do initially is make any government vehicles (non-emergency) electric.

Let the politicians see first hand the problems, that way they’d be fixed a lot quicker. Imagine Borris running out of battery at Watford Gap and not having a charging point.

The waste is another interesting point, does anyone know the average shelf life of an electric car battery?

[Innovindil]

13 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

It just occurred to me that in 2021 we could end up with PM Johnson negotiating a free trade agreement with President Sanders......

 

Probably won't happen, but I wonder how that would work out?

 

Quick glance at Bernie's Wiki.... 

"Believing greater emphasis is needed on labor rights and environmental concerns when negotiating international trade agreements, Sanders voted against and has long spoken against NAFTA, CAFTA & PNTR with China. He has called them a "disaster for the American worker", saying that they have resulted in American corporations moving abroad. He also strongly opposes the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which he says was "written by corporate America and the pharmaceutical industry and Wall Street." On May 1, 2019, he tweeted: "Since the China trade deal I voted against, America has lost over three million manufacturing jobs. It's wrong to pretend that China isn't one of our major economic competitors"

Wow. The bastard sounds like he wants to put Americans first. 

 

[leicsmac]

49 minutes ago, MattP said:

Don't think it will make a difference, when it comes to the ballot box people will decide eho they think their lives will improve under, rather than a few comments from years ago.

 

As per usual, it's mainly white liberals getting upset on others behalf rather than the BAME community themselves over this sort of stuff, who in the main probably couldn't care less.

 

Using that logic you wouldn't pick Sanders given his misogynistic rape fantasies from the past.

I'm reminded of a section on the Battlestar Galactica TV show that aired a while back during the election arc, when an adviser reminds the President that "people vote their hopes, not their realities". So I do think that what you said in the first paragraph here has merit. People can and do vote based on their own interest exactly as you say.

 

That all being said, people doing that because they're human and so considering issues outside their line of sight important doesn't mean those issues *aren't* important and won't eventually pivot on them anyway.

 

Actually getting more people to figure that out and act accordingly...that is a problem that I think is pretty close to unsolvable tbh.

[twoleftfeet]

13 hours ago, WigstonWanderer said:

Do you have a source for that figure? I’d be interested to know if it fully takes account of the production and running costs (in terms of CO2), including replacement batteries, etc, and if it is based on the current mix of energy sources that produce electricity. If so, 5 years isn’t too bad for break even vs petrol cars.

 

I think that use of electric cars to reduce CO2 emissions has always been predicated on fully replacing current electricity production with a clean alternative in the long run. I’m hoping for development of a safer form of nuclear energy such as fusion or molten salt reactors plus of course wind and solar.

 

My fear has always been that use of lithium ion batteries (and their CO2 cost, including replacements over the life of the vehicle) might actually make things worse. I’m still to be convinced that lithium ion battery production in the quantities required to fully replace fossil fuel transport is viable. Perhaps there is an alternative battery technology in the offing?

 

Then there’s the problem that people have mentioned regarding charging points for those who don’t have off street parking.

 

Hydrogen is an energy storage mechanism, not a source of energy in its own right. Not sure if it is a practical alternative to batteries, given safety concerns when deployed en masse.

https://www.drax.com/energy-policy/how-clean-is-my-electric-car/

[Facecloth]

 

[Alf Bentley]

So, Toryboys, what's behind the sacking of Julian Smith as N. Ireland Secretary?

 

He's been one of the few ministers to impress me. Got Stormont up and running again. Decent media performer. Comes across as fairly honest & principled for a politician.

 

Is that a factional sacking because he was deemed too closely connected to May & maybe not Cummingsy or Hard Brexity enough?