tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-61497514603604265362024-02-20T01:10:05.483+00:00BilloTheWisp"We have learned from experience that the truth will come out." <br><i>(Richard Feynmann)</i>BilloTheWisphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16221663524948086557noreply@blogger.comBlogger486125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6149751460360426536.post-82873999397913006732022-01-10T11:47:00.000+00:002022-01-10T11:47:46.772+00:00An Intermittent Posting<p> After saying goodbye followed by hello again on several occasions I've decided to use this holding post to indicate that there's nothing much new around here right now.</p><p>If you don't see this post as the front page to the blog then there's new stuff. But as you are seeing it right now, (and unless you've already scrolled down to get to it) then there's nothing new.</p><p>So there you go. See this post as the front page - then the blog is dormant. Don't see it - then read on! </p><p>I'll leave the blog up in either case as some folk still read the older posts.</p><p>I may be back. But then.... maybe I won't.</p><p>Love & kisses</p><p>Billo</p>BilloTheWisphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16221663524948086557noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6149751460360426536.post-21198823489980545592020-10-12T14:35:00.002+01:002020-10-12T16:18:41.585+01:00The Obscene Profitability of Wind Power<p>Due to the pandemic and the virtual shutdown of the national economy the day-ahead wholesale price of electricity has plummeted. In May it averaged £22.17 MWh. There have been occasions where the price has gone negative for several hours at a time. Normally the average monthly price per MWh is around £45.</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhrQRBQZK_nKgylmIMNn9sZnIHk_4G5gpIUxHVmpshTDpkm4KU7kGg2vh3OqcqbSvTTyTfc-1c-trZe-nxDnn9gfGzHDcZL5ZiCVpzvLRY_jsnVdZeJpO5dBJryzcYjn4rB6pqHRX_HeJ8/s682/day-ahead-electricity.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="609" data-original-width="682" height="358" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhrQRBQZK_nKgylmIMNn9sZnIHk_4G5gpIUxHVmpshTDpkm4KU7kGg2vh3OqcqbSvTTyTfc-1c-trZe-nxDnn9gfGzHDcZL5ZiCVpzvLRY_jsnVdZeJpO5dBJryzcYjn4rB6pqHRX_HeJ8/w400-h358/day-ahead-electricity.png" width="400" /></a></div><br /><p>As you can imagine this is really bad news for any generator that is dependant on the market price of electricity to support its operation.</p><p>But one group of producers has no worries. </p><p>The subsidy payments received by generators classed as "renewable" dwarf these market prices. </p><p>Here I’ll just deal with the most outrageous and costly i.e. windfarms. But biomass, Solar PV and others are all excruciatingly expensive too. Its just there's less of them.</p><p>The effect of the subsidy payments to wind-farms is such that until the price goes significantly negative it is not in their interest to shut down. They have privileged access to the grid so can demand access when the wind blows whatever the current grid status. But they suffer no penalty when they (often) fail to produce when needed. </p><p>So in times of low demand and high wind they continue to produce. They only stop when they get bought off by the National Grid with what is known as a constraint payment. In 2019 wind turbine constraint payments came to over £139 million. Money for nothing – except to stop risking overloading the grid.</p><p>Today almost all wind-farms are subsidised by the now defunct Renewable Obligation scheme (RO). This was replaced in 2017 with Contracts for Difference(CfD) which is arguably even more costly and inflexible than its predecessor. </p><p>ROC stands for "Renewable Obligation Certificate". Today one ROC is worth £50.05. Every time a wind turbine produces one MWh of electricity it gets the market payment for that MWh topped up an amount dictated by the RO scheme</p><p>A land based wind turbine gets 0.9 ROCs (£45.05) + Market Price for each MWh.</p><p>A offshore wind turbine gets 1.8 ROCs (£90.10) + Market Price for each MWh.</p><p>So back in May on average a land based wind turbine was in total being paid about three times the market price while an off-shore turbine was paid fives times the market price. In normal times they still (on average) get paid double and triple the market price per MWh respectively.</p><p>Even at times of oversupply, when prices fell to zero (or below) they were still guaranteed that subsidy – or an even larger constraint payment.</p><p>This RO subsidy scheme for wind turbines alone is currently costing UK customers <b>£2.7 Billion a year</b> and will continue to do so for the next 20 or so years. Here's the figures on the <a href="https://www.ref.org.uk/generators/group/index.php?group=yr" target="_blank">REF website</a></p><p>The companies running these wind-farms are over-joyed at their profitability. Truly when comes to acting as money making machines all other unsubsidised generation capacity pales by comparison. Look at this chart <a href="https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/data-portal/large-suppliers-electricity-generation-profitability-technology-type-2019-gb" target="_blank">(HERE</a>) from OfGem and weep.</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhDQBdElSVzmgjsyzp09jmdg9eCXnnKXVi_i0hyphenhyphenPj1HusR2rm_H6bnJgzgnaqHfzV2XSGbafjQlpx66kwhv_DnOaCFYk8m3ARvDcMP8CAAxBr4YH0cvses3qI-5CrWF_lN2ondZbX3pqeo/s788/ofgem-large-elec-supllier-profit.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="788" data-original-width="721" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhDQBdElSVzmgjsyzp09jmdg9eCXnnKXVi_i0hyphenhyphenPj1HusR2rm_H6bnJgzgnaqHfzV2XSGbafjQlpx66kwhv_DnOaCFYk8m3ARvDcMP8CAAxBr4YH0cvses3qI-5CrWF_lN2ondZbX3pqeo/w586-h640/ofgem-large-elec-supllier-profit.png" width="586" /></a></div><br /><p>So while renewable generation undermines the integrity of the grid it is obscenely profitable. </p><p>Why is it so profitable? </p><p>Because of a massively over-generous ROC subsidy. A subsidy which, at the end of the day gets paid by the consumer.</p><p>Years ago when the RO scheme was dreamed up, the idea was that the payments (i.e. number of certificates issued per MWh) would be changed as the technology/costs/profitability evolved. </p><p>However this was only done once. When the ROC payments per MWh for on-shore and off-shore turbines were slightly reduced from 1.0 and 2.0 to 0.9 and 1.8 respectively it caused such a mountain of complaint from the renewable industry that it has never been attempted again. So today these vastly extravagant payments remain untouched. </p><p>I suppose though we should be grateful that they are not on the new CfD scheme. This guarantees an index-linked fixed price. </p><p>Current offshore windfarms using the CfD scheme are: </p><p></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Beatrice (g’teed £162/MWh) </li><li>Burbo Bank Extension (g’teed £173/MWh) </li><li>Dudgeon (g’teed £173/MWh) </li><li>Walney Extension (g’teed £173/MWh). </li></ul><p></p><p>All of these make the RO scheme look cheap! These prices are index linked and so will only increase as time goes on. </p><p>Of course today we have the wind industry crowing about “falling” CfD’s for future (i.e. jam tomorrow) wind farms. Much is being made of the proposed future Dogger Bank offshore scheme where the CfD auction was won at £48/MWh. </p><p>But will they ever be built at that price? Besides that we are still lumbered with the excruciatingly over-priced one we have today!</p><p>A few years back there was similar huge publicity for Solar PV when CfD auctions were also won at around £50 MWh. It was headline news on the BBC and all over the papers. Then after the razzamatazz, it all went quiet.</p><p>None were built. Just more unsubstantiated hype. More jam tomorrow. You have to give it to them though. It was wonderful propaganda.</p><p>Today the UK consumer (and industry) are literally being robbed by the big energy companies and their renewables scam. Large companies stack up huge profits from wind farms. Not because their wind turbines are wonderfully efficient (far from it) but because they are hugely subsidised</p><p>There is no excuse for this. The RO scheme was designed to be flexible and take into account the varying profitability of renewable generators. But today it has ossified to the benefit of financial parasites.</p><p>If the UK govt had any balls it would cut the ROC (at least) in half and phase it to zero within 5 years.</p><p>But you know and I know that won't happen. Wind turbines are simply too fashionable. Nobody dares question their economics, or who actually ends up paying for this extortion racket.</p><p>So just get used to being robbed for the next twenty years. You (and I) have no other choice.</p><p>But perhaps we don't have to stay quiet while our pockets are being fleeced.</p><p><br /></p>BilloTheWisphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16221663524948086557noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6149751460360426536.post-83468617735940817302020-10-03T13:17:00.001+01:002020-10-04T09:49:24.761+01:00The Trouble with Heat Pumps Part 4<p>This is the last in a series of four posts where I have tried to challenge some of the over-selling and hype surrounding heat pumps. The start of this four post series is <a href="https://billothewisp.blogspot.com/2020/09/the-trouble-with-heat-pumps-part-1.html" target="_blank">HERE</a>.</p><p>In this post I want to look at the concept some people promote of a mass national replacement of gas boilers with heat pumps.</p><p>The purpose of this mass adoption would be to replace the current usage of natural gas for domestic heating. This would be done solely to cut Carbon Dioxide emissions. It would serve no other purpose. </p><p>Currently 85% of UK homes are heated by natural gas. So this replacement concept is not for the faint hearted.</p><p>Last year domestic gas use was 310 TWh. (Cooking accounts for under 3%) <a href="https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/877047/Press_Notice_March_2020.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">(DUKES spreadsheet HERE)</a></p><p>Meanwhile the <u>entire</u> national usage of electricity was 324 TWh <a href="https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/877047/Press_Notice_March_2020.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">(DUKES pdf Here)</a></p><p>In other words, gas usage for domestic heating (mostly over a short 4 month period) more-or-less matched the entire electrical generation of the UK for all types of use over the full year.</p><p>So if we assume that domestic heat pumps can deliver 3:1 energy output when compared to gas, then nationally we will need an extra 100TWh/year of electrical generation to drive their compressors. (The 3:1 is a big assumption – <a href="https://billothewisp.blogspot.com/2020/09/the-trouble-with-heat-pumps-part-3.html" target="_blank">See last post Here</a>)</p><p>An extra 100TWh is roughly equivalent to an increase on current generation of 30%. This though does not account for the fact that most of that 100TWh will be required over a four month period and the generation capacity will be surplus to requirements in the summer. But never mind.</p><p>So how can this be powered? Of course the "green" solution would be to use solar and wind. In my opinion neither solar or wind could remotely address the demands placed on them for this. But never-the-less, lets look at them and skim over their lack of capability where possible.</p><p><b><u>Solar.</u></b> Sadly the incapability of solar in winter is so marked it is impossible to skim over it's failings. In winter there is little sun. So there's little electricity generated. It's probably best for me to let the Centre Alternative Energy explain it to those who disbelieve me. <a href="https://www.cat.org.uk/info-resources/free-information-service/energy/heat-pumps/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">(HERE - see Q&A at end)</a></p><p><b><u>Wind.</u></b> Currently the existing Wind turbine fleet intermittently generates about 20% of current UK demand. There are, in total around 11,000 wind turbines both onshore and offshore in the UK. If we forget about intermittency, grid connectivity, site availability, storage, sea bed damage and impact on those living nearby we would need another 16,500 turbines, just to cover domestic heat pump use in homes.</p><p> The current wind fleet has cost well in excess of £50 Billion to build and only functions due to massive on-going government subsidies. An additional 16,500 turbines would add another £75 billion. But it doesn’t stop there. Increasing the carrying capacity of the Grid as well as connectivity, backup supply and cabling would add at least another 25 – 50 billion. Say a £100 billion all-in – and that, I would suggest, would be wildly optimistic.</p><p>But really that is small beer compared to the cost of installing the heat pumps themselves. Half of the cost is installation and groundwork and so is fixed. Even if we assume the price of the hardware halves we are still looking at £12,000 per installation averaged across GSHPs and ASHPs.</p><p>Lets assume the target installation is in 19 million homes. (As suggested on record by Committee on Climate Change and also stated <a href="https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/365/business-energy-and-industrial-strategy-committee/news/119747/committee-launch-decarbonising-heat-in-homes-inquiry/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">HERE</a> ) So the cost of installing heat pumps in these 19 million homes comes out at a whopping £228 Billion.</p><p>So all in, to convert 19 million homes to heat pumps would cost well in excess of £325 billion.</p><p>In essence we would be spending over £325 Billion to replace a perfectly serviceable (and more capable) gas supplied heating system. We would be doing this in order to cut Carbon Dioxide emissions from the cleanest fossil fuel available while plenty of dirtier targets remain.</p><p>Even if you substitute in more realistic and capable methods of generation (like nuclear - or even gas!) the figures are still ruinously huge. </p><p>Reduce the adoption rate the figures remain ruinous, just less so. It is only when you get to very low rates of adoption (like today) that the pain reduces and heat pumps can run off existing electrical supply without the need for more infrastructure. </p><p>Mass adoption of Heat pumps to replace gas boilers is a non-option. They are less capable and cost far more to install and run than the condensing gas boilers they are supposed to replace. Even so, there are lunatic plans in place to ban new gas boiler installations in new build properties by 2025. <a href="https://www.thegreenage.co.uk/are-gas-boilers-being-banned/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">(See Here)</a> </p><p>On the plus side heat pumps do make great talking points down the golf club or in a Green Peace meeting and are marvellously fashionable and very, very politically correct. Sadly though when it comes to heating the average home they are not in the same league as condensing gas boilers.</p><p>Without the governments <strike>bribe</strike> Renewable Heat Incentive, uptake would peter-out to nothing. The zealots and the rich would baulk at the cost. Even with the current <strike>bribe</strike> the take up rate is so pitiful that it would take 700 years to replace all 19 million gas boilers</p><p>So how can we reduce Carbon Dioxide? More to the point how can we reduce Carbon Dioxide at significantly less than £500-£600 a tonne? These are difficult questions. </p><p>But clearly, heat pumps do <u>not</u> provide the answers. </p><p>To pretend they do is criminally irresponsible.</p><p><br /></p>BilloTheWisphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16221663524948086557noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6149751460360426536.post-26198274738580082282020-10-02T12:15:00.001+01:002021-04-26T11:05:11.493+01:00The Trouble with Heat Pumps Part 3 <p>The last couple of posts I have looked at Ground Source Heats Pumps (GSHP). (See <a href="http://billothewisp.blogspot.com/2020/09/the-trouble-with-heat-pumps-part-1.html" target="_blank">HERE</a>)</p><p>This post deals with Air Source Heat Pumps (ASHP). Like their more expensive (and more capable) GSHP cousins, ASHPs are the subject of the most incredible wishful thinking, promotion and propaganda. This is what I hope to address here.</p><p>An ASHP (as the name suggests) takes its heat source from the air rather than the ground. Consequently instead of having a pipe system buried under the lawn there is a large out-door box with a fan that pumps air past a heat exchanger. It is significantly less expensive to install than a GSHP and requires minimal ground work. i.e. Maybe the laying of a concrete pad for the system to stand on.</p><p>There are in fact two types of ASHP. The most common is a wet system which I highlight in this post. This delivers the heat to water which is then used to transfer the heat to the house like a traditional central heating system does. </p><p>The second type is a dry system that delivers the heat to the house as heated air. This system does not usually provide hot water. As I understand it, due to the additional problems a dry ASHP has when heating both home and hot water the government do not provide access to the <strike>bribe</strike> Renewable Heat Incentive for a dry system. </p><p>With an ASHP you still need a garden, or at the very least a suitable outside wall. As the things have an intermittently rotating fan (and so make noise) their location has to be in such a position it won’t annoy the neighbours. Or annoy the owner for that matter.</p><p>The installation costs are well below that of a GSHP. This table from <a href="https://tradesmencosts.co.uk/air-source-heat-pump/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Tradesmencosts.co.uk HERE</a> suggests the cost is about half that of a GSHP. </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhYZDaCHS2QM8xdWnyjC5ZZqLQulyixxBfoRHcN2giu_7vu8Afs1SqPulMEV2RY5MTZinIjeDcCtvlD-BfuWhYH5YmX5fZ3HvP1Cbr3qL9LOJcf1PPYHlGSSDh90nEMgXDvJXBddv5gwbw/s751/ashp-installion-costs-by-property-type.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="259" data-original-width="751" height="221" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhYZDaCHS2QM8xdWnyjC5ZZqLQulyixxBfoRHcN2giu_7vu8Afs1SqPulMEV2RY5MTZinIjeDcCtvlD-BfuWhYH5YmX5fZ3HvP1Cbr3qL9LOJcf1PPYHlGSSDh90nEMgXDvJXBddv5gwbw/w640-h221/ashp-installion-costs-by-property-type.png" width="640" /></a></div><br /><p>To make the system effective you will also need to install underfloor heating or (at least) increase the size of your radiators. In essence, you would need to completely rebuild your central heating system. Then I'd suggest you would need to redecorate. Most sites also recommend you upgrade your household insulation. None of these extra costs are included in the figures in the table above.</p><p>The big issue with ASHPs is that their heat source (the air) is not always at a positive temperature. When ASHPs are required to work the hardest (cold weather) their efficiency is compromised. Even so, you will often find ASHP COP values, obtained during almost ideal conditions being used to promote their use year round. <a href="https://www.greenmatch.co.uk/blog/2014/08/the-running-costs-of-heat-pumps" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">(like HERE)</a></p><p>With all heat pumps we really (really!) should NOT assume the COP value is a good indicator of their overall efficiency or capability. A far better figure is the SPF (Seasonal Performance Factor). </p><p>Further-more we need to ensure we use an SPF that is calculated using the <u>full</u> system (H4) NOT simply for the heat pump itself (H2 or even H1) which ignores energy used by backup/boost heaters, immersion and the fan. Here is a diagram <a href="http://sepemo.ehpa.org/uploads/media/D6_9_7_Zottl_HPC4_7.pdf" target="_blank">(from HERE)</a> that itemises the difference between SPF vales for H1, H2, H3 and H4</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh8mNySSea7uLTFlM00THj4AUa5E-sapqrAbUs4e6XQ-4i-YJje90baJggnQYA9atGxTSb0F9uEdvsshdCzcxs-gzo2f38T7JsAU_mek7Z3szjj4dZWYjzG8ylrsO-ghyphenhyphenL1DFX-YNUVv9s/s576/heat-pump-boundaries.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="364" data-original-width="576" height="405" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh8mNySSea7uLTFlM00THj4AUa5E-sapqrAbUs4e6XQ-4i-YJje90baJggnQYA9atGxTSb0F9uEdvsshdCzcxs-gzo2f38T7JsAU_mek7Z3szjj4dZWYjzG8ylrsO-ghyphenhyphenL1DFX-YNUVv9s/w640-h405/heat-pump-boundaries.png" width="640" /></a></div><p><br /></p><p>I suspect that even if we use (as we should) SPF(H4) this still does not take into consideration the energy that is sometimes needed to de-ice ASHPs in sub-zero temperatures.</p><p>A realistic value for the SPF(H4) for a ASHP is 2.44. </p><p>This is the median value obtained over a large 2017 DECC sponsored analysis (contractors RAPID-HPC) of many hundreds of of ASHP installations. The data was collected between 2013 and 2015. <a href="https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/606829/DECC_RHPP_160428_On_performance_variations_v20.pdf" target="_blank">(Report HERE)</a></p><p>Notice that this is actually below the current minimum value <a href="https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/key-term-explained/seasonal-performance-factor-spf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Ofgem (SPF - 2.5)</a> stipulate for claiming the <strike>bribe</strike> Renewable Heat Incentive! </p><p>From the graph below it looks like the majority of ASHPs analysed by DECC are operating below and in some cases well below an SPF of 2.5. I'd put money on it though that they all successfully claim the RHI subsidy (or the then RHPP equivalent).</p><p>ASHPs are on the left and GSHPs on the right right. Notice the ASHP results are significantly weighted to the lower performance values. </p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhDT7SjYvqsfuT2HuQnf6Yr2YIKynBhMicjd9K_m8yb5C2AA6nry4kPcGNZ0UF2HLj_tfHdXN-8eXI1X5gsZbhSm-fmdHb-Y9Ya0ahcsuEdih6AiLO_UEM9OLaBo54ZEABQzomh4fqbuxk/s577/spf-b2-cropped.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="Heat Pump spread of SPF values DECC" border="0" data-original-height="435" data-original-width="577" height="482" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhDT7SjYvqsfuT2HuQnf6Yr2YIKynBhMicjd9K_m8yb5C2AA6nry4kPcGNZ0UF2HLj_tfHdXN-8eXI1X5gsZbhSm-fmdHb-Y9Ya0ahcsuEdih6AiLO_UEM9OLaBo54ZEABQzomh4fqbuxk/w640-h482/spf-b2-cropped.png" width="640" /></a></div><br /><i>"cropped" means these graphs above have excluded very low and high values. 32 sites (25 ASHP 7 GSHP) were excluded. Of those, 29 had an SPF(H4) less than 1.5. Only 3 had an SPF above 4.5</i><p></p><p>Like GSHPs, ASHPs typically provide output hot water to the central heating system at less than 40 degrees C. (The Centre for Alternative Energy <a href="https://www.cat.org.uk/info-resources/free-information-service/energy/heat-pumps/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">(HERE)</a> suggests 35 degrees C is best.). </p><p>For most installations domestic hot water needs supplementary heating. There are reasons beyond simple comfort for this. (Note: gas hot water is usually 65+ degrees). </p><p>Temperatures around 35 - 40 degrees C are the ideal temperature for growing Legionnaire bacteria. So additional water tank heating to 65 degrees C (using an immersion heater) to kill them off is an absolute necessity once a week even if you are happy with luke-warm hot water most of the time. (This applies to GSHPs too)</p><p>If you are changing your heating system to use a heat pump, changes have to be made to accommodate the low temperature output to the heating system. The user is recommended <a href="https://www.cat.org.uk/info-resources/free-information-service/energy/heat-pumps/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">(HERE)</a> to install underfloor heating. Or if they cannot afford that, then maybe they can install bigger radiators. DECC found the cheaper heat pump upgrade option (larger radiators) reduced the system efficiency by about 10%. compared to underfloor heating. </p><p>Empirically (based on a sample size of nearly 400 units) the DECC study found costs associated with running a ASHP system were significantly more than that of a GSHP. They only draw on parr when the external temperature is around 10 degrees C or more. Which is, of course, at times when central heating is less likely to be needed. </p><p>Both ASHPs and GSHPs are more expensive to run than a condensing gas boiler.</p><p>Incredibly, Greenmatch <a href="https://www.greenmatch.co.uk/blog/2014/08/the-running-costs-of-heat-pumps" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">(HERE)</a> even using a COP of 4.3 (!!) still found condensing gas boilers are cheaper to run! Imagine how the figures come out if you use DECC's most commonly achieved SPF(H4) value of 2.44.</p><p><b>Carbon Savings</b></p><p>ASHPs are less effective in cold weather than GSHPs. This inevitably will be reflected in their potential Carbon Dioxide savings against condensing gas boilers. As a GSHP will save less than 2 tonnes of Carbon Dioxide per household per year compared to a condensing gas boiler it is difficult to see how an ASHP would save more than around 1.2 - 1.5 Tonnes. </p><p>The average expenditure needed to prevent the emission of Carbon Dioxide (per tonne) gets compensated somewhat because ASHPs are cheaper to install than GSHPs. But I would suggest the gains and losses more-or-less average out and the cost will again be round £500 per tonne.</p><p>However there is the opportunity to participate in the governments <strike>bribe</strike> Renewable Heat Incentive! So other people in essence will pay in part for your heating system. </p><p>All of this for both GSHPs and ASHPs pre-supposes that the National electricity Grid will simply ramp up output to take over from gas if there is mass adoption of heat pumps.</p><p>Unfortunately most people do not realise how little energy the electrical grid provides to domestic consumers compared to that provided by the gas grid. Neither do they appreciate how a mass adoption of heat pumps (let alone EVs) will impact it. Or how much in total it will cost the country</p><p>That’s the subject of my last post in this series on Heat Pumps. <a href="http://billothewisp.blogspot.com/2020/10/the-trouble-with-heat-pumps-part-4.html">(Here)</a></p>BilloTheWisphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16221663524948086557noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6149751460360426536.post-42140785989844544152020-10-01T13:56:00.002+01:002020-10-02T12:46:50.189+01:00 The Trouble with Heat Pumps Part 2<p>Last post <a href="http://billothewisp.blogspot.com/2020/09/the-trouble-with-heat-pumps-part-1.html" target="_blank">(HERE)</a> I looked at the overall cost of installing ground source heat pumps (GSHPs) and how much land was needed. I touched upon other issues too which I will expand on here.</p><p>The first and most obvious issue with domestic GSHPs is simply their incapability. A typical domestic GSHP has an heat output of 4KW - 13KW. The most powerful have an heat output of about 16KW.</p><p>Compare that to a standard modern condensing gas boiler that has a heat output of somewhere between 20 – 50KW.</p><p>This low output from GSHPs has a number of consequences.</p><p> • The typical water output temperature fed into the heating system is less than 40degC. You can increase that. But if you do the efficiency rapidly decreases. ( a gas system typically produces hot water at 65 degC or more)</p><p> • With a GSHP it is difficult to get domestic hot water for the bath/sink/shower up to an acceptable temperature. The usual fix is that you use a standard electric immersion heater to raise the temperature to an acceptable level.<i> </i></p><p> • Because the output temperature is so low, the recommended usage for central heating is in under-floor heating. So factor installing that into the installation costs as well.</p><p> • If you decide to ignore the under-floor heating recommendation and use radiators it is recommended you increase their size. Either way, underfloor or larger radiators - you trash your decor and need to redecorate. Factor the cost of that in too.</p><p> • The system has to be running 24/7. You cannot allow the house to cool down when empty as it takes so long to heat up due to the low heat output.</p><p> • When the system does reach temperature, as the hot water heating the underfloor system/radiators is at a lower temperature than a gas system, the system cools more rapidly and so tends to cycle on/off/on/off more frequently than a conventional system.</p><p> • Every site (I have seen) that recommends GSHPs always encourages the owner to increase household insulation during installation (more cost). Meanwhile any cost comparisons they perform are with obsolete gas/oil/electric systems like this one taken from <a href="https://www.greenmatch.co.uk/heat-pump/ground-source-heat-pump/ground-source-heat-pump-prices" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">(HERE)</a></p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhNLG4t5OQLyuQuHTxk26946OoPfoDfDxQb_uSg_fZm1J2Ppsy3Sa_GwXb_yvjgDnGLNlIP0VGcGwnlm63zNCh_ihEj6l8Az_-sk-XBFKUbua_bMOVoGYxYtGEHaY9TtZwehpQ_TQnu41w/s799/fuel-bill-savings.png" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img alt="heatin cost comparison GSHP and old systems" border="0" data-original-height="365" data-original-width="799" height="292" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhNLG4t5OQLyuQuHTxk26946OoPfoDfDxQb_uSg_fZm1J2Ppsy3Sa_GwXb_yvjgDnGLNlIP0VGcGwnlm63zNCh_ihEj6l8Az_-sk-XBFKUbua_bMOVoGYxYtGEHaY9TtZwehpQ_TQnu41w/w640-h292/fuel-bill-savings.png" width="640" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><b><i>So - Wheres the comparison with a new condensing gas boiler?</i></b><br /></td></tr></tbody></table><br /><p>I have never seen a headline comparison of GSHP with (say) a condensing gas boiler system in an equally well insulated house. It is always old obsolete systems. I suspect the reason for this is because it is actually cheaper to run a modern condensing gas boiler system than a GSHP. (more later)</p><p>So, the take out from this is that:</p><p> • On a like for like basis GSHPs are not as effective as gas boilers when it comes to heating your home. They can do it. But in reality, condensing gas boilers are more capable (and cheaper to run).</p><p> • To get acceptable hot water temperatures while using GSHP you either compromise the lauded efficiency of the GSHP or use an immersion heater. Either way the overall system efficiency takes a nose dive.</p><p> • You need to factor in a complete ground-up rebuild of you houses heating system with all the decorating and associated building/plumbing work. Your garden will be trashed and need to be re-layed. This will be on top of the cost of the GSHP installation. </p><p> • The system runs 24/7. It needs to do this as it will take a long time to heat up your home again if you let it cool down. So if you plan to solely rely on cheap Economy 7 electricity to drive the compressor – dream on.</p><p> • There’s mountains of deception and propaganda being peddled by people and organisations promoting heat pumps. Make sure you get the all the figures and make sure their comparisons are honest ones (they won’t be).</p><h4 style="text-align: left;">Running Costs</h4><p>OK let’s assume you have overcome the installation restrictions as outlined in the first post in this series. </p><p>You’ve sold the kids into slavery and spent your £20,000 - £30,000+ on a GSHP plus associated rebuild of your heating system/redecorating/relaying garden. Let’s say it works satisfactorily (some don't).</p><p><b><u>How much are you going to save?</u></b></p><p>Here’s a table from Evergreen Energy<a href="https://www.evergreenenergy.co.uk/heat-pumps/how-efficient-are-heat-pumps/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"> (HERE)</a></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjNmxcMIKMwiOqoB4j-wZVd80jTeFj6VlNLzV5ibqGTvuJMgTFdI_B9M9f6CsrlTuJmterJI3SJkAMRdmndYLLMMXuTliledCrK5meV2KpF4wDDHP3t4bWxzg_2zxKfqDkEKFAPes4I0ws/s1045/evergreen-comparison-chart.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="574" data-original-width="1045" height="352" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjNmxcMIKMwiOqoB4j-wZVd80jTeFj6VlNLzV5ibqGTvuJMgTFdI_B9M9f6CsrlTuJmterJI3SJkAMRdmndYLLMMXuTliledCrK5meV2KpF4wDDHP3t4bWxzg_2zxKfqDkEKFAPes4I0ws/w640-h352/evergreen-comparison-chart.png" width="640" /></a></div><br /><p>So from this rather optimistic table we find KW for KW a GSHP has just short of 4 times the efficiency of gas. So far so good you may say. What’s not to like about that? For one KWh of electricity used by the GSHP provides 4KWh of heating. If its gas we need 4KWh of gas. </p><p><i>(As I'll show later this efficiency of 350% for a GSHP is wildly optimistic and does not stand up to scrutiny when compared to actual real data from a large installation base - but never mind for now. We'll run with it as-is)</i></p><p>The trouble comes when look at a typical gas/electricity tariff like this one. <i>(Its mine by the way)</i></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg5ZBfVbZf_p99hSpaVn2wwuF17NHX9rS1Fjlo5K_EwQ9mwVsXpZsJFupZ4UWq4ik2UzzPOv3pIkCM3_I8j-xVYZ5XBomyfD9BX_hHRGg0Zv9qPcUqkYJq3GWXPm9RoEiMDLf3qv_fIsAE/s655/gas-electric-prices.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="355" data-original-width="655" height="346" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg5ZBfVbZf_p99hSpaVn2wwuF17NHX9rS1Fjlo5K_EwQ9mwVsXpZsJFupZ4UWq4ik2UzzPOv3pIkCM3_I8j-xVYZ5XBomyfD9BX_hHRGg0Zv9qPcUqkYJq3GWXPm9RoEiMDLf3qv_fIsAE/w640-h346/gas-electric-prices.png" width="640" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><p>Notice the electricity price for one KWh is over six times that of gas. True you need a second standing charge which will slightly increase the gas price. But not by much.</p><p>So, let us assume the choice is between replacing an old gas boiler with a £2000 new condensing gas boiler or paying out £20,000 for a GSHP system and another £10,000 for the associated rebuild of your heating system, garden and decor.</p><p>At the end of the day (day-to-day running cost-wise) you would still be better off with the condensing gas boiler. </p><p><b><u>Subsidies.</u></b></p><p>The government wants to entice you to spend your money on a GSHP. This is so the government can grand-stand about how “environmental” it is. As a consequence the government will issue you with a big fat subsidy if you install a GSHP. It’s called the Domestic Renewable Heat Incentive (RHI).</p><p>Now subsidy is a funny word. </p><p>Many people think the word "subsidy" is actually an abbreviation for <b><i>“somebody else’s money”</i></b>. </p><p>I couldn't possibly comment.</p><p>Even so, the subsidy, (which will be payable for 7 years) won’t cover the initial cost of the GSHP let alone the extra money you’ll pay out on rebuilding your heating system, or on enhanced energy bills. It's considerably cheaper to leave the bribe with the government and buy a condensing gas boiler.</p><p><b><u>Carbon Emissions.</u></b></p><p>Ah – right! This must be a slam-dunk for GSHPs. Surely no government would ever propose a “green” solution that was (well…) less than it was made out to be? </p><p>To be fair this is one area that GSHPs does win out over gas. But not by as much as some would have you believe.</p><p>First let's visit what the real efficiency value is rather than the promoted value. </p><p>Usually, the value promoted by advocates of GSHPs is the COP (Coefficient of Performance) and usually they use a COP value obtained in more-or-less ideal conditions. They then use this idealised value to figure out both savings and emissions for the whole year. </p><p>First of all, if we want a realistic figure we shouldn't use the COP at all. We should use what is known as the SPF (Seasonal Performance Factor) which is roughly the performance you would get over a year rather than just at ideal conditions. We then need to ensure the SPF also includes the bits that the COP ( and heat-pump protagonists) studiously avoid. Like hot water immersion heaters and the need for other in-built resistive heaters in cold conditions to boost the sagging room heating performance of the heat pump itself. </p><p>DECC did a study of several hundred GSHPs and ASHPs (Air Source Heat Pumps) in 2017. <a href="https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/606829/DECC_RHPP_160428_On_performance_variations_v20.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">(HERE)</a> </p><p>They found the typical (median) SPF for a GSHP was actually 2.71. </p><p>Here's the DECC graph for the distribution for H4 (H4 is the full input/output from the GSHP system rather than just a sub-system of it). The data we are interested in this post is the right hand bar graph.</p><p>If you want to understand the differences H1,H2,H3 and H4 for heat-pumps read <a href="http://sepemo.ehpa.org/uploads/media/D6_9_7_Zottl_HPC4_7.pdf" target="_blank">THIS paper</a></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh9UxU4Er6LvPB5vRJnEOurGmK1vjs-GR6stKWQtW3HPGgRUX2u_mBtZdJc8GAEj9dg0kqXYNOCQPrEltA2qgrKhv8G438khAVEyU5C6tEZmMeuM8YgRAA3RdGUiC58rYeGlmj5-m_-i1E/s577/spf-b2-cropped.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="435" data-original-width="577" height="482" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh9UxU4Er6LvPB5vRJnEOurGmK1vjs-GR6stKWQtW3HPGgRUX2u_mBtZdJc8GAEj9dg0kqXYNOCQPrEltA2qgrKhv8G438khAVEyU5C6tEZmMeuM8YgRAA3RdGUiC58rYeGlmj5-m_-i1E/w640-h482/spf-b2-cropped.png" width="640" /></a></div><br /><p>So now we find we need just under 3.0KW of gas (condensing gas boiler) to match 1KW electricity used by a GSHP. Surely that is still (nearly) a 3 - 1 win? </p><p>Well, no. You still need to factor in the carbon emissions from the electricity generation – and transmission losses for both electric and gas.</p><p>From Carbon Independent <a href="https://www.carbonindependent.org/15.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">(HERE)</a> we find that, after accounting for transmission losses and leaks, UK electricity has a footprint of 0.309Kg/Kwh and gas 0.203Kg/Kwh. So now we are down to less than 2:1. Which, to be fair is still a gain. For today at least. </p><p>If you work it out it comes out at less than 2 Tonnes of CO2 saved for the average house over a year if the comparison is with a new condensing gas boiler.</p><p>The problem here is that this still ignores the main inherent issue with GSHPs. Namely the low power output. If people start supplementing their meagre GSHP output with electric or calor gas heaters and regularly bump up their hot water temperature with immersion heaters, all bets are off.</p><p>So (maybe) a gain. But at what cost? Somebody has to pay the £20,000 even if some of the cost is spread across society (including the poor) with the government subsidy.</p><p>So let us assume the carbon dioxide saving is (optimistically) 2 tonnes per household and the GSHP lasts for twenty years without needing repair and only costs £20,000 to install. </p><p><i>(Be aware that ALL rotating machinery needs care, repair and maintenance over time. The suggestion from the Green lobby that heat pumps last “forever” is simply absurd propaganda. )</i></p><p>The initial capital cost over 20 years averages at least £1000 per year assuming zero interest. So each tonne of Carbon dioxide saved has cost a minimum of £500 just in up-front capital overhead alone.</p><p>Which must be not far short of a record. </p><p>You need a big garden for a GSHP. So basically poor people need not apply. But big gardens usually come with rich people attached, ready and willing to claim the big fat subsidies. Even then they'll be out of pocket.</p><p>This government subsidy (like most renewable bribes) is in fact a Dennis Moore tax. I am sure we all remember good 'ol Dennis Moore. </p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/1-XweEJlHxM" width="320" youtube-src-id="1-XweEJlHxM"></iframe></div><br /><p></p><p>Next I’ll look at Air Source Heat pumps. </p><p>It doesn’t get better. <a href="http://billothewisp.blogspot.com/2020/10/the-trouble-with-heat-pumps-part-3.html" target="_blank">(HERE)</a></p><div><br /></div>BilloTheWisphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16221663524948086557noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6149751460360426536.post-55844326071284113472020-09-30T17:22:00.002+01:002020-10-01T15:03:19.192+01:00The Trouble with Heat Pumps Part 1<p>Domestic heat pumps are being heavily promoted by energy companies and the Green lobby as an efficient way to cut carbon emissions while simultaneously reducing consumer energy bills. </p><p>But do the figures really stack up? In fact is either of the above claim true? Or are the promoted advantages of heat pumps based more on wishful thinking than reality?</p><p>There is so much hype going on around Heat Pumps it is difficult to separate the facts from propaganda. But as this topic has been bugging me for some time I thought I would have a go and maybe puncture a few of the propaganda bubbles and economies-of-truth surrounding heat pumps. </p><p>So here goes.</p><p>There are two main types of domestic heat pumps. Ground source heat pumps (GSHP) and air source heat pumps. (ASHP). </p><p>The first two posts will deal with GSHP’s then I’ll cover ASHP’s and in a final post I’ll look at the often stated aim of nationally replacing domestic gas heating with heat pumps. I'll show what I think are some extremely serious financial and electrical issues society will have to deal with if a mass adoption of heat pumps were to be seriously attempted.</p><h3 style="text-align: left;">Ground Source Heat Pumps. (GSHP)</h3><p>By any measure, for a normal family installing or updating their domestic heating with a GSHP, it will be an enormously expensive operation. In addition to the basic installation costs there are also other significant costs that are, if not hidden, quite obfuscated.</p><p>The Energy Saving Trust estimated the cost of installing a GSHP in a typical family home at between £14,000 to £19,000. <a href="https://energysavingtrust.org.uk/renewable-energy/heat/ground-source-heat-pumps" target="_blank">(HERE)</a></p><p>Selectra <a href="https://theswitch.co.uk/energy/guides/technology/ground-source-heat-pump" target="_blank">(HERE)</a> give a slightly higher but more detailed cost break-down</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiEmyKPAlV-SQd74UuGP6jhJsuphXPXeiBqt4WKM8KjhD53n_zohzLFaTWDpdXdT64PBpPvIjUePMLsjUC3XdC070G9mdjaeHKrQqkJumVH38aDMT61tN4qVPNoGu8n22WXg5IaJgYZPuY/s835/theswitch-gshp-install-prices.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="Ground Source Heat pump installation costs" border="0" data-original-height="389" data-original-width="835" height="298" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiEmyKPAlV-SQd74UuGP6jhJsuphXPXeiBqt4WKM8KjhD53n_zohzLFaTWDpdXdT64PBpPvIjUePMLsjUC3XdC070G9mdjaeHKrQqkJumVH38aDMT61tN4qVPNoGu8n22WXg5IaJgYZPuY/w640-h298/theswitch-gshp-install-prices.png" width="640" /></a></div><br /><p>Notice from the above Selectra chart, a bore-hole system (which intuitively feels like the less costly of the two techniques) actually involves over twice the ground work cost of a horizontal system.</p><p>So the cheapest GSHP system will involve installing an underground pipe network under your garden. This means your home has to fit the following criteria: </p><p> • You have a garden (which will be trashed and need relaying)</p><p> • It is accessible for heavy machinery</p><p> • It is on a sufficiently pliable bedrock/soil</p><p> • Your garden is big enough.</p><p>With regard to garden size The Ground Source Heat Pump Association <a href="https://www.gshp.org.uk/ground_source_heat_pumps_Domestic.html" target="_blank">(HERE)</a> claim the following:</p><p><i>“As a general guide, for a newly built 3-bedroomed house of around 120 m with a heat loss of around 6kW, two trenches of 30-40 metres in length would typically be required.”</i></p><p>Note <i>“with a heat loss of 6KW”</i>. I assume it equates to the output from the heat pump required to maintain a modern 3 bed house at around 20degC. </p><p>That’s a tiny heating system! Maybe suitable for a new build conforming to all the latest building regulations regarding insulation but hardly likely to be adequate for existing housing stock.</p><p>I’d suggest the vast majority of the current UK housing stock would have a lot of difficulty maintaining warmth all year round with a mere 6KW and two forty meter trenches.</p><p>EverGreen Energy <a href="https://www.evergreenenergy.co.uk/heat-pumps/how-much-space-do-i-need-for-a-heat-pump/" target="_blank">(HERE) </a>suggest as a rule of thumb you need a garden size of:</p><p><i>"..roughly twice the total floor area of your home from every storey.</i></p><p>The Centre for Alternative Energy (CAT) <a href="https://www.cat.org.uk/info-resources/free-information-service/energy/heat-pumps/" target="_blank">(HERE)</a> suggests you need 10m of “slinky coil” per KW and that a typical 8KW heat pump requires 400 sqm (20m x 20m). According to the CAT you need 5 meters between the trenches. </p><p>I suspect that both the EverGreen estimate and the CAT estimate assume unrealistically thermally efficient housing. But never mind. We will run with it anyway.</p><p>So, how big are typical houses in the UK? Savilles <a href="https://www.savills.co.uk/research_articles/229130/188035-0" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">(HERE)</a> tell us what the average floor area per house type is. So using the “twice floor area of your house” rule of thumb we can get a rough idea how big a garden you need for installing a GSHP into each type of house.</p><p><b><u>Typical Detached House:</u></b></p><p></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Floor area 152 sqm. </li><li>GSHP area (twice house floor area) 304 sqm.</li><li>Minimum required garden size: 18m x 18m or 57ft x 57ft</li></ul><p></p><p><b><u>Typical semi-detached house:</u></b></p><p></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Floor area 93 sqm. </li><li>GSHP area (twice house floor area) 186 sqm.</li><li>Minimum required garden size: 14m x 14m or 45ft x 45ft</li></ul><p></p><p><b><u>Typical Terraced house:</u></b></p><p></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Floor area 83 sqm. </li><li>GSHP area (twice house floor area) 166 sqm.</li><li>Minimum required garden size: 13m x 13m or 42ft x 42ft</li></ul><p></p><div>What percentage of the UK homes have gardens that big? </div><div><br /></div><div>In fact from <a href="https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/environmentalaccounts/articles/oneineightbritishhouseholdshasnogarden/2020-05-14#:~:text=The%20median%20garden%20size%20for,in%20Scotland%20(the%20largest)." rel="nofollow" target="_blank">(HERE)</a> 1 in 8 UK homes have no garden at all! Of those who have a garden, the median garden size (i.e. the size where half are bigger and half are smaller) is 188 sqm. Which suggests that houses whose garden (if they have one <u>and</u> including front <u>and</u> back) would be big enough is about one third of the total number of UK homes.</div><div><br /></div><div>Of those with big enough gardens most will be homes owned by the more well-off in society. Especially in London and the South. Notice the NONE of the above fulfil the CAT requirement of 400 sqm for an 8KW heat pump.</div><div><br /></div><div><i>If you then assume that only one space (front or back garden) could be practically used for the piping, I would suspect you would eliminate all bar 10% of homes. Of those, almost all will be older and more expensive properties.</i></div><div><u><b><br /></b></u></div><div><u><b>So what about bore holes? </b></u></div><p>Look at the Selectra table (above) that gives ground work costs. Notice that vertical ground work costs are at least double (with most approaching three times) the cost for horizontal systems. So while there would be less stress on garden area when installing a vertical system, there would be considerably more stress on the bank account. </p><p>Also notice that nasty little reality check paragraph underneath the Selectra table. It details some (not all) of the building work that is excluded from the price estimates.</p><p><u><b>Water temperature</b></u></p><p>GSHPs can only efficiently heat water to around 40 degC rather than the typical 65 -70 degC of a gas system. In just about all domestic scenarios GSHPs are less capable than condensing gas boilers. </p><p>As a result of the low output water temperature you need to install (recommended by most) underfloor heating with your GSHP. Alternatively you could significantly increase the size of all your radiators.</p><p>Either way you trash your house. </p><p>To cap it off most companies selling these systems also highly recommend you upgrade your homes thermal insulation as well (assuming that is that there is anything left in the bank account to pay for it)</p><p>From installation issues alone I would suggest that GSHP’s are wholly inappropriate for most properties in the UK. There will be exceptions. But they will be exactly that: Exceptions. Not the rule.</p><p>Lets not forget, all I have covered at this stage is the impracticality for <b><u><i>installing</i></u></b> GSHPs in most UK properties. </p><p>I haven’t covered the practicalities in actually running the things yet. (that's in the next post). </p><p>There is also the potential impact on the electricity grid if the proposed scenario of GSHPs and ASHPs replacing gas boilers ever came to pass. ( last post in this series)</p><p>The next post (on the problems with the day-to-day running of GSHPs) is <a href="https://billothewisp.blogspot.com/2020/10/the-trouble-with-heat-pumps-part-2.html" target="_blank">HERE</a></p>BilloTheWisphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16221663524948086557noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6149751460360426536.post-83388660507571706322020-08-02T21:32:00.002+01:002020-08-02T22:51:19.267+01:00Trump, Biden and Penalty Shoot-outs<div>Imagine the next presidential election in the USA was reduced to a single penalty kick at a soccer match.</div><div><br /></div><div>The Democratic party are on the penalty spot lining up to take the penalty. </div><div><br /></div><div>In front of them lies a big wide open goal. </div><div><br /></div><div>The only defence is a bad tempered geriatric goalkeeper with Attention Deficit Disorder.</div><div><br /></div><div>Everyone thinks it’s going to be a walk over. </div><div><br /></div><div>But, in some weird sense of fair-play the Democratic party has selected an even older geriatric to take the penalty kick. Worse still, the penalty kicker has (policy wise) been known in the past to kick the ball in the wrong direction.</div><div><br /></div><div>Will he score? Will he in fact even manage to kick the ball? Or will his flailing leg miss the ball completely so he falls flat on his face?</div><div><br /></div><div>Or maybe the ball will just dribble forward and stop short – just like the previous penalty kicker did.</div><div><br /></div><div>But at least Biden isn’t the entitlement candidate. Everyone hates entitlement. As Bidens predecessor found out.</div><div><br /></div><div>But at 77 (81 after one term) it hardly bodes well for USA (let alone the world) that this contest will be won by someone (either Republican or Democrat) considerably the wrong side of “three score years and ten”.</div><div><br /></div><div>Of course Biden is only there because the rest of the sane division of the Democratic party baulked at the possibility of suffering the same humiliation that was meted out to Clinton. Nobody wanted the job - except the loonies, and even then, their prime candidate was even older than Biden. </div><div><br /></div><div>Why didn’t anyone want the job? </div><div><br /></div><div>Because Trump (bad tempered geriatric and sometimes just plainly bizarre) was driving a booming economy. </div><div><br /></div><div>The job as Democratic Presidential candidate had the word LOSER written all over it. </div><div><br /></div><div>But somebody had to do it. So old Joe Biden stepped up to the plate to be the sacrificial offering to democracy. To that extent we should say good for him. At least he wasn’t a coward like the rest.</div><div><br /></div><div>Then along came Covid-19. Trump, ambushed by “events” appears out of his depth. </div><div><br /></div><div>Today Trump is on the back foot. That big open goal is even bigger and now slightly downhill from the penalty spot.</div><div><br /></div><div>But still, the Democratic party seems obsessed with some strange concept of giving the Republicans a chance. It has insisted on an all female short list for the Vice President role. </div><div><br /></div><div>The short list for this role is (to say the least) very important. With the President nominee at the end of his natural life there is a significant possibility that the deputy president will in fact become the President before the next four years is out. Excluding half of the potential candidates because they have the “wrong” reproductive organs seems hardly rational. We are not filling a quota here! But never mind.</div><div><br /></div><div>There are people on this Democratic party short list who are clearly worthy of the position (IMHO <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-53596705" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">this lady particularly</a>) and undoubtedly they would have been there irrespective of their sex. But some of the candidates are so fashionably woke and divorced from the electorate (like Clinton was) that they could actively inhibit the penalty shot.</div><div><br /></div><div>So in my humble opinion, the success or failure of the Democrats challenge to Trump will succeed or fail NOT on the quality of the geriatric presidential contenders but on the character and credibility of their running mates.</div><div><br /></div><div>I reckon if the democrats choose <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tammy_Duckworth" target="_blank">Tammy Duckworth</a>, (War hero, competent and popular) then they’ll win. Probably hands down. But if they choose one of the entitlement “woke” candidates on the short list - they’ll get hammered.</div><div><br /></div><div>Anyway, that’s the view of a remote and distant Englishman. You may well ask: Why the hell is an Englishman commenting on an American election anyway? </div><div><br /></div><div>I’m actually tempted to agree with you. Why the hell am I? </div><div><br /></div><div>First of all I loved the image of Trump and Biden engaged in a penalty shoot-out. </div><div>But I really decided to post it because the world is in the shit. </div><div><br /></div><div>The USA (like it or not - as you will) is the only country in the world capable of turning it around. So everyone must take an interest.</div><div><br /></div><div>So for my American buddies: Let me remind you that the next president of the USA is going to be in their late seventies. De-facto. That’s Zimmer* frame territory.</div><div><br /></div><div>So when you make your decision, fully check out the quality and integrity of the Vice Presidential candidate.</div><div><br /></div><div>Factoring that into your decision would appear to be a very good idea.</div><div><br /></div><div><i>* Zimmer Frame (UK) = Walking frame (USA) . Thanks to Lee Alley for the translation!</i></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div> </div>BilloTheWisphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16221663524948086557noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6149751460360426536.post-87248373195238287252020-06-04T16:24:00.002+01:002020-08-02T21:28:31.876+01:00Time to say Goodbye (again)<div><i>Well, That goodbye didn't last long did it? Tonight I felt the urge to post again. So logically the rest of this particular post is now irrelevant. </i></div><div><i><br /></i></div><div><i>Hey Ho.</i></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div>So, it is time to say goodbye again. Maybe for a while. Maybe forever.<br />
<br />
Frankly I am now just getting irritated with the continual dream-world fantasies of the energy-illiterate. I have had enough of them. Their solutions are based on ignorance and are reinforced by gross stupidity. I really cannot be bothered addressing their delusions anymore.<br />
<br />
Then we have (at the time of writing) the Corona Virus lock-down. Of all things this has perhaps been the most vivid example of MSM bias and fear-mongering. Couple that to the obscene political jockeying and it is enough to put anyone off.<br />
<br />So these days I never seem to get the inclination to write a post.<br />
<br />
I thought I would put up this one last post to signal that BilloTheWisp and his sub-ego (the one that actually does the writing) will take a break. Maybe I'll be back. Maybe not.<br /><br />The existing posts will be left here. Some folk still read them! Hopefully they find them useful. After all, nothing has got better about the wind energy farce has it?<br /><br />My Twitter activity will also reduce and may stop completely. This is because I have become increasingly appalled at the censorship and partisan bias that has come to define corporate social media outlets like Twitter and Facebook.<br /><br />So, to all my mates wherever you are, keep fighting the good fight, especially for a sane energy policy.<br /><br />To to all my derided and abused compatriots in the fight for UK self determination remember this:<br /><br />Even with the spite, hatred and corporate fear mongering that has been channelled against you, just remember who won the Brexit vote.<br /><br />You did! 😀<br /><br />Self determination and Democracy are never cheap.<br />
<br />
Do a tour of the Normandy graveyards if you ever doubt that.<br /><br />Keep the Faith.<br /><br />Farewell!BilloTheWisphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16221663524948086557noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6149751460360426536.post-32404067323783248112020-05-06T20:06:00.000+01:002020-05-07T16:41:34.259+01:00Comparing Covid-19 Deaths UK and Italy.Today I heard Keir Starmer making political capital out of the rising death toll in the UK. He is not alone. He has been joined by many in the MSM in telling us (glee barely concealed) that the UK death toll from CV-19 exceeds that of Italy.<br />
<br />
This is not a contest. But it irritated me enough to make me look into the numbers myself.<br />
<br />
The data/sources and my reasoning are below for each country. Mostly this is based on discrepancies between total death count this year and the rolling 5 year average.<br />
<br />
The main takeaways from this post as as follows:<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>It appears the deaths in Italy from CV-19 are being massively under-reported. The under-reporting is almost by a factor of two. It also appears that no attempt has been made to rectify this problem to-date. So I believe that today (6th May) Italian CV-19 deaths are still heavily under-reported.</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>CV-19 deaths in the UK were originally under-reported as they failed to take into account care-homes and the community. I understand this was corrected in late April. The date range in this article pre-dates this change so I have compensated for care home deaths and community deaths and included them along with hospital deaths. </li>
</ul>
As of today (imho) I reckon the numbers stack up more-or-less correctly for the UK. But not for Italy.<br />
<br />
I fail to see how the MSM (let alone the Leader of the Opposition) cannot know this.<br />
<br />
<i>Incidentally (post posting update!) Reuters newsagency report <a href="https://uk.mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUKKBN22G1XB" target="_blank">HERE</a> more-or-less concurs with my figures. In fact (hurts to say!) they beat me to it by a couple of days.</i><br />
<b><u><br /></u></b>
<b><u>Italy</u></b><br />
<br />
I am relying on most of the figures for Italy from this <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/52530918" target="_blank">BBC ARTICLE</a>. (Yes. The MSM's own data!)<br />
<br />
Here the BBC states that from 20th February through to “end of March” (I assume that is and includes 31st March) Italy suffered 90,946 deaths from all causes.<br />
<br />
All causes is CV-19, heart attacks, strokes, cancer, accidents and everything else.<br />
<br />
The rolling five year average for all-cause deaths during the same period in Italy is 65,592.<br />
<br />
Which gives an excess death count of 25,534 (from 20th February up to & including 31st March) this year.<br />
<br />
So how many deaths were actually flagged up as being caused by CV-19 during this period?<br />
<br />
Sadly the BBC leave that bit out. (And why did they do that I wonder.)<br />
<br />
From <a href="https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/italy/" target="_blank">https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/italy/ </a> we get this graph:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgx-PmEcmjw8aoZAi5z8qs3dnpmVsCmVcjIJPzsBjy-c2NIvOngOTMJuM305f_opHQnu_ofTpVQSxemMcvTrU4fD-_GolxFARt7ueleDlyReuwXVuUA3N_WmYBMoDcPAQj0sdu24pdYi2M/s1600/worldodometer2.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="491" data-original-width="700" height="448" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgx-PmEcmjw8aoZAi5z8qs3dnpmVsCmVcjIJPzsBjy-c2NIvOngOTMJuM305f_opHQnu_ofTpVQSxemMcvTrU4fD-_GolxFARt7ueleDlyReuwXVuUA3N_WmYBMoDcPAQj0sdu24pdYi2M/s640/worldodometer2.png" width="640" /></a></div>
Incidentally this concurs with the <a href="https://www.statista.com/statistics/1104964/coronavirus-deaths-since-february-italy/" target="_blank">Statista graph HERE</a>:<br />
<br />
The number of deaths recorded from CV-19 during 20th February to 31st March in Italy was 12,428<br />
<br />
This is less than half the total excess deaths recorded from all causes.<br />
<br />
As the Italian health service was at times overwhelmed, it is likely that some of these extra 25,000 mortalities were from causes other than CV-19 (Heart attacks/strokes etc) that went unattended.<br />
<br />
But it would seem highly likely that only a small proportion of these extra 25,000 deaths were from non CV-19 causes.<br />
<br />
I would suggest that the excess deaths from non-covid-19 causes would be about at maximum 15%. That would give us an excess death count caused by Covid-19 of about 21,250 over the period 20th February through to 31st March in Italy. Not 12,428 as reported.<br />
<br />
So it would look like the Italian death count for Covid-19 from 20th February through to the end of March is under-reported by around 9000 to 10,000.<br />
<br />
So do these missing 10,000 deaths get added later on?<br />
<br />
That looks impossible. Look at the curve on the worldodometer graph. While a few deaths will always be reported late there is simply no room to accommodate 10,000 pre 31st March deaths in another later time period without significantly changing the graph shape.<br />
<br />
In fact the graph shape suggests that this counting scheme used up to 31st March is still in place.<br />
<br />
If that is so then the real death toll from Covid-19 in Italy up to today (6th May) is more like 40,000 – 50,000.<br />
<br />
<b><u>UK.</u></b><br />
<br />
The BBC article unfortunately does not give hard dates for the UK period of “6 weeks” but states that it started from the first UK CV-19 virus death. This death occurred on the 28th February. Six weeks later is 10th April.<br />
<br />
(Incidentally this is two days longer than the equivalent Italian period - but never mind)<br />
<br />
The BBC informs us that the total number of deaths from all causes during this period was 89,735. The rolling five year average for total deaths during this calender period is 72,812. Which gives us an excess death total of 16,923.<br />
<br />
The NHS total of CV-19 deaths (NOT the full total) up to 10 April is given in the graph below as 10,760.<a href="https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/uk/" target="_blank"> (from HERE)</a><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh_8teIxfwINzMY5YNDfAWC-QeickxNnDbkmY_9Gyl-9i7vwmBYO0nJ4gUTLJJ1mU69JMow0p9M0mL4kj8YCdR4pgWlvISuSQ1zNmbgjE3flCmwrJJecvViZ5xpLd0cJqLWhWHH9_-j6Dc/s1600/worldometer-cv19-uk-100420.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="561" data-original-width="738" height="484" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh_8teIxfwINzMY5YNDfAWC-QeickxNnDbkmY_9Gyl-9i7vwmBYO0nJ4gUTLJJ1mU69JMow0p9M0mL4kj8YCdR4pgWlvISuSQ1zNmbgjE3flCmwrJJecvViZ5xpLd0cJqLWhWHH9_-j6Dc/s640/worldometer-cv19-uk-100420.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
So at this point we are left with 6,000 excess deaths unaccounted for.<br />
<br />
This weekly summary from the ONS for deaths during week ending 17th April <a href="https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/bulletins/deathsregisteredweeklyinenglandandwalesprovisional/weekending17april2020" target="_blank">(HERE)</a> indicates that up to week 16, 77.4% of deaths from CV-19 occurred in hospital. Which would mean that 22.6% occurred in care-homes and the community.<br />
<br />
Although the statement is first reported in the PDF for week 16 (17th April) rather than week 15 (10th April) it would seem reasonable that the percentage death by location would be very similar on a weekly basis.<br />
<br />
So if 10,760 deaths from CV-19 occurred in hospitals up to 10th April it militates that the real death count from CV-19 (including care homes and the community as well as hospitals) was 13901.<br />
<br />
Which now leaves an excess of just over 3000 unaccounted for.<br />
<br />
Although the NHS has not been overwhelmed (unlike the Italian health service was) it has delayed/cancelled/postponed procedures.<br />
<br />
People were originally encouraged not to go to hospital. Consequently people were either frightened of catching CV-19 or simply did not wish to burden the NHS further with their CV-19 unrelated problems. Hospital attendances fell off a cliff. Some died as a result.<br />
<br />
If (like Italy) we assume 15% excess deaths are due to extra heart attacks/stroke deaths we get down to 915 unaccounted deaths over this 6 week period.<br />
<br />
This is small enough to get lost in the noise of rolling 5 years averages. But even if you assume they actually were unreported Covid-19 deaths then that would give an under-reporting in the UK of a mere 6% compared to Italy’s under reporting of 70 – 100%.<br />
<br />
Then finally we come to population size and density. The UK has a 10% larger population than Italy. UK population density is 30% higher than that of Italy.<br />
<br />
So I think it would be reasonable to say that the deaths from CV-19 per capita in Italy are twice as high as those in the UK.<br />
<br />
But this is not a contest.<br />
<br />
This is a tragedy.<br />
<br />
Maybe Mr Starmer should keep that in mind next time he goes to make political capital out of the misery of his countrymen and women.<br />
<br />BilloTheWisphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16221663524948086557noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6149751460360426536.post-11981610056419258492020-03-14T13:28:00.000+00:002020-03-22T21:35:30.408+00:00Insects and a new Silent SpringThere is a hidden on-going man-made environmental catastrophe taking place today. It rarely gets mentioned. If does get mentioned the cause is deliberately misrepresented. Mostly though, it is ignored. Swept under the carpet. In the hope that nobody will notice.<br />
<br />
This calamity directly leads to the destruction of 1.2 trillion flying insects each year in Germany alone. A calamity that could lead to a massive and potentially irreversible decline in agriculture and wildlife.<br />
<br />
The 1.2 trillion lost flying insects is a tiny part of the overall German insect population. But it is most certainly not insignificant. By comparison it equates to about one third of the entire migrating insect population in southern England.<br />
<br />
The crucial aspect of these 1.2 trillion insect losses are that they are flying and migrating insects. They are mostly at the adult stage and are going to breed. Predatory losses among insect larvae and young adults are usually well in excess of 90%. Trivialising the loss of these 1.2 trillion adult insects by comparing their number to the overall insect count (as some do) is foolish.<br />
<br />
If you impact the relatively small numbers that actually reach the breeding stage, you will potentially cause a population collapse. Not only in the insects themselves, but later within the insect predators. The main insect predators are birds and other arthropods (mainly spiders) so don't be surprised when they start disappearing too.<br />
<br />
This annual loss has been happening over a decadel time-scale. This catastrophe works a little like compound interest in reverse. Initially the effect is small. But the predators continue to eat. Until that is, they themselves are unable to find enough food. So as each year goes by, the effect builds on itself.<br />
<br />
Today in some parts of Germany the flying insect population has collapsed by 75%. Where there is one flying insect today, in 2000 there were four.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjHY-rwbMnfyfGGXj80GCtxWDXZW_Fl0SeklbHu5Q76J9Ha-HQOBO7U8-GXIz9Xypm-JnZgiWF_tUfKa4P__nSjZ1_IX7vsXO6ed14hV_H0dcFCq7YEFTMZRLK86N_iEsipYJQe2uWeL9s/s1600/insect-decline.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="600" data-original-width="645" height="371" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjHY-rwbMnfyfGGXj80GCtxWDXZW_Fl0SeklbHu5Q76J9Ha-HQOBO7U8-GXIz9Xypm-JnZgiWF_tUfKa4P__nSjZ1_IX7vsXO6ed14hV_H0dcFCq7YEFTMZRLK86N_iEsipYJQe2uWeL9s/s400/insect-decline.png" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
When you have a situation like this you expect to see a smoking gun. Some change that has been made within this short timescale. A change that correlates with the decline. Something that already has a track record in causing insect death. Then surely it would be sensible to highlight it as the potential cause.<br />
<br />
You only ever miss seeing such a murder weapon if it is being hidden from you. Or alternatively, your cognitive dissonance insists that one of your cherished icons could never cause such wanton destruction.<br />
<br />
Both of these options seem to be in play today.<br />
<br />
It is true not all of the insect population decline may be caused by this single but lethal mechanism. But there seems little doubt that it makes all other possibilities (aka Climate Change, insecticides, wet weather, traffic) pale by comparison. Here’s a table of possibilities and their calculated impact. Notice the big bar labelled “Unknown”. So big in fact that it has its own scale.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiVIvXPrr1bfJGI092KvmNZnIeqjj0jAx3XvejSaoBh57NHaafxvFVRmmpSw29weyXc4vhBT4i-0ODXtVAPZ9Ft04T-wrAa2OkOBCPmFQRQVwAoWWGKdt5Y0bXNWPNBKHP_7keh790LMAM/s1600/insect-loss.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="413" data-original-width="649" height="253" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiVIvXPrr1bfJGI092KvmNZnIeqjj0jAx3XvejSaoBh57NHaafxvFVRmmpSw29weyXc4vhBT4i-0ODXtVAPZ9Ft04T-wrAa2OkOBCPmFQRQVwAoWWGKdt5Y0bXNWPNBKHP_7keh790LMAM/s400/insect-loss.png" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
So it looks like our smoking gun is "Unknown". But what has arrived since 1990? Further more what is known to destroy insects en-masse? In fact what is known to destroy insects in such numbers that the insect DNA residue smeared over its surfaces can inhibit its operation? What has grown in number as the insect population has declined?<br />
<br />
So before I announce the murderous methodology of this wanton man-made destruction let me first link you to two peer reviewed scientific papers both published in prominent and respected scientific journals. As well as that I'll first link in a Nature article from 2001. All the graphs/images on this post are taken from the peer reviewed papers.<br />
<br />
Why am I doing this first?<br />
<br />
Because what I am about to tell you will possibly cause you a great deal distress. I don't want you to discard this this information simply because it seriously challenges your world view. Here they are: (notice the oldest dates back to 2001 – this has been known about for a long time – and covered up)<br />
<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li><a href="http://cortenergy.eu/NATURE.pdf" target="_blank">Corten (2001) - Insects can halve wind-turbine power</a></li>
<li><a href="https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0185809" target="_blank">Hallman et al (2017) - More than 75 percent decline over 27 years in total flying insect biomass in protected areas</a></li>
<li><a href="https://www.dlr.de/tt/Portaldata/41/Resources/dokumente/st/FliWip-Final-Report.pdf" target="_blank">Trieb (2018) - Interference of Flying Insects and Wind Parks</a></li>
</ul>
<br />
So, the titles of the papers possibly tipped you off regarding the mechanism that is destroying wildlife on such a grand scale. But if you missed it, the smoking gun appears to be:<br />
<br />
The wind turbine.<br />
<br />
Or rather the 30,000 wind turbines that scar the face of German countryside. This is what they do:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi6XeYzKU1K1mgqc6erN8hcKXBtEjeqbM4S-g_kg9SBZCqE-DIy_cNexIaAXM1dsX2Dw_ieSlO-apRx5trSPqGqs263ugHQo0e6fmDUHrlEpDK9-Uwl3MZx6gUL3ShcK1HSuFX_qInrjXI/s1600/insect-state-machine.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="634" data-original-width="894" height="281" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi6XeYzKU1K1mgqc6erN8hcKXBtEjeqbM4S-g_kg9SBZCqE-DIy_cNexIaAXM1dsX2Dw_ieSlO-apRx5trSPqGqs263ugHQo0e6fmDUHrlEpDK9-Uwl3MZx6gUL3ShcK1HSuFX_qInrjXI/s400/insect-state-machine.png" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
The murderous effect of wind turbines on insect populations has been known about for at least twenty years. Nothing has been done. In fact the problem has been obfuscated, ignored and otherwise covered up by the wind industry.<br />
<br />
I first blogged about it nearly seven years ago <a href="http://billothewisp.blogspot.com/2013/07/birds-bats-bugs-bees-and-wind-turbines.html" target="_blank">HERE</a> . But back then I had no idea how bad the problem was.<br />
<br />
But it gets worse.<br />
<br />
It appears the greatest danger wind turbines present to insect populations is when the wind is low and the turbines are in effect idling. They will be producing little or nothing except the slaughter of billions of insects a day.<br />
<br />
So why are they turning? Why have they not been braked?<br />
<br />
Vanity.<br />
<br />
The wind turbine lobby love to pretend that wind turbines are producing energy even in low winds. What they do not tell you is that the amount produced in low wind is so pitifully small it might as well not be generated at all. It is most certainly not worth decimating the worlds insect populations on which the whole eco-structure of the world depends.<br />
<br />
An immediate imperative to mitigate this evolving insect cataclysm is for wind turbines to be <u>stopped </u>when the wind speed is low. This needs to be done <u>NOW</u>.<br />
<br />
Then we really need to take a long hard look at these fashionable yet massively counter-productive and sub-optimal “green” energy mechanisms.<br />
<br />
This insect murdering wind turbine calamity could (and possibly already has) cause irreversible damage to both the larger environment along with agriculture and biodiversity.<br />
<br />
Please read the papers (especially the one by Trieb) They may be dry but they are vital if we are going to recover from this calamity<br />
<br />
On a personal note I would like to say that I don’t scare easily. I generally view end-of-the-world or cataclysmic viewpoints with disdain.<br />
<br />
But I find Trieb's paper alarming. What makes it so alarming is that it is a worthy, peer reviewed and momentous paper. There is no hidden agenda. No half-truths. No obfuscations. In fact I could well imagine that Trieb has taken an enormous amount of flak from vested interests already.<br />
<br />
Yet Treib's paper is not only being ignored it is being stonewalled and denied without any form of valid refutation.<br />
<br />
To use a phase: We need to listen to the science. Then we need to discard the wishful thinking.<br />
<br />
Particularly we urgently need to listen to THIS science and listen to it whether we like it or not. There is no excuse to ignore this.<br />
<br />
In low winds these fatuous fashion statements <u>must</u> be stopped from turning.<br />
<br />
We must stop this evolving insect catastrophe.<br />
<br />
Before it is too late.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
BilloTheWisphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16221663524948086557noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6149751460360426536.post-9423945786275660822020-01-30T10:16:00.000+00:002020-03-02T17:51:27.844+00:00An Inconvenient RuminantThe inconvenient ruminant in question is the North American Bison, colloquially known as an American Buffalo.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhg7ySKCWmseNA72QSQNsTaOox8ecWrXzcAFyYw8cEE73S3H63FjQ_0oBGashdtEnO5l0lRmx6GuKLFI1xoMq29-0WR5zEkU5rFrCeJOsqj9gkwgEbCZn1vslvNh6gqe_4o535GH97uv5k/s1600/640px-American_bison_k5680-1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="417" data-original-width="638" height="209" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhg7ySKCWmseNA72QSQNsTaOox8ecWrXzcAFyYw8cEE73S3H63FjQ_0oBGashdtEnO5l0lRmx6GuKLFI1xoMq29-0WR5zEkU5rFrCeJOsqj9gkwgEbCZn1vslvNh6gqe_4o535GH97uv5k/s320/640px-American_bison_k5680-1.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: 12.8px;">An American Bison [wikipedia: Jack Dykinga]</span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
The American Buffalo is a potent symbol in the USA and Canada. They have been called Buffalos since the very first European settlers arrived in the mid 1600’s and generally that is what they are known as today.<br />
<br />
In fact there are two different subspecies of American Buffalo. The <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plains_bison">Plains Bison</a> and the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wood_bison">Wood Bison</a>. Both are large animals with the Woods Bison being among the biggest of bovine animals in the world and certainly the biggest land animal in the Americas<br />
<br />
The American Bison is undoubtedly a magnificent wild beast. But as a species they presents a bit of a problem for Vegan and other Climate Change fanatics like Extinction Rebellion. These are the people who are seeking to reduce/ban/outlaw meat eating on some half-baked delusion that disavowing meat and substituting (say) Mung beans will save the planet.<br />
<br />
Let me tell you (with help from the history of the American Bison) why they are wrong.<br />
<br />
But first let us just review what exactly the argument against meat production is, and why it is actually deeply flawed even without bringing the American Bison into the argument.<br />
<br />
The general attack on the livestock industry these days centres around Climate Change and a blinkered mindset that somehow has convinced itself that animal husbandry is a "bad thing"<br />
<br />
The main thrust of the Vegan/Extinction Rebellion argument is that domestic ruminants (mainly cattle) emit large quantities of methane. Methane is a known greenhouse warming gas with an immediate impact. Initially this impact is many times the forcing impact of an equivalent amount of Carbon Dioxide.<br />
<br />
So you would think that the more cattle you had then the worse it would be. Over a decadel time-scale (ten years or so) and to an limited extent, that is true.<br />
<br />
But Methane is a volatile gas and quickly breaks down in the atmosphere. It decays away exponentially. Within 18 months of a release half is gone. Within 12 years the amount left is immeasurable.<br />
<br />
So if your ruminant herd size is stable then the warming effect from the methane release from this herd is stable. If you increase the herd size then it is true the methane release increases. But the warming effect from this increase stabilises within ten years. The net result is that for all countries with more or less stable ruminant herd sizes the contribution to global warming is already factored in. Further warming from these stable herds will be nil. Zilch. Nada.<br />
<br />
If you want some proof of this then try this post on the British Veterinary Associations website <a href="http://bit.ly/2ui3mqM">HERE</a>. But better still refer to the actual paper from Oxford University (IPCC researchers none the less) <a href="http://bit.ly/30yToNS">HERE</a>.<br />
<br />
Remember though. We haven’t got to the inconvenient history of the American Bison yet.<br />
<br />
American Bisons come from countries (the USA and Canada) that the average Vegan zealot would regard as the arch-criminals of meat eating Methane production.<br />
<br />
The USA has between 60 and 80 million cattle, all farting and burping (mostly burping) out their Methane like there was no tomorrow. But, as shown by Oxford University, if the herd size is stable, all that warming from Methane is already factored in.<br />
<br />
This is <u>not</u> a gaseous Armageddon in the making. But it gets even more interesting. In fact on an historical timescale there is a reasonable chance that total ruminant emissions, (including the millions of domestic cows) may well be lower now than it was 400 years ago.<br />
<br />
How come? It comes down to a (real) man-made ecological disaster that befel the American Bison in the 19th century.<br />
<br />
American Bisons or Buffaloes (call them what you will) were nearly hunted to extinction from around 1830 through to 1880.<br />
<br />
By 1880 there were less than 1000 American Buffalos left. Luckily, even in those dark days there were people who recognised the importance in preserving these magnificent beasts.<br />
<br />
The American Plains Buffalo was rescued from the brink of extinction. The Woods Buffalo though was feared to be extinct for over 70 years.<br />
<br />
Then by sheer luck a herd of 200 were found in a remote part Northern Alberta in Canada in 1957.<br />
<br />
Today in total there are about 500,000 American Buffalos in existence. Their recovery from the brink of extinction is an epic tale and something we should all be proud of. Just as we should be truly appalled how they got to the point of extinction in the first place.<br />
<br />
So what? You may ask. How does this relate to methane release?<br />
<br />
One simple figure should tip you off.<br />
<br />
Remember those 500,000 American Buffalos that exist today?<br />
<br />
Well, that number is probably less than one per cent of the estimated herd size back in 1700.<br />
<br />
Back in 1700 the American Buffalo herd size has been estimated at being between a low of 30 million and up to 75 million. There is even a possibility it topped 100 million. A total herd population of 60 million seems to be the consensus estimate. The herds of Buffalo once stretched from down in Miami right up to Alaska.<br />
<br />
The net result of the hunting carnage in the 19th century is that today the methane emissions from the domestic American cattle herd is largely offset and maybe completely offset by that from the slaughtered (and now missing) 60 million American Bison.<br />
<br />
So cattle ranching in the USA and Canada has in reality only brought ruminant methane release back up to around that in pre-settlement days.<br />
<br />
Nobody suggests that the wanton slaughter of 60 million American Bison in the 19th century was a “good thing”. Far from it.<br />
<br />
But it does mean that today the scare stories surrounding methane release from domestic cattle in the USA and Canada are at best over-blown.<br />
<br />
At worst they are a myth.<br />
------<br />
<i>Notes:</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>There is quite a good Wikipedia piece on the American Bison <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_bison">HERE</a></i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>More information on methane release by Bison and other wild ruminants can be found in <a href="https://hoards.com/blog-3165-wild-ruminants-burp-methane-too.html">This Article</a></i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>What looks like an interesting book (only skimmed it so far) from the 1890’s titled:</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<b><i>The Extermination of the American Bison </i></b><br />
<i>by <b>William T. Hornaday</b></i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>Hornaday was the Superintendent of the U.S. National Zoological Park. It looks like he was one of the heroes who saved the day as far as the American Bison was concerned.</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>His book is available for free from the Gutenberg project on <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/17748/17748-h/17748-h.htm">THIS LINK</a>.</i><br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<br />BilloTheWisphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16221663524948086557noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6149751460360426536.post-29613557494888300632020-01-09T16:15:00.000+00:002020-01-09T16:15:28.024+00:00Domestic Electricity Prices & Wind Turbine SubsidiesNearly nine years ago I wrote a blog post analysing the consumer electricity price differences between European countries. This was based on the table below which came from <a href="http://www.energy.eu/">THIS SITE</a>.<br />
<br />
The original post is <a href="http://billothewisp.blogspot.com/2011/06/european-electricity-prices-compared.html">HERE</a>.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiwS9Xciy_RfQPz0QWmiRDctY0NnGu4xQuUCaZYWKZPRg7t_Y5NNV7JJrZzw96M34HnOu10kkAGH-T-EJtIBottYDY0CSm5VdUSAVlJCnAOP8NIaEAW9FZ-nzBNlxeHZF7NOLUlbMm7OGg/s1600/EuroEnergyPrices-2011.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="644" data-original-width="724" height="284" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiwS9Xciy_RfQPz0QWmiRDctY0NnGu4xQuUCaZYWKZPRg7t_Y5NNV7JJrZzw96M34HnOu10kkAGH-T-EJtIBottYDY0CSm5VdUSAVlJCnAOP8NIaEAW9FZ-nzBNlxeHZF7NOLUlbMm7OGg/s320/EuroEnergyPrices-2011.png" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">European Electricity Prices in 2011</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
The data was sobering. Especially with how the price appeared to track the level of installed wind power within the country.<br />
<br />
I intended to update this on a regular basis but for some reason the website stopped making the data available. Eventually I gave up trying and forgot about it.<br />
<br />
By chance (as it is the year end) I was looking at the stats for this blog. I noticed that the old post on European electricity prices (now nearly nine years old) was still getting a fair amount of traffic.<br />
<br />
So yesterday I went back onto the <a href="https://www.energy.eu/electricity_natural-gas_prices_european_union/">The European Energy Portal</a> just in case they had any links to up-to-date data. The good news is that they have restarted providing the data. So now I can at least (after a delay of eight and a half years) update the original.<br />
<br />
The readings today, after nearly nine years of rampant and virtually unconstrained development of industrial wind turbines and other RE make for even more sober analysis than before.<br />
<br />
Here’s the new table of European electricity prices.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh4vbeWqxtZUic8hX6wfcWYvRCk-FeikGLJxea9zriK3MZxYdUz8lFsZmGgb9X5UW3kAMJc7Ldvu-nw091ko9n9JNVQthl1p3ZPcTcXoh_G1jplaqP_V0dHCp4N2I7aeDaZWf35RzaexUE/s1600/eu-energy-prices-2019.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="886" data-original-width="610" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh4vbeWqxtZUic8hX6wfcWYvRCk-FeikGLJxea9zriK3MZxYdUz8lFsZmGgb9X5UW3kAMJc7Ldvu-nw091ko9n9JNVQthl1p3ZPcTcXoh_G1jplaqP_V0dHCp4N2I7aeDaZWf35RzaexUE/s400/eu-energy-prices-2019.png" width="275" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">European Electricity Prices 2019</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<br />
You will notice that the relative price between countries is virtually unchanged. Denmark still hosts the most expensive household electricity. Germany is again a close second. Sweden is today marginally cheaper than France but both have undergone significant price increases. Especially France which has politically disavowed its clean cheap and effective nuclear power in favour of yet more wind turbines.<br />
<br />
Bulgaria still has the cheapest electricity in Europe with a virtually unchanged price. Interestingly Austria has also maintained its 2011 price.<br />
<br />
Many European countries though have suffered large real-value increases in the price of their electricity. Often well above inflation.<br />
<br />
The UK is a case in point. The is a period of eight years between the original post and the updated table. The price (in Euros) over this time went up from 15c to over 22c. That’s a rise of over 7c or a rise of about 50% unadjusted for inflation.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.in2013dollars.com/uk/inflation/2011?endYear=2019&amount=1">FROM HERE</a> price inflation in the UK since 2011 to 2019 was 21%. So the rise in electricity prices in the UK over this eight year period has on average been at more than double the annual rate of inflation.<br />
<br />
So why is this?<br />
<br />
Maybe gas prices have gone up? (gas accounts for about one half of UK electricity generation)<br />
<br />
No.<br />
<br />
The gas spot price is actually cheaper today than it was in 2011, and by a considerable margin.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhfUn9BgtE8OgcU_PIK9LhS4akXG5Mu9qnRMmpE_fQOejK2GFdcjZFrQMdYxOvLiYFA_TGuXtErzu_4mZ5mMRQSOB5xDzusxMjnY5PbgRHhm_Nr4OkGpsBBAUS13VrcfCv6xh4WZ6H72oQ/s1600/gas-price.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1000" data-original-width="1200" height="332" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhfUn9BgtE8OgcU_PIK9LhS4akXG5Mu9qnRMmpE_fQOejK2GFdcjZFrQMdYxOvLiYFA_TGuXtErzu_4mZ5mMRQSOB5xDzusxMjnY5PbgRHhm_Nr4OkGpsBBAUS13VrcfCv6xh4WZ6H72oQ/s400/gas-price.png" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
Is nuclear adding to the cost?<br />
<br />
No.<br />
<br />
In fact what nuclear there is left is now more efficient and cost effective than ever. Today nuclear power offers the cheapest electricity on the UK market.<br />
<br />
Coal as a major UK electricity generating fuel is no more. It is a bit part player. Besides, the coal price (like the gas price) is considerably lower today than in 2011.<br />
<br />
But there is a large new added cost since 2011 and that cost is associated with Renewable Energy.<br />
<br />
There’s been lots of smoke and mirrors about how “cheap” wind power and solar have become but you only have to dig a little way into data to show the truth.<br />
<br />
As the years have gone on the amount of subsidy to wind turbines you provide from your electricity bill has steadily gone up.<br />
<br />
It is the old “boiling frog” approach to implementing a considerable price hike over time.<br />
<br />
Disguised by the natural fluctuation of the market due to fuel price changes the price of electricity has been slowly and carefully ratcheted up over many years.<br />
<br />
Today for every five pounds you spend on your consumer electricity bill, one pound is allocated to what is known as “Environmental and social costs”.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjLtUYE87L1e2kr2gmITrALoLAkTEz6xdzUKlEIzMSX85JR3TCayXFEzgnW7rh95XpjUEio87enZ1OuVuTm3KDj9fq9F3kPohC7EQ8QuwcuwoBQ9o7wNj03gfI7S-UD_-rBwkeWGq-gOa0/s1600/elect-cost-breakdown-2.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="699" data-original-width="1222" height="228" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjLtUYE87L1e2kr2gmITrALoLAkTEz6xdzUKlEIzMSX85JR3TCayXFEzgnW7rh95XpjUEio87enZ1OuVuTm3KDj9fq9F3kPohC7EQ8QuwcuwoBQ9o7wNj03gfI7S-UD_-rBwkeWGq-gOa0/s400/elect-cost-breakdown-2.png" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<br />
<br />
According to OfGem:<br />
<i>[quote]</i><br />
<i>These are the costs of government programmes to save energy, reduce emissions and encourage take up of renewable energy. </i><br />
<i>[unquote]</i><br />
<br />
Of that 20%, the Lions share is used provide subsidy payments to Wind turbine operators and and solar PV owners. Mostly it goes on wind turbines.<br />
<br />
The vast majority of these subsidy payments are made through what are known as ROC certificates. This is a subsidy scheme that is now obsolete but will still impact your bill for the next 20 or so years.<br />
<br />
The RO scheme has been replaced by an even more duplicitous (and still lucrative) scheme called Contracts for Difference. But as of today ROC payments form the majority of wind turbine subsidy.<br />
<br />
In other words the majority of the 20% added to your bill as “Environmental and Social Costs” is the amount you pay to subsidise wind turbines and to a lesser extent solar PV.<br />
<br />
Paltry amounts out of this 20% go to improving home insulation or to providing remote locations with electricity.<br />
<br />
So, you may be surprised to find that your annual electricity bill shows far less of an increase than this boiling frog price hike suggests.<br />
<br />
This is because people now use less electricity than in 2011.<br />
<br />
Why?<br />
<br />
Because today we have more efficient appliances, particularly electric light bulbs, but white goods are much better too.<br />
<br />
So just think:<br />
<br />
All that money you spent on LED bulbs and eco-friendly washing machines has been used not to reduce your electricity bill, but to line the pockets of the big companies running wind turbines. <br />
<br />
And it will continue to be used in the same way for the foreseeable future.<br />
<br />
Today for every MWh of electricity produced the generating company must provide 0.484 ROC certificates. The value of a ROC certificate in 2020 has been set at £48.78 per ROC. This cost is passed directly through to the customer.<br />
<br />
A typical consumer uses 3.7MWh electricity per year. Maybe you use more. Maybe less.<br />
<br />
So work it out yourself how much you are subsidising wind turbines by.<br />
<br />
I don’t think you will be amused.<br />
<br />BilloTheWisphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16221663524948086557noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6149751460360426536.post-80289316439065880602019-12-31T10:06:00.000+00:002019-12-31T10:06:50.024+00:002020 - The World just Gets Better! (So Suck it up Doomsters)Tired of watching petulant children mouthing dogma to odious supine politicians?<br />
<br />
Bored by ridiculous attention-seeking teenagers blubbering on about how somebody <i>“stole their future”</i>?<br />
<br />
Do you get sickened by watching loathsome sociopaths as they lie and connive to trick naive youngsters into following their death cult?<br />
<br />
Well, lighten up peeps! None of that crap is going on here!<br />
<br />
This post is in fact a small antidote. It is in essence two fingers (one if your are American) waved at the fear-mongers and cult builders.<br />
<br />
More to the point it is also built on the thing cultists and fear-mongers hate the most: Facts.<br />
<br />
This post is about (you guessed it!) how things are getting better.<br />
<br />
And Better.<br />
<br />
AND BETTER!<br />
<br />
And by better I don’t just mean the extra five cans of beer I found in the back of the cupboard yesterday.<br />
<br />
I mean r-e-a-l-l-y better.<br />
<br />
Better in how far fewer people are dying from extreme weather events. <br />
<br />
Better in how far fewer people are living in dirt poverty. <br />
<br />
Or even how people are simply not dying! <i>(Well, OK. Everyone dies. Its just now they die age 70 not 35.)</i><br />
<br />
<b>So suck it up doomsters.</b><br />
<br />
Whimper your way through the following examples. Wring your grubby little hands. Have a little tantrum like a two year in a supermarket. Bleat and moan like the sheep you are.<br />
<br />
Your fetid, rancid scare-mongering will not hold. The only person who deserves to suffer from your self indulgent paranoia is yourself.<br />
<br />
The world gets relentlessly better. The new year is unlikely to break the trend.<br />
<br />
This is just a small selection of global improvements. Try reading <a href="https://amzn.to/37hGCWd">Factfulness</a> by the late great Hans Rosling if you fancy some more.<br />
<br />
<h3>
Extreme Weather Events</h3>
Do some people die from extreme weather events?<br />
Sadly yes. <br />
<br />
Are more people dying from extreme weather events? <br />
No. <br />
<br />
In fact the number of people losing their lives from extreme weather events is now lower than at any time in the last 100 years.<br />
<br />
That somewhat ruins the hysterical rhetoric we get pummelled with on a daily basis doesn't it?<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh77nVZdwaFEP5J0PEXDkftKo3wTeUXHt4ZqW8bwSwSGwd79QlVqKF1lMMOToItHrQMH_1ey2rtVd4HBrIOhq20mWaaJtaSM5XMd5IMKPPfqELlOWYnszDE3mowROcv6CH27IRvg4b8NSc/s1600/climate-related-deaths.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1489" data-original-width="1600" height="371" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh77nVZdwaFEP5J0PEXDkftKo3wTeUXHt4ZqW8bwSwSGwd79QlVqKF1lMMOToItHrQMH_1ey2rtVd4HBrIOhq20mWaaJtaSM5XMd5IMKPPfqELlOWYnszDE3mowROcv6CH27IRvg4b8NSc/s400/climate-related-deaths.jpeg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<h3>
Poverty</h3>
Want to know how mass starvation and poverty is doing on a global scale?<br />
<br />
Lets look at the number of people surviving on two dollars a day or less. <br />
<br />
These poor souls sleep on dirt floors. They are illiterate. They die from ridiculous diseases like measles and flu. They are usually malnourished. Their lives are short, dull and brutal.<br />
<br />
Because they are poor they have large families in the hope that one or two of their children might survive to their teens. By the way, don’t forget. This is how the sociopaths and their cults want it to stay.<br />
<br />
If we carry on as we are then we are we can eliminate this desperate poverty in thirty years.<br />
<br />
<i>But only if we carry on as we are. </i><br />
<br />
We must lock out the psycho cult leaders and their gullible soldiers who seek to derail global progress.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgDXAQVAlpCBN7iPXESjkkPTsLI6tDDo3Lf5_rkDhFmRdsvrGFn11Sqgpsu9zoKg_fcvAu3qBmX8clZZ96g1gQ3uVoAfUvZVERuC11_JsysWNG3l77Vtk8b4Ck_McUWvWU3Bim_VlTyTmg/s1600/global-poverty-headcount.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1200" data-original-width="1154" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgDXAQVAlpCBN7iPXESjkkPTsLI6tDDo3Lf5_rkDhFmRdsvrGFn11Sqgpsu9zoKg_fcvAu3qBmX8clZZ96g1gQ3uVoAfUvZVERuC11_JsysWNG3l77Vtk8b4Ck_McUWvWU3Bim_VlTyTmg/s400/global-poverty-headcount.png" width="383" /></a></div>
<h3>
Average Life Expectancy</h3>
<br />
Finally lets look at worldwide average life expectancy. Currently it stands at 72 . <i>(Yes 72. That is not a misprint)</i><br />
<br />
While the sociopaths witter on about how too many children are being born, the main growth in the worlds population is fuelled by people living longer. In other words people are having better lives.<br />
<br />
Further population increase is NOT caused by an increase in births. The number of individuals between the ages of 0 to 15 has has remained roughly constant now for almost twenty years!<br />
<br />
Yes. The worlds population is growing. It will peak at about 11 Billion in 60 years. So we know where we stand! We can plan ahead.<br />
<br />
Stupid tearful teenagers mouthing the false dogma of their cult masters about population runaway and mass starvation should be treated like any other stupid and ill-informed teenager. They need correction. Even if they suffer cognitive dissonance on having their black nightmares thwarted.<br />
<br />
Hopefully one day, they will escape the malign influence of their cult and gain a little more life experience. Then perhaps their world view will be more rational.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgIuWFWLyycZIXg1XHg7ktyxfB1LQN35zWu1gVAPA3pzZQbM7EmQXoSgN1CD50fTMnY38mGEd4bT0huzMw6iBK-u3DRBFV5_DXuU2t23lXZKvSdomjtz8V8TWBqbDjYzGSYShqxSg2opTE/s1600/life-expenctancy-gapminder.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="602" data-original-width="1024" height="235" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgIuWFWLyycZIXg1XHg7ktyxfB1LQN35zWu1gVAPA3pzZQbM7EmQXoSgN1CD50fTMnY38mGEd4bT0huzMw6iBK-u3DRBFV5_DXuU2t23lXZKvSdomjtz8V8TWBqbDjYzGSYShqxSg2opTE/s400/life-expenctancy-gapminder.png" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
So, things are looking good.<br />
<br />
Very good in fact.<br />
<br />
But there are clouds on the horizon. Yet those clouds are only a threat if we decide to steer towards them.<br />
<br />
We have to address the pathetic politically motivated nonsense being spewed out to service hidden agendas. Like all propaganda the nonsense is wrapped in morsels of truth. Usually to make it more scary. <br />
<br />
Top of the list within these morsels of truth is Global Warming. Or Climate Change. Or the Climate Emergency. Or Climate Chaos. Or Climate Crisis. Or whatever else it gets morphed to to enhance its ability to scare gullible children. <br />
<br />
Yes! The planet is warming. One of the aspects of this warming is sea level rise. Today the cultists and their sycophants are using future sea level rise as a primary weapon in their quest to spread fear and turn back global progress.<br />
<br />
But sea level rise does NOT mean humanity is doomed anymore than a rising world population means humanity is doomed. Unless that is you are an avid follower of one of the nutcases running a cult scam like Extinction Rebellion.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj1ZbF4C8raj6CnLkZXikXs2qLY65YGcc-f9cVy3VJKWtSx6GT4TWY20rmq7yevw7_G1xOx57kxp5j8rbDEwHKMK3up_BiLqhC9YcJea89GdrketxtEAIgybEAQUgwr_upo3DNd0tWmIJo/s1600/NASA-Satellite-sea-level-rise-observations-1993-Nov-2018.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="533" data-original-width="863" height="246" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj1ZbF4C8raj6CnLkZXikXs2qLY65YGcc-f9cVy3VJKWtSx6GT4TWY20rmq7yevw7_G1xOx57kxp5j8rbDEwHKMK3up_BiLqhC9YcJea89GdrketxtEAIgybEAQUgwr_upo3DNd0tWmIJo/s400/NASA-Satellite-sea-level-rise-observations-1993-Nov-2018.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
So is this sea level rise because of human Carbon Dioxide emissions? Well, probably some of it is.<br />
<br />
But so what? <br />
<br />
Let’s make the unlikely assumption that ALL of the global warming from the last 150 years has been caused solely by human emissions.<br />
<br />
Would you throw away the last 150 years of progress in order to prevent the global warming that has occurred in that period? <br />
<br />
Would you rather leave billions living (and dying) in dirt poverty?<br />
<br />
Would you throw away all the progress in medicine, science and engineering?<br />
<br />
Would you rather have it that almost the whole of humanity was dirt poor rather than today where most of humanity is NOT dirt poor?<br />
<br />
Take the average Bangladeshi. The population of Bangladesh has risen four-fold since 1950. Their life span is now about 70. In the 1950’s it was 35. The average Bangladeshi family have 2.4 children whereas forty years ago it was six.<br />
<br />
Today Bangladesh feeds itself. Bangladesh does not suffer the crippling famines of the past. Neither does it succumb to dreadful and easily prevented epidemics.<br />
<br />
Bangladesh is healthier, richer, and better educated than it has ever been before. It's population is stabilising. Child mortality is at an all time low.<br />
<br />
All that because Bangladesh has embraced modern science, medicine and engineering and rejected Luddite paranoia, superstition and fear.<br />
<br />
Meanwhile, since 1950 the world sea level has risen about 17cms. (7 inches)<br />
<br />
Go and ask the average Bangladeshi what he/she would regard as more important aspect of the last 70 years in Bangladesh.<br />
<br />
Was it sea level rise?<br />
Or was it the improvement of the human condition?<br />
<br />
We can continue to improve things and adapt to change. Or we can throw it away.<br />
<br />
We can indulge in a panic laced pursuit of a dark self fulfilling prophesy. Or we can continue on a path that is driven by cheap plentiful energy and has been shown to improve humanity worldwide.<br />
<br />
Sure. Let’s address Global Warming. As well as other problems like pollution. But let us do it rationally.<br />
<br />
Let’s ensure its done to enhance humanity. <br />
<br />
Not to diminish it. <br />
<br />BilloTheWisphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16221663524948086557noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6149751460360426536.post-78882295613370920472019-12-21T18:15:00.001+00:002019-12-21T21:51:09.873+00:00Prostitution, Lynyrd Skynryd and Santa<style type="text/css">
@page { margin: 2cm }
p { margin-bottom: 0.25cm; line-height: 120% }
</style> <br />
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">So you thought you’d get away with parking your arse in front of the TV while drinking Baileys out of a pint mug over Christmas did you?<br />
<br />
Well I have some news for you Sunshine. And that news involves reading and listening. Here’s a selection of stuff that needs your serious attention over the Christmas.<br />
<br />
It includes a short list of books that’ll get your brain-cells rattling over the Christmas break. Most are available in some form of electronic format as well as standard regurgitated dead tree format. They range in price from nothing to about a tenner.<br />
<br />
All of these these books had a dramatic affect on my perception of what was really going on in the world. So be warned you may (like me) experience Cognitive Dissonance. (Don’t know what Cognitive Dissonance is? There’s a book on that below too!)<br />
<br />
For the ultra lazy (yes I know – that’s most of you) there’s also a couple of really fantastic YouTube Ted Talk videos too. And to cap it all 25 minutes of the live version of Rattlesnake Shake by Peter Greens Fleetwood Mac rounded off by another great Youtube video with Lynyrd Skynryd and Free Bird from 1977.<br />
<br />
Make sure you crank the volume up for Rattlesnake Shake and Free Bird. It is <b>illegal</b> to listen to them quietly.<br />
<br />
Merry Xmas.<br />
Love and Kisses.<br />
<i><b>Billothewisp.</b></i><br />
<br />
<h3>Books that Need Reading</h3><br />
<a href="https://amzn.to/391YMNp">Factfulness</a><br />
<br />
YOU MUST READ THIS BOOK. No ifs. No buts. No excuses. If you want to know exactly why the liars and cheats who keep telling us that we are all about to die are wrong - this is it. <br />
<br />
A book that will not only enlighten you to what is really going on in the world but will provide you with suitable ammunition to shoot down the doom-sters when they witter on about how Armagedon is just round the corner.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://amzn.to/34NIfcy">Sustainable Energy without the Hot Air</a><br />
<br />
The loss of Dr David MacKay was a body blow to the world. But his legacy of "Sustainable Energy without the Hot Air" lives on. Depending on what format you want the price ranges from absolutely nothing to about a fifteen quid. Even if you cant read it right now why not download a free copy for future reference? The free pdf version is <a href="https://www.withouthotair.com/download.html">HERE</a><br />
<br />
<a href="https://amzn.to/2PLJbtH">Freakanomics</a><br />
<br />
Oh My God! This book just blew me away. Its nearly fifteen years old now but it is guaranteed to challenge your pre-conceptions on a range of issues. You know - when did you ever consider the following:<br />
<br />
<b><i>"Why do Drug Dealers still live with their Mums?"</i></b><br />
Or<br />
<b><i>"Where have all the Criminals gone?".</i></b><br />
<br />
<a href="https://amzn.to/36VoQYL">Super Freakanomics.</a><br />
<br />
As for Freakanomics - just more-so.<br />
Like:<br />
<br />
<b><i>“How is a Prostitute like a Dept Store Santa?</i></b><br />
And:<br />
<b><i>"Why should suicide bombers buy life insurance?"</i></b><br />
<br />
<a href="https://amzn.to/2sSHIsw">Separate Ways</a><br />
<br />
I didn’t read this until twelve years ago. It changed the way I looked at the EU. Admittedly I was getting a little twitchy about the railroading of the Treaty of Lisbon through Parliament even then, but I was to all intents and purposes a EU-Phile, a Remainer (Ugh! - there I’ve said it).<br />
<br />
This book, written by the late Peter Shore changed my opinion. It's now only available second hand and is currently eye-wateringly expensive. But cheap copies do come up for a couple of quid now and again..<br />
<br />
<a href="https://amzn.to/2EGhRXt">How to have Impossible Conversations</a><br />
<br />
I’m only half way through this but it is changing the way I address discussions with people with differing views. It come recommended by a star list of ultra bright and argumentative bastards like Richard Dawkins, Michael Shermer and Marc Andreessen<br />
<br />
It is really enlightening. If you want to win people over rather than just win the argument this is the book to read. It a book about how to make converts not just beat your enemies.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://amzn.to/38VSEX7">When Prophesy Fails</a>.<br />
<br />
So what does Cognitive Dissonance mean and why is it important. Here is Lean Festingers masterpiece from the 1950’s where he followed a Flying Saucer cult to find out what would happen when their prophesy of Global Catastrophe failed to materialise.<br />
<br />
Read this and you will understand why the UK Labour party is lurching further left after taking the recent election beating. You'll see why Al Gores failed prophesy that the North Pole would be ice free by 2012 simply made cults like Extinction Rebellion double down on their doomstering.<br />
<br />
<h3><b><u>YouTube Videos that must be seen</u></b></h3><br />
<h4>Don't Panic!</h4>This is so good! It is an entertaining ride through the basics of the book "Factfulness". It is funny informative and downright ideal for watching on Christmas afternoon after having a few noggins. Just Watch it!<br />
<br />
<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/FACK2knC08E" width="560"></iframe><br />
<br />
<br />
<h4>The Mysterious Workings of the Adolescent Brain.</h4>Reaching your wits end? Teenager children driving your mad? Here's why.<br />
<br />
<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/6oKsikHollM" width="560"></iframe><br />
<br />
<br />
<h3>Music to Die For</h3><br />
<h4>RattleSnake Shake.</h4><br />
Recorded nearly 50 years ago this is the live version of "RattleSnake Shake" by Fleetwood Mac.<br />
<br />
BE WARNED:<br />
This is NOT the Fleetwood Mac of West Coast music post 1974. This is the Fleetwood Mac of Peter Green (known to Guitar affectionados as the "the Green God").<br />
<br />
It's raw.<br />
Bloody even.<br />
<br />
If this does not make your hair stand on end then you are already dead.<br />
<br />
Sadly it's music only - no video but it'll still wring you out like an old dishcloth.<br />
<br />
<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/LFu3cBNhV60" width="560"></iframe><br />
<br />
<br />
<h4>Free Bird</h4>Lynyrd Skynryd live in 1977. Savor the atmosphere and the sheer power of this rendition. Then marvel at the rows of pretty girls (who are all now in their late 50s early 60's).<br />
<br />
Utterly and completely magnificent.<br />
<br />
<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/QxIWDmmqZzY" width="560"></iframe><br />
<br />
Merry Christmas.</div>BilloTheWisphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16221663524948086557noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6149751460360426536.post-18392426676796934052019-12-16T13:02:00.000+00:002019-12-16T13:02:14.904+00:00Homage to the Mighty RedcarIf anywhere in the UK had just reason to grasp at Corbyn’s cynical fantasies in the 2019 General Election it is Redcar.<br />
<br />
Redcar is a steel town in the North East of the UK. To say it has been treated shabbily for the last thirty years by successive governments would be the understatement of the century.<br />
<br />
Even so, as the magic grandpa found out, the good people of the North East don’t do fairy tales. A set of bribes presented like a stream of cuddly toys on a Generation game conveyor belt did not impress them.<br />
<br />
Redcar has had a lot to put up with. Taken for granted by the Labour party and ignored by the Tories it was in many ways politically abandoned and forgotten.<br />
<br />
The most crushing abandonment came in 2015. The steel works bereft of any government support, and owned by a foreign steel maker was closed.<br />
<br />
Why was there no government support?<br />
<br />
The EU rules on state aid prevented it. Which was “convenient” as the government was less than keen anyway.<br />
<br />
Even then, it is highly likely that the foreign owner (SSI Steel) had only bought the plant in 2011 to close it down.<br />
<br />
Competitors rarely buy plant to run it in competition to themselves. They buy it to first asset strip it then close it. They eliminate a competitor and steal the competitors order book and intellectual property to boot.<br />
<br />
For the buyer it is a win-win. Everybody else loses.<br />
<br />
Just look at the Kraft takeover of Cadburys, or the BMW takeover of Rover Group if you don’t believe me.<br />
<br />
Abandoned by the Tories, ignored by the EU and despised by Labour the good people of Redcar took their revenge in 2016 and voted 70/30 to leave the EU. The shock still resonates through the metropolitan elite to this day.<br />
<br />
Then after three years of obfuscation, sabotage and down-right betrayal the anti-brexit parliamentarian elite were forced (against their will) to confront the electorate.<br />
<br />
The Redcar electorate put their country first. They voted out the EU appeasing Labour MP and replaced her with a new face. An MP that has said he will put Brexit first and Redcar too.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgimwUjGIW3HE-Qk_TGSoKL6-xddz1QkvvWi7A1undr49aLWDY70bB8aSoMwFoYOgw2ugpvujLikBr9dm9tWbpUMOMevz02tGUiMbhW3hdsMAX7Zx0QWYRcSZ_jRWns37YZwKC5CnztBWA/s1600/jacob-young.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1431" data-original-width="1440" height="317" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgimwUjGIW3HE-Qk_TGSoKL6-xddz1QkvvWi7A1undr49aLWDY70bB8aSoMwFoYOgw2ugpvujLikBr9dm9tWbpUMOMevz02tGUiMbhW3hdsMAX7Zx0QWYRcSZ_jRWns37YZwKC5CnztBWA/s320/jacob-young.jpeg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: 12.8px;">Jacob Young the new Tory MP. <br />A man who needs to show he means business in supporting Redcar.</span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<br />
The people of Redcar have placed their trust in Jacob Young ….. and also in Boris Johnson.<br />
<br />
They wait patiently for that trust to be honoured and repaid.<br />
<br />
In my humble opinion they deserve to reap the rewards of putting democracy above petty personal interest.<br />
<br />
So what should the Tories and Jacob Young do now?<br />
<br />
Here’s an idea.<br />
<br />
The steel plant was mothballed four years ago. Whether it's production capability is still viable I do not know, but lets assume it, or part of it, is still viable.<br />
<br />
Imagine the symbolic significance to the people of Redcar (and the rest of the country too), if on the 1st February (after we have left the EU) Boris Johnson stated his intention to rebuild the steel making capabilities of Redcar.<br />
<br />
The people of Redcar deserve more than just a few quid spent on random infrastructure. They deserve to have their industry restored.<br />
<br />
A modest investment of a few hundred million quid would not only re-invigorate UK heavy engineering in the North East but would signal an intention that the UK would no longer allow foreign governments or foreign industries to dictate how our people are treated.<br />
<br />
The people of Redcar deserve better. In fact they deserve more than better.<br />
<br />
Because of them we have our country back.<br />
<br />
Now they deserve their steelworks back too.<br />
<br />BilloTheWisphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16221663524948086557noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6149751460360426536.post-54992782083546933532019-12-02T11:13:00.001+00:002019-12-02T11:13:33.875+00:00Why Vote in a Safe Seat?Let’s say you are in a constituency where the sitting MP has a humongous majority. Maybe a majority that is far, far bigger than all the votes for all of the other candidates combined. Like (say) <a href="https://billothewisp.blogspot.com/2019/11/the-sdp-2019-tottenham.html">Tottenham</a>.<br />
<br />
You have to ask yourself: What is the point in voting?<br />
<br />
If you vote for the sitting MP your extra vote when added to the mountain they already have will make no difference. If you vote for any of the other candidates, you stand no chance whatsoever of changing the MP.<br />
<br />
Even in a marginal seat a General Election constituency contest has only once been decided by a majority of one and that was back in 1910. As for a draw that has also only ever happened once, back in 1886.<br />
<br />
The net result is is that on a personal level the physical and financial gain from participating in a vote, especially in a safe seat, is nil.<br />
<br />
On this we have to hang the question: On an individual basis, what IS the point of voting?<br />
<br />
The inescapable answer is that on a purely individualistic and selfish basis there is no point whatsoever.<br />
<br />
But voting is not about the individual. Voting is above all else an altruistic act. It is selfless. It has no tangible reward. It results in a group decision where the wisdom of crowds prevails.<br />
<br />
<i>(which leads me into a book recommendation – a must read – <a href="https://amzn.to/2P1Sy72">"The Wisdom of Crowds" by James Surowiecki</a>)</i><br />
<br />
Even so, walking half a mile on a cold and rainy day to vote in an election where the outcome in your constituency is a forgone conclusion does test that altruism somewhat.<br />
<br />
There is though a singular advantage in voting in a safe seat constituency. Especially if you are a little disillusioned with either the sitting MP or the main ( but distant) contenders.<br />
<br />
You can safely experiment.<br />
<br />
You can vote for someone else. You can vote for somebody or some party that takes your fancy. They don’t even have to have a fully formed policy base.<br />
<br />
If it tickled you fancy you could vote for the <a href="https://www.omrlp.com/">Monster Raving Loony Party</a> without consequence.<br />
<br />
But rather than the Monster Raving Loony Party (who I am sure have a set of policies almost as good as any of the main partys anyway), why not use your vote to support a smaller party?<br />
<br />
Why not vote for a party that is possibly struggling to get some notice?<br />
<br />
Or maybe you would like to lend your support to a party that will achieve considerable electoral support across the country, but will, thanks to the inequities of out voting system gain no seats.<br />
<br />
In either of these cases your vote does have some tangible effect.<br />
<br />
For a small party like (say) the <a href="https://sdp.org.uk/">SDP</a> it can provide vital visibility. With enough votes, even though they stand no hope of winning the seat, they’ll gain vital exposure. It may well stop them being quite so ignored by the media. Maybe they’ll start cropping up on the MSM Radar more often. This could give them vital publicity to fight future more winnable elections either locally or nationally.<br />
<br />
For a larger party like (say) the <a href="https://www.thebrexitparty.org/">Brexit Party</a> a vote for them in an unwinnable seat is a vote of support. A vote that will be tallied up nationally. It will show with the millions of others across the country the inequities and plain damn unfairness of our electoral system.<br />
<br />
So, as long as you regard altruism as a virtuous ideal, a vote in a safe seat is not a wasted vote.<br />
<br />
You can, if you like, add it to the mountain for the current MP. Or vote for one of the traditional partys.<br />
<br />
Or you can be adventurous.<br />
<br />
Even a vote for the Monster Raving Loony Party is better than no vote at all!<br />
<br />
<br />BilloTheWisphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16221663524948086557noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6149751460360426536.post-36831602231428670202019-11-25T18:03:00.000+00:002019-11-25T18:03:47.211+00:00The SDP: 2019 Thirsk and MaltonTime for another amateur analysis of one of the seats being contested by the SDP in the forthcoming General Election. Here is a look at a Conservative safe seat that is being contested by a brave SDP candidate by the name of Michael Taylor.<br />
<br />
Thirsk & Malton is a Tory stronghold in North Yorkshire. In the last election they took 60% of the vote. In the EU referendum the constituency voted 56% to leave the EU. This constituency will not change hands in December 2019.<br />
<br />
Interestingly Mike Taylor (SDP) is the only candidate that has supported Brexit from the outset. The sitting MP (Kevin Hollinrake) was (in 2016) a supporter of Remain. Today it looks like Kevin Hollinrake is really a somewhat reluctant Brexiteer. <br />
<br />
I would suggest Kevin Hollinrake supports Johnson out of party loyalty rather than due to any “road to Damascus” conversion. In fact he voiced opposition to Johnsons “do or die” ideal of leaving the EU on October 31st.<br />
<br />
I would suggest that the sitting MP is in all intents and purposes still a Remainer at heart. I would suspect that although he may tow the party line after the election, he will potentially be a thorn in the side of those negotiating the future Trading relationship with the EU.<br />
<br />
There is no UKIP or Brexit Party Candidate. The rump 2017 UKIP vote (1500 voters) has to be looking for a home. They did not go to the Conservatives or Labour in 2017 so where else is there for them to go in 2019 other than to a true Brexit supporting party like the SDP?<br />
<br />
In 2015 the UKIP vote was almost as big as Labour's. In 2015 UKIP took just under 8000 votes. It looks like between 2015 and 2017 the UKIP vote shed 2000 voters to Labour and 4500 to the Conservatives.<br />
<br />
So there should be a considerable number of discontented Leave voting Labour supporters who have given up on Corbyn’s debacle of a Brexit policy. They may well be looking for a new home, especially for one with strong traditional Labour roots.<br />
<br />
It could well be that these leave voters just won’t vote Tory ever. Especially for one who was a Remainer. So this may well be fertile territory.<br />
<br />
As for the disgruntled leavers in that mountain of Conservative voters, there is the opportunity to tweak the sitting MPs tail by voting for the SDP. There is no chance of letting in Labour (or anyone else) by the back door. A protest vote to support a real Brexiteer may well just make their day.<br />
<br />
So lets say the whole of the ex-UKIP vote and perhaps another 2000 voters apiece from both the Conservative and Labour partys are volatile. They will consider voting for a true Brexiteer in the election. That is 12,000 volatile voters.<br />
<br />
Resources are of course limited. But with a bit of luck and fortuitous canvassing then maybe 1000 can be pulled into the SDP camp which would be brilliant. But a vote in the few hundreds would still be a publicity victory.<br />
<br />
So here are my crap ideas on what to promote to entice voters to vote SDP.<br />
<br />
They are probably rubbish but maybe one or two will hit the spot.<br />
<ol>
<li>It is a armour plated safe Tory seat. Emphasise to the electorate that there is no chance for another party to win in this seat other than the Tories. Whatever you vote and whether you like it or not, the MP is secure.</li>
<li>Your vote still matters. It will not change the MP but it will potentially set the trend for the future. It allows you to register support for leaving the EU without voting Tory. It will make the Tory MP just that little bit less complacent.</li>
<li>Big up the democracy aspect. Why not show support for an honest but small party? Your vote will not change the MP! Neither will it imperil Brexit. But it may have a big effect on the way others view the issues you are concerned with.</li>
<li>Attack Labour on their hideous record on bigotry and antisemitism. The MP cannot be changed by voting Labour. So wouldn’t it be worthwhile registering your disapproval of this antisemitic ugliness by voting SDP and depriving Labour of your vote?</li>
<li>You won’t change the MP whatever you vote but you can register your displeasure with the Metropolitan elite especially the anti-democrats that want to cancel Brexit and work against it.</li>
<li>Do you think Corbyn is “safe”? When they total up the votes at the end, which pile will yours be in? Pro Corbyn? Pro Remainer Tory? Or pro democracy?</li>
<li>We (quite rightly) have laws to protect 16 year olds from sexual and financial predators. Do you think giving votes to 16 year olds and opening them up to political predators is a good idea? The Labour party supports votes for 16 year olds! Will you vote for that? Or vote SDP so showing your disapproval of hard-line "woke" Labour policy</li>
<li>You do know the sitting Tory MP supported remain in 2016 don’t you? He won’t be replaced in this election but you can keep him inline by voting for the only candidate that supported Brexit from the outset. The SDP candidate.</li>
<li>Do you think UK politics is broken? It cannot be fixed overnight by voting SDP. But it is a start. And it uses you vote for good effect when otherwise it will be ignored.</li>
</ol>
BilloTheWisphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16221663524948086557noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6149751460360426536.post-30337040830387342972019-11-23T22:58:00.002+00:002019-11-23T23:19:57.449+00:00The SDP: 2019 Tottenham<style type="text/css">
@page { margin: 2cm }
p { margin-bottom: 0.25cm; line-height: 120% }
</style>
<br />
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
You just have to
admire people who are willing to put themselves through hell to stand in no-hope seats. Of those seats Tottenham is potentially
the most difficult. </div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
The SDP candidate in this case is Andrew Bence. So whatever party you support Andrew Bence deserves our most wholehearted respect.</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhpBtyuPvRPorDPHSLqZPOhqgg3ejDxZ5ABgTuDctev_60Qo95SthNB_6jYVlAxDtx6MphEaDE96w0xY-RQXumONsrkGlACfZZUQwc3B-LmbbMCc39pxs5wJKNo8Wv_VQhmD2j5RoO_AZ4/s1600/Screenshot_2019-11-23+Tottenham+%2528UK+Parliament+constituency%2529+-+Wikipedia.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="723" data-original-width="623" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhpBtyuPvRPorDPHSLqZPOhqgg3ejDxZ5ABgTuDctev_60Qo95SthNB_6jYVlAxDtx6MphEaDE96w0xY-RQXumONsrkGlACfZZUQwc3B-LmbbMCc39pxs5wJKNo8Wv_VQhmD2j5RoO_AZ4/s400/Screenshot_2019-11-23+Tottenham+%2528UK+Parliament+constituency%2529+-+Wikipedia.png" width="343" /></a></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
If you wanted to
define a safe seat, then Tottenham has to be a primary contender. The
sitting MP (David Lammy) took 80% of the votes in 2017 on a 68%
turnout. Or to put it another way David Lammy got well over 4 times
the votes than of all the other candidates combined.</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
In the 2016 EU
referendum 76% of the Tottenham vote in the referendum was for
Remain.</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
So Tottenham is both
a Labour and a Remainer Citadel.</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Nobody is going to
be elected here except for David Lammy. The only candidate in the
election other than David Lammy who is even likely to save their deposit
is the Conservative candidate. The Conservatives in 2017 came a distant second with
11% of the vote.</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
This is by
definition going to be a difficult seat for anyone other than Labour
to get votes in.
</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Even so, the Leave
vote in the 2016 EU referendum was about 18,000. Due to the virtual
non-existence of UKIP around 13,000 of those 18,000 voters must have
voted for Lammy in the 2017 General Election.</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
The Brexit Party is
also fielding a candidate. So unfortunately any of those 13000 Labour leave voters
disgruntled enough to look for another party is going to have three
to choose from.</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Perhaps it would be
best for the SDP candidate to emphasise the Social Democratic nature
of the SDP and it’s Labour origins. Then distance themselves from
both the Conservatives and the Brexit Party. Present the SDP as the
socially responsible party for leavers to vote for.
</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Lammy is a senior
politician and as such is perhaps (as most senior politicians are)
somewhat of an occasional visitor to his patch. If there are any
local issues that have been left to fester, then cultivating a
protest vote about these ignored issues might get some mileage. Local
social issues, especially those that might be also ignored by the
Conservative candidate due to party policy would be well worth
exploring.</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
I have looked at how
other minor partys have fared in the past in this seat. I think a
result in the low hundreds will be a good result. Anything over 400
will be a milestone. A 1000 would be groundbreaking.</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
So what would be the
best way of promoting the SDP in this seat? Here’s seven
suggestions.</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
They may range from
worthwhile to totally irrelevant in this seat. I don’t know. They
are just suggestions.
</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<ol>
<li>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Tottenham is
an armour plated safe Labour seat. Emphasise to the electorate that
there is no chance for another party to win in this seat other than
Labour. So if they feel disgruntled with current Labour policy or
the MP they can safely register a protest vote.</div>
</li>
<li>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Your SDP vote
will not change the MP but it will potentially set the trend for
the future. It allows you to register support for leaving the EU
without voting Tory. It will make the current MP just that little
bit less complacent.</div>
</li>
<li>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Big up the
democracy aspect. Why not show support for an honest but small
party? Your vote will not change the MP! But it may have a big
effect on the way others view the issues you are concerned with.
</div>
</li>
<li>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Do you want
to use your vote to support a party now strongly associated with
anti-Semitism like the Labour Party? As you won’t change the MP
wouldn’t it be worthwhile registering your disapproval of this
ugliness by voting SDP? It might help to make them sit up and take
notice.</div>
</li>
<li>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
You won’t
change the MP whatever you vote but you can register your
displeasure with the Metropolitan elite especially the
anti-democrats that want to cancel Brexit.</div>
</li>
<li>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
The Torys can
never hope to achieve anything here. The Brexit party is unlikely to
survive another two years. Wouldn’t it be worthwhile building up a
viable alternative voice to Labour in Tottenham? Even if its just
to keep the Labour MP on his toes and reduce the endemic complacency
that comes with a safe seat.</div>
</li>
<li>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Do you think
UK politics is broken? It cannot be fixed overnight by voting SDP.
But it is a start. And it uses you vote for good effect when
otherwise it will be ignored.</div>
</li>
<li>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Local issues.
Bring up local issues. Especially those that have been allowed to
run out of control without much/any input from the sitting MP.</div>
</li>
</ol>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<br />BilloTheWisphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16221663524948086557noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6149751460360426536.post-79889472052002355072019-11-22T16:33:00.000+00:002019-11-22T16:33:16.702+00:00The SDP: 2019 Havant<style type="text/css">
@page { margin: 2cm }
p { margin-bottom: 0.25cm; line-height: 120% }
</style>
<br />
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
The SDP are standing
a candidate in the Havant Constituency in Hampshire in the 2019 General Election.<br />
<br />
Here's my take on what they might achieve, where the potential SDP voters will come from and how many of them there are. Of course, this is just my opinion but I think it adds up.<br />
<br />
In my humble opinion this is one of the best prospects for a decent vote share for the SDP in all of the 20 seats being contested by them.</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Havant is an
impregnable Tory seat and always has been. In the last election the
sitting Tory MP (Alan Mak) garnered almost 60% of the vote. His
majority alone was bigger than the vote share achieved by the Labour Party. This seat will not change
hands.</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
There is no UKIP and (more importantly) no Brexit party candidate. The SDP candidate is in
fact the sole Brexiteer. Alan Mak campaigned in 2016 to remain. This
should be a strong lever to prize off disgruntled Brexiteers from the
mountainous Tory vote.
</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Alan
Maks majority amounts to a full 34% of the votes cast. So all
voters should realise that Alan Mak will not be replaced whatever
they vote. Voters can safely express their displeasure at his
remainerism.<br />
<br />
Voters can diminish Mak's vote share by voting for the only
candidate that supported Brexit from the start - the SDP candidate. They can do this without fear of letting in the Labour Party by the back door.</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
The SDP candidate in
this election is Alan Black.</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Here is the
candidate list and 2017 general Election result</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhSCuvW2jOuTiA0ez1HRVjipsYsA83QD2y5309RFCDeDu84hFNDJwTOOzwu5Qs9bXtuP3NTd-0uGN6IfP3BXQ0G0y2IFNbCzw1Fx1qxiyph3vOSebokG42FkN4nFhnnFa5AiG4Y-Mnqai4/s1600/Screenshot_2019-11-19+Havant+%2528UK+Parliament+constituency%2529+-+Wikipedia.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="680" data-original-width="624" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhSCuvW2jOuTiA0ez1HRVjipsYsA83QD2y5309RFCDeDu84hFNDJwTOOzwu5Qs9bXtuP3NTd-0uGN6IfP3BXQ0G0y2IFNbCzw1Fx1qxiyph3vOSebokG42FkN4nFhnnFa5AiG4Y-Mnqai4/s400/Screenshot_2019-11-19+Havant+%2528UK+Parliament+constituency%2529+-+Wikipedia.png" width="366" /></a></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
In 2015 UKIP gained
a considerable vote share with 9000 votes. When they collapsed in 2017 about about 4000 of their votes went to the Tories and about 3000 went to Labour. There remained a rump of about 2000 UKIP votes in 2017.</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Interestingly there
was an independent candidate in 2017. She gained nearly a 1000 votes.
It appears her campaign centred around over-development in the area
which could be another good lever to gain votes. (more research
required)</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Explaining to voters
that this seat will not change hands is crucial.
</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
There is a rump of
2000 UKIP votes with nowhere to go other than the SDP. </div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
There is the
3000 that migrated to the Labour party that must also be desperately
looking for somewhere to go. </div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
The 4000 UKIP votes that went to the
Tories will also feel queasy if they are enlightened to the fact that
Alan Mak actually campaigned for Remain in 2016 even though he had
previously described himself as a Euro-Sceptic. </div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
For these Tory
voters, finding a real Brexiteer (SDP) candidate while being shown
that Alan Maks majority is so huge that there is no possibility of
inadvertantly letting in a Labour or LibDem will be an eye-opener.</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Besides the
ex-ukippers, the Labour vote is up for squeezing anyway. They have in
essence abandoned their leave supporting Labour voters. Add to that
the nastiness about anti-semitism and I reckon theres about 2-3000
Labour votes other than the 3000 ex-ukippers up for grabs.</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Add in the 1000
votes that went to the lady independent and there is a lot to play
for here.</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
I reckon that in
total there is possibly up to 12000 volatile votes that are maybe
looking for a new home. Most of those will be abandoned or mislead
leave voters who would like to punish either the Tories or Labour.
</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
The Tory voters will
all will fear a Labour government. Reassuring them that voting SDP
cannot let in the Labour candidate by the back door is paramount.
</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
The reverse is true
for the Labour voters.
</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Telling them the
truth that whatever they vote they will not change the MP will mean
they can register their disapproval with Corbyn and his (less than)
merry men.</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
So what would be
the best way of promoting the SDP in this seat? Here’s my ten
arguments.</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
They may be rubbish
but they may just get you to generate better ones!</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<ol>
<li>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
It is a
armour plated safe Tory seat. Emphasise to the electorate that
there is no chance for another party to win in this seat other than
the Tories. So by voting for party other than the Tories you will
not be damaging Brexit. Whatever you vote and whether you like it or
not, the MP is secure.</div>
</li>
<li>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Your vote
matters. It will not change the MP but it will potentially set the
trend for the future. It allows you to register support for leaving
the EU without voting Tory. It will make the Tory MP just that
little bit less complacent.</div>
</li>
<li>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Does the MP
pay enough attention to local issues (like over-development?)
register your disapproval of local over-development by voting SDP, a
party that puts local people first and greedy developers at the back.</div>
</li>
<li>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Big up the
democracy aspect. Why not show support for an honest but small
party? Your vote will not change the MP! Neither will it imperil
Brexit. But it may have a big effect on the way others view the
issues you are concerned with.</div>
</li>
<li>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Do you want
to use your vote to support a party now strongly associated with
anti-Semitism like the Labour Party? As you won’t change the MP
wouldn’t it be worthwhile registering your disapproval of this
ugliness by voting SDP and depriving Labour of your vote?</div>
</li>
<li>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
You won’t
change the MP whatever you vote but you can register your
displeasure with the Metropolitan elite especially the
anti-democrats that want to cancel Brexit. Vote SDP!</div>
</li>
<li>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Do you think
Corbyn is “safe”? When they total up the votes at the end, which
pile will yours be in? Pro Corbyn? Pro Tory? Or pro democracy?</div>
</li>
<li>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
We (quite
rightly) have laws to protect 16 year olds from sexual and financial
predators. Do you think giving votes to 16 year olds and opening
them up to political predators is a good idea? The Labour party
supports votes for 16 year olds! Will you vote for that? Or vote SDP
so showing your disapproval of hard-line Labour policy</div>
</li>
<li>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
You do know
the sitting Tory MP campaigned to remain in 2016 don’t you? He
won’t be replaced in this election but you can keep him inline by
voting for the only candidate that supported Brexit from the outset.
The SDP candidate.</div>
</li>
<li>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Do you think
UK politics is broken? It cannot be fixed overnight by voting SDP.
But it is a start. And it uses you vote for good effect when
otherwise it will be ignored.</div>
</li>
</ol>
<br />BilloTheWisphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16221663524948086557noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6149751460360426536.post-83866211395554898452019-11-21T18:55:00.000+00:002019-11-21T18:55:56.252+00:00The SDP: 2019 Epping Forest<style type="text/css">
@page { margin: 2cm }
p { margin-bottom: 0.25cm; line-height: 120% }
</style>
<br />
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
In a strange nerdish way these vote analysis posts for SDP contested seats are good fun.<br />
<br />
But be warned: My interpretation of what votes can be stolen from where by the small SDP party may be a load of baloney.<br />
<br />
Trusting my analysis would be a bit like trusting another passenger to land a 747 because he read one of the manuals a couple of years ago.<br />
<br />
But it at least keeps me out of the pub for a few hours.<br />
<br />
Anyway here's the next one - for Epping Forest.<br />
<br />
To call this a safe
Tory seat would be the understatement of the century. 62% of the
electorate voted for them in 2017.<br />
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Just remember 2017
was a badly run and poorly fought election by the Torys! They still got 62%.</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Labour are a distant
second and the Libdems garner a couple of thousand votes.
</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
No UKIP candidate and more
importantly no Brexit Party candidate are standing in this election. So the SDP
candidate is the <b>only</b> other Brexit supporting candidate other than
the sitting MP.</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
The SDP candidate is
Jon Newham.</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Here’s the
candidate list and the last election result.</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjcyQrh3OjbkBeL-u9k_epcZcma69UycKsusVc1UsC5vywGVLJq7Tk-VrUOUPDACrVIr9C8f3uhLaM7hVbWxwdw23WPJvhfp0OhIJUaJvopIiCQxlDMryj3JLQSpGV2PcVozZS7peUyH5E/s1600/Screenshot_2019-11-19+Epping+Forest+%2528UK+Parliament+constituency%2529+-+Wikipedia.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="622" data-original-width="622" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjcyQrh3OjbkBeL-u9k_epcZcma69UycKsusVc1UsC5vywGVLJq7Tk-VrUOUPDACrVIr9C8f3uhLaM7hVbWxwdw23WPJvhfp0OhIJUaJvopIiCQxlDMryj3JLQSpGV2PcVozZS7peUyH5E/s400/Screenshot_2019-11-19+Epping+Forest+%2528UK+Parliament+constituency%2529+-+Wikipedia.png" width="400" /></a></div>
<span id="goog_641494270"></span><span id="goog_641494271"></span><br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
There are a couple
of interesting things with this constituency.</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
First off if you
look at the 2015 General Election result (below) you will find that the UKIP
vote was considerable. It stood at 9000 votes. They made a large dent
in both the Labour and Tory vote and pushed Labour into third place.
Even so the Tory majority in 2015 was still much the same as in 2017.
</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjEWH6NHuYRJV7NrxPUJyOlYKrzuFxzi3_C4pSu_joZLW8IknvYB89_DjUkSiTZlO9gwiZsYZWgwbr2s5v7JwZxlLRdRarkx0PFdWnLzPbc109FRRRaFojYTr7yWZXWML8eoNVCuiizt2c/s1600/Screenshot_2019-11-19+Epping+Forest+%2528UK+Parliament+constituency%2529+-+Wikipedia%25281%2529.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="355" data-original-width="625" height="226" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjEWH6NHuYRJV7NrxPUJyOlYKrzuFxzi3_C4pSu_joZLW8IknvYB89_DjUkSiTZlO9gwiZsYZWgwbr2s5v7JwZxlLRdRarkx0PFdWnLzPbc109FRRRaFojYTr7yWZXWML8eoNVCuiizt2c/s400/Screenshot_2019-11-19+Epping+Forest+%2528UK+Parliament+constituency%2529+-+Wikipedia%25281%2529.png" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
In 2017 it looks
like the Labour party robbed the LibDems and the Greens. They also
possibly took around a third of the UKIP vote. I’d suggest that this third (or about 3000 voters) will be desperately looking for a new home. With all
the shenanegins with anti-semitism and general Corbynista nastiness
maybe there would be more.
</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
It is worth noting
that the Labour candidate is a keen supporter (actually a driver of
Labour policy in this area) for votes at 16, which in my humble
opinion is very unpopular with most people over the age of 30. I would think that this would be a strong lever in prying away older voters from the Labour Party.</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
The mountain of the
Tory vote may get tweaked for those ex-UKIP voters. They may be keen
leavers but are possibly reluctant Tories. They don't have Brexit Party to migrate to. But they will still need
persuasion that moving their vote to the SDP they will not change the
MP or damage Brexit. Possibly 4000 volatile voters here?</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
So in total about
(maybe) 7000 votes up for grabs by the SDP. That is of course, IF
those 7000 can be identified and persuaded. I reckon a 1000 votes at the end of the day would be a fantastic result.</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
So what would be the
best way of promoting the SDP in this seat? Here’s my eight
arguments.</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
They may be rubbish
but they may just get you to generate better ones!<br />
<br />
(And YES! they DO change slightly post to post. Honest!)</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<ol>
<li>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
It is a
armour plated safe Tory seat. Emphasise to the electorate that
there is no chance for another party to win in this seat other than
the Tories. So by voting for the SDP you will
not be damaging Brexit. Whatever you vote and whether you like it or not, the MP is secure. </div>
</li>
<li>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Your vote
matters. It will not change the MP but it will potentially set the
trend for the future. It allows allows you to register support for
leaving the EU without voting Tory. It will make the Tory MP just
that little bit less complacent.</div>
</li>
<li>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Big up the
democracy aspect. Why not show support for an honest but small
party? Your vote will not change the MP! Neither will it imperil
Brexit. But it may have a big effect on the way others view the
issues you are concerned with.</div>
</li>
<li>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Do you want
to use your vote to support a party now strongly associated with
anti-Semitism like the Labour Party? As you won’t change the MP
wouldn’t it be worthwhile registering your disapproval of this
ugliness by voting SDP and depriving Labour of your vote?</div>
</li>
<li>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
You won’t
change the MP whatever you vote but you can register your
displeasure with the Metropolitan elite especially the
anti-democrats that want to cancel Brexit. Vote SDP!</div>
</li>
<li>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Do you think
Corbyn is “safe”? When they total up the votes at the end, which
pile will yours be in? Pro Corbyn? Pro Tory? Or pro democracy?</div>
</li>
<li>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
We (quite
rightly) have laws to protect 16 year olds from sexual and financial
predators. Do you think giving votes to 16 year olds and opening
them up to political predators is a good idea? The Labour party
candidate does! He thinks giving votes to 16 year olds is a great
idea! Will you vote for that? Or vote SDP so showing your
dissaproval?</div>
</li>
<li>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Do you think
UK politics is broken? It cannot be fixed overnight by voting SDP.
But it is a start. And it uses you vote for good effect when
otherwise it will be ignored.</div>
</li>
<li>The SDP candidate supports Brexit. None of the other candidates other than the MP do. So if you want to register support for Brexit you have a straight choice Tory or SDP. Neither choice will change the final election result. But a vote for SDP will help focus the Tories on Brexit.</li>
</ol>
<br />BilloTheWisphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16221663524948086557noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6149751460360426536.post-13343265542817543242019-11-20T18:16:00.001+00:002020-09-28T10:59:36.936+01:00The SDP: 2019 Cambridge<style type="text/css">
@page { margin: 2cm }
p { margin-bottom: 0.25cm; line-height: 120% }
</style> <br />
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
For reasons unknown even to me, I decided to have a look at the 20 seats being contested by the SDP in this coming General Election. (Maybe I should get out more).<br />
<br />
This is the second post in the series.<br />
<br />
Caveat Emptor:<br />
<br />
My experience in analysing voting trends can be summed up in two words. "Bugger all".<br />
<br />
So what you see is what you get. It may right. It may be wrong. Or anywhere in the middle. You decide. But I hope it is at least somewhat entertaining.<br />
<br />
<br />
Cambridge is Remainer Heaven. At least 80% of the last general election vote went to partys that now support Remain.</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
The only potential fly in the ointment for them is that there will (possibly) be a reluctance from a small proportion of the Labour voters to vote for a hard core Remain MP who is also in favour of scrapping Trident.<br />
<br />
The SDP candidate is <a href="https://www.battleofideas.org.uk/speaker/jane-robins/" target="_blank">Jane Robins</a>. </div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
This will be a very hard seat to do well in. So good luck to Jane.</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiJPSGPyZaj5plNRFACQ_LDDLTvpODcpwIWUT8JH2Ju-paUranh1d42chB_w8aBAzh_wpJrZVD3YxkPWRAX70XSySExe5fkCVS4w10ybx7XID5DtKsvL_TKOw64qgarGqCqaL-ZZyniAnw/s1600/Screenshot_2019-11-18+Cambridge+%2528UK+Parliament+constituency%2529+-+Wikipedia.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="693" data-original-width="624" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiJPSGPyZaj5plNRFACQ_LDDLTvpODcpwIWUT8JH2Ju-paUranh1d42chB_w8aBAzh_wpJrZVD3YxkPWRAX70XSySExe5fkCVS4w10ybx7XID5DtKsvL_TKOw64qgarGqCqaL-ZZyniAnw/s400/Screenshot_2019-11-18+Cambridge+%2528UK+Parliament+constituency%2529+-+Wikipedia.png" width="360" /></a></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<style type="text/css">
@page { margin: 2cm }
p { margin-bottom: 0.25cm; line-height: 120% }
</style> <br />
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
The immediate pain here is that the Brexit Party is standing as well as the SDP. They will potentially hoover up most discontented ex-UKIP voters who didn't even have a candidate in 2017.</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
This is an ultra strong remain seat. The turnout rose by almost 10% between 2015 and 2017 probably due to students voting. Almost all of that 10% appears to have gone to Labour. It is an unequal fight between Labour and LibDems who between them hold 80% of the turnout.</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
One light on the horizon is that the 2015 UKIP candidate was the redoubtable Patrick O’Flynn who may have some local street cred and would be well worth parading about on the streets. (;-)</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
In the 2016 EU Referendum 26% voted to leave. Yet only 16% voted Tory in 2017. Which suggests Labour and the Lib Dems are hiding about 5000 leave voters between them.</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Nationally, thirty per cent of LibDem voters voted Leave in 2016. As we are dealing with voters not party apparachtiks maybe there’s some room there with maybe up to (say) 2000 potential voters?</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
However this may be wishful thinking. Leaver LibDems may have already migrated to the Labour Party in 2017.</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Maybe targeting Labour would be the most fruitful. Labour leavers must be feeling very uncomfortable about how the party has done a volte face on Brexit and may consider abandoning them. But going to the Tories or Farage's Brexit Party would be a step too far.<br />
<br />
Also maybe its worth trying to woo UKIP voters though I suspect most of those will either stay Tory or go to Brexit Party.<br />
<br />
I think it unlikely that many of the 9000 Conservative voters would migrate to the SDP. Though you never know. If John Haywood is not particularly well liked then that may be an avenue for persuasion.</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Here’s my pennys worth of campaign statements which is probably useless. But it may trigger you to think up better ones..</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Basically it comes down to targeting the 30% leavers (irrespective of party) in the seat and to exploit Labour vulnerabilities.</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<ol>
<li><div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Cambridge is a armour plated safe Remain seat. There is no chance for anyone other than Labour. Even the LibDems are almost 13,000 votes behind Labour. So if your are a leaver, by voting for a party other than the Tories you will not be betraying Brexit. But choose your party well. You have a choice between the Torys, a one policy Brexit party or the SDP.</div>
</li>
<li> <div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Your vote matters. It will not change the MP from being a Remainer but it will potentially set the trend for the future – and allows you to register support for leaving the EU without voting Tory.</div>
</li>
<li> <div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
The SDP has been around for 40 years. Do you think the Brexit Party will be around after next year?</div>
</li>
<li> <div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
The SDP respects democracy. If you voted to remain we respect your decision and we will not vilify it. But democracy is paramount.</div>
</li>
<li> <div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Why not show support for an honest but small party? You vote will not change the MP whatever you vote! But it may have a big effect on the way partys view the issues you are concerned with.</div>
</li>
<li> <div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Do you want to use your vote to support a party now strongly associated with anti-Semitism like the Labour Party?</div>
</li>
<li> <div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Do you want you vote to support a party that said it will ignore the biggest referendum in our history like the LibDems?</div>
</li>
<li> <div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
The MP in this constituency will be a Remain supporter. You won’t change that. But you can register your displeasure with the Metropolitan elite. Vote SDP.</div>
</li>
<li> <div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Do you think Corbyn is “safe”? So when they total up the votes at the end, which pile will your be in? Pro Corbyn? Or pro democracy?</div>
</li>
<li> <div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Do you think UK politics is broken? It cannot be fixed overnight by voting SDP. But it is a start. And it uses you vote for good effect when otherwise it would be ignored.</div>
</li>
<li><div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Do you support scrapping Trident? The Labour and LibDem candidates do! Do you think they are serious about defence? Are you?</div>
</li>
</ol>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Potentially (maybe) 5000 votes up for grabs? But very, very difficult due to Brexit Party and very large Remain vote base. A thousand votes on the day will be ultra impressive.</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Jane Robins of the SDP has a mountain to climb. </div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
But she’s a good Gal. </div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Lets hope she makes an impact.</div>
BilloTheWisphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16221663524948086557noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6149751460360426536.post-4068466651649460642019-11-19T19:35:00.002+00:002019-11-19T19:35:17.437+00:00The SDP: 2019 Basildon & Billericay<style type="text/css">
@page { margin: 2cm }
p { margin-bottom: 0.25cm; line-height: 120% }
</style>
<br />
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
As there are people in the SDP who have the guts to stand in the coming General Election (and in no-hope seats at that) I thought the least I could do would be to have a quick review of some of these seats. Just to see what they are up against.<br />
<br />
I don't have any magic insight or skill at this. Just a few hours to spare poking about on Google. This may be useful or it may be a waste of time. But whatever, here it is!</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
First on the list of
seats being contested by the <a href="https://sdp.org.uk/" target="_blank">SDP</a> is Basildon & Billericay. It is
a stupendously safe Conservative seat. </div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
The SDP candidate is Simon
Breedon. </div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
While he has the typical safe seat mountain to climb, the
seat does have some interesting dynamics mainly brought about by the
fact that unless you vote Conservative (and to be fair most do!) the only other
choice for a Brexit honouring candidate is Simon.</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Here is the
candidate list and the General Election 2017 result.</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgo7h2iZSRcmIwQTmOw1hHlMJ7RLcTJQl-bqLvSFIKRD_sTvDumuJwW8R54QdUF1uaa3JtGa_peny9k62JCNmJ5O2x8-0Jg6kwCbk7gMnTIz_mX1jO5y0w_xI7imk1RW2AwvBsL2_K-4mg/s1600/Screenshot_2019-11-18+Basildon+and+Billericay+%2528UK+Parliament+constituency%2529+-+Wikipedia.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="547" data-original-width="634" height="345" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgo7h2iZSRcmIwQTmOw1hHlMJ7RLcTJQl-bqLvSFIKRD_sTvDumuJwW8R54QdUF1uaa3JtGa_peny9k62JCNmJ5O2x8-0Jg6kwCbk7gMnTIz_mX1jO5y0w_xI7imk1RW2AwvBsL2_K-4mg/s400/Screenshot_2019-11-18+Basildon+and+Billericay+%2528UK+Parliament+constituency%2529+-+Wikipedia.png" width="400" /></a></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
So where’s the
meat and potatoes in this lot?</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
UKIP (and the Brexit
Party) are gone. The Greens are new and will probably only steal
votes off the Lib Dems and the maybe a few from the Labour party. The
Lib Dem vote probably reflects a group of hard core Remainers who are
unlikely to swap to SDP.</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
But where did the
UKIP vote go? It appears about two thirds went to the Torys and one
third to Labour. The election turnout in 2017 was 2% up on 2015. In
2015 UKIP came third with 20% of the vote. It appears most of that
from 2015 has gone to the Tories. But not all.</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
How soft is the
Labour vote? It has actually grown over the last 3 elections and it
would appear that the increased turnout in 2017 gave it a boost.</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
BUT that was before
all the back-sliding on Brexit or the worries about anti-semitism and
Corbynism.
</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Certainly the
proportion of UKIP votes that went to Labour in 2017 (maybe 3000) will be looking for a home. Maybe
another 2000 Labour supporters would be readily open to persuasion.</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
As for the
Conservative vote, maybe some of the UKIP vote that migrated here
will be available. A lot of these people will not be convinced Tories
and never were. Say 1000.</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
So I reckon there
are up to 3-4000 voters that are potentially up for grabs by the SDP. Realistically a result in the high hundreds will be a victory.</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
So what would be the
best way of promoting the SDP in this seat? Here’s my seven
arguments.<br />
<br />
They may be rubbish but they may just get folk to generate
better ones!</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<ol>
<li>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
It is a
armour plated safe Tory seat. Emphasise to the electorate that
there is no chance for another party to win in this seat other than
the Tories. So by voting for partys other than the Tories you will
not be betraying Brexit or risk changing the MP for that matter.</div>
</li>
<li>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Your vote still matters. It will not change the MP. But it will potentially set the
trend for the future. It allows you to register support for
leaving the EU without voting Tory.</div>
</li>
<li>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Big up the
democracy aspect. Why not show support for an honest but small
party? Your vote whatever it is will not change the MP! Neither will it imperil
Brexit. But it may have a big effect on the way others view the
issues you are concerned with.</div>
</li>
<li>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Do you want
to use your vote to support a party now strongly associated with
anti-Semitism like the Labour Party?</div>
</li>
<li>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
You won’t
change the MP whatever you vote but you can register your
displeasure with the Metropolitan elite. Especially the
anti-democrats that want to cancel Brexit and you can do this without voting Tory. Vote SDP!</div>
</li>
<li>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Do you think
Corbyn is “safe”? When they total up the votes at the end, which
pile will yours be in? Pro Corbyn? Pro Tory? Or pro democracy?</div>
</li>
<li>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Do you think
UK politics is broken? It cannot be fixed overnight by voting SDP.
But it is a start. And it uses you vote for good effect when
otherwise it will be ignored and lost.</div>
</li>
</ol>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Good luck to Simon
Breedon, SDP candidate for the 2019 General Election: Basildon &
Billericay</div>
<br />BilloTheWisphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16221663524948086557noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6149751460360426536.post-86341223702157670162019-11-18T16:19:00.000+00:002019-11-18T16:42:58.531+00:00BillotheWisp’s SDP Attack Dog<style type="text/css">
@page { margin: 2cm }
p { margin-bottom: 0.25cm; line-height: 120% }
</style>
<br />
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgJ37EWX-PbrlTC-shvqGuoxQcWC311LR51cT1Aye9FhdDPA8KL201l05MUMJwlhJIZjoKAzo6mOZxHl-5U3XVNFdqhkZ6uCSyhFTXgVSxB47semwkoAfF8tQmuUWAPyO93bjllHcfrdT4/s1600/rottweiler-869018_640.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="426" data-original-width="640" height="213" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgJ37EWX-PbrlTC-shvqGuoxQcWC311LR51cT1Aye9FhdDPA8KL201l05MUMJwlhJIZjoKAzo6mOZxHl-5U3XVNFdqhkZ6uCSyhFTXgVSxB47semwkoAfF8tQmuUWAPyO93bjllHcfrdT4/s320/rottweiler-869018_640.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Give him ten years and he will have your leg off.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
You may be surprised
to hear that the small Social Democratic Party (SDP) are standing
candidates in no less than 20 seats this General Election.</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
In fact I was amazed and pleasantly so.<br />
<br />
The SDP is a thoroughly decent party that deserves support. So I thought I’d spend a some time just
looking at the potential for these 20 candidates.
</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
So here are my
thoughts. They may be right. They may be wrong. But I hope you find
them interesting.</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Lets deal with what
will be presented as “the down side” first</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Will these 20 SDP
candidates potentially split the Leave vote? Could they allow the
LibDems (or any other bunch of juveniles) in through the back door?
</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
The answer to that
is a resounding NO!</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
All of these seats
are safe seats for the present incumbent. To anyone other than the
existing MP they are no-hopers (that includes the SDP).
</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
In other words
(short of a miracle) there will be no change to the MP in any of
these 20 seats.</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
You may well ask:
What is the point in fighting in a constituency when you know you are
going to lose?</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
For the larger
partys that is a moot point. To them concentrating on no-hope safe
seats would be crazy. In safe seats (when held by another party), the
big party’s often just field a paper candidate. A token. Someone
who in all likelihood will be here today and gone tomorrow.
</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
But for a small
party like the SDP seeking to expand its base, this is all about
getting noticed and building a base. No SDP candidate will be gone
tomorrow. Win or lose.
</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
The most important
aspect to this is that these seats are safe seats with majorities for
the current MP in the many thousands.. So any individual voting for
any of the partys standing, in essence knows their vote will not
change the outcome.
</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Let’s say you are
a traditional Labour supporter in a safe Conservative seat.
</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
You won’t vote
Tory. Especially as they will win the seat anyway.
</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
But maybe you are
committed to Leaving the EU. What can you do?
</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Do you vote for the
spotty ex-student neo-Marxist paper candidate who is an ardent
Remainer? Someone who abhors your EU preference and probably views
you and your family with disdain?</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Are you really going
to register one more vote of support for Jeremy Corbyn? A man who in
all likelihood is somebody you despise?</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Look at it the other
way. Say you are in a safe Labour seat.
</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Again whatever you
vote will make no difference to who is the MP. But should you add
support to the winner when you know they have been (in all
likelihood) architects of the opposition to Brexit?</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Are you going to
vote Conservative when Conservative policies (other than Brexit) feel
suspect?</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Then what about the
Brexit party?
</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
To me it looks like
the Brexit Party is imploding. It has little apparent policy other
than that implied by its name. To me it looks like they are dying. A
vote for them in these circumstances would truly be a wasted vote.
</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
As for the Lib Dems
– well, surprise, surpise!
</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Thirty per cent of
Liberal Democrats voted to leave in 2016.
</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Where are they going
to go?
</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Will they pile up
votes for the local Corbynista? Vote Tory? Vote for the “new”
LibDems that discarded democracy like a used tissue?
</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
The alternative is a
party that has actually sorted out policy and has a route plan. The
SDP.</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
They won’t win.
But none of the others will either. But a vote for the SDP will be
another brick in building a truly fair, non elitist working class
movement. A vote that would, if used otherwise, count for nothing.</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
This will be a hard
month for those standing for the SDP. In reality getting a thousand
votes will be impressive. Saving their deposit (5% of the turnout –
say 2500 votes) will be a victory. Any more than that will be
amazing.</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
I don’t think that
any SDP MP’s will be elected. Though it would be nice. I suspect
most candidates however hard they work, will just get a few hundred
votes.</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
But with a bit of
prompting the decent people of this country, whose vote will
otherwise count for little, may be persuaded to start the ball
rolling and register a vote for change.</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Maybe not change
today. But change for their children and the future.
</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<i>What I intend to do
in the next series of posts is promote a number of the constituencies
in which the SDP are standing. If for no other reason than to give
them a tiny bit more publicity and Google link love.</i></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<i><br /></i></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<i>These will be my
unprompted thoughts (no one else’s). I hope they help. If they
don’t then discard them.</i></div>
<br />BilloTheWisphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16221663524948086557noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6149751460360426536.post-84294411367540492492019-10-23T16:09:00.001+01:002021-10-30T17:20:02.305+01:00Cows, Climate and Reality<style type="text/css">
@page { margin: 2cm }
p { margin-bottom: 0.25cm; line-height: 120% }
</style>
<br />
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<b>Here’s the scary
bit.</b></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Ruminants (cows and
sheep) fart and burp out Methane. Methane is a greenhouse gas many times more potent than Carbon Dioxide. Eighty
six times more potent over a twenty year period. Thirty four times
more potent over a hundred year period.</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
All of the above is
true. Really!</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<b>But here's the rub.
</b></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Methane vented into
the atmosphere is gone within nine years (somewhere between 8.75 and
9.5 actually – <a href="http://bit.ly/2MFrCtR" target="_blank">See Here</a> ). It reacts (mainly)
with hydroxyl radicals in the atmosphere to produce Water Vapour, Carbon Dioxide and Ozone.</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
So initially the
greenhouse effect of Methane is stupendously high. But this is for a
very, very short time. As the first few days turn into months the quantity of methane in the atmosphere from a release falls off a cliff. It literally disappears.</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
The greenhouse
warming from a Methane release between years 9 - 100 in a 100
year period following a release is effectively nil. It is nil because there is none left 9 years after a release.</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Methane decays in
the atmosphere exponentially. Half of any release is gone in 14
months.</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
The net effect of a
release of methane into the atmosphere is pretty much immediate and
short lived.</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
The overall amount of Methane in the atmosphere linearly
tracks the amount being released. Double the amount released –
double the net amount in the atmosphere. Half the amount released then you halve it.</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Assume you had a
new continuous source releasing methane into the atmosphere. Then the
amount of methane in the atmosphere would initially rise. Then it
would level off as the newly released methane reached equilibrium
with that decaying away.
</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
After about two
half-lives (say 2.5 years) the amount of methane in the atmosphere from your continuous
and constant release will level off and stay constant.</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<b>Let's say our
source of methane is ruminants like cattle and sheep.
</b></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
It is true that
cattle and sheep produce a lot of methane. </div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
But more to the point,
<u><b>they always have</b></u>. </div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
They in effect provide a continuous and constant release of Methane into the atmosphere.</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Unless the
population size of these ruminants is changing then the amount of
methane in the atmosphere from them will stay the same. It will be stable.</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
As methane has almost an immediate effect on global warming then that effect will
already be evident and fully factored in today. There is no “build up” or appreciable time lag. </div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
If
there is no further increase in total herd size then no further
warming can be attributed to cattle or sheep.</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Not convinced?
</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Here - try this
latest piece of research from the <a href="http://bit.ly/2P9w4Tp" target="_blank">British Veterinary Association</a>. In
fact their research shows that Methane release from UK sheep and
cattle is actually falling. </div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
If it is falling
then so is the established warming effect already in place from these ruminants.</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
The result is UK
beef and sheep farms are already global warming negative. Their current activities are cooling
the climate. </div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
If you don't believe me just read the <a href="http://bit.ly/2P9w4Tp" target="_blank">British Veterinary Association article</a>.</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
The world really is
becoming a much better place. But to keep this progress on track and tackle the real issues regarding climate and pollution we need
to bury the fear-mongering. </div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Fakery like the current fiction that UK beef production is a terrible global warmer really does a disservice to us all.</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<i>(Don’t believe me
the world is getting better? Read <a href="https://amzn.to/2pa0ZnM" target="_blank">Factfulness by Hans Rosling</a> –
It’ll make your day) </i></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
So whenever you see
some spoilt child from Extinction Rebellion blubbering about how meat eaters
have stolen their future, just tell them to lighten
up and stop snivelling.</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Then offer to buy them a
burger.</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
You never know. It might work!</div>
<br />BilloTheWisphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16221663524948086557noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6149751460360426536.post-64837085324094430002019-10-22T11:43:00.001+01:002019-10-22T14:27:16.473+01:00Brexit and the Value of Voting<style type="text/css">
@page { margin: 2cm }
p { margin-bottom: 0.25cm; line-height: 120% }
</style>
<br />
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
I was once one of those
folks who would berate anyone who didn’t vote.</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
“What’s wrong
with you?” I’d say.</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
“How can you
complain if you don’t vote? You don’t have a say if you don’t
vote!”</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Well. Times change.</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
For an individual
voter the actual physical and financial value of voting is, and always has been,
just about as near nil as you could get. </div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Even at the parish council
level, where the turnout is often just a couple of hundred voters, the
number of elections where a single vote has changed the outcome is
vanishingly small.</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
For an individual,
voting as a process is valueless. The best you will ever get is a
warm glow of satisfaction that you have done your democratic duty.
But your one vote in many millions is all but irrelevant.</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
“But… If people
don’t vote then democracy fails!” I hear you say. Which is true.</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
But democracy can
sometimes fail (or be killed) even when people actually <u>do</u> vote. The “wrong”
result can be either ignored or overturned by unscrupulous means.</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
A classic example is
the current shambles surrounding the 2016 Brexit referendum vote where a clear
(though highly unexpected) vote to leave the EU occurred. To date it has been
systematically undermined, stone-walled and delayed.</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
So what happens when you vote for a particular outcome, find yourself on the winning side and then the result is reneged on?
</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
The only gain from
your voting, that warm glow of democratic participation, evaporates. </div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
To be replaced by the feeling of being taken for a sucker.</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
There are many
millions of people across the UK today who feel exactly that.
</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
The losing side in the 2016 referendum have
decided that the “wrong” answer should be cancelled.</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
The Liberal
Democrats (what a parody of a name!) state that the 2016 referendum result should be ignored. Even though one former LibDem leader described it as a "Once in a Generation Vote" (<a href="https://youtu.be/QKzpZqdQhFU" target="_blank">Here</a>) and another eulogised over how the result should be respected at all costs (<a href="http://bit.ly/2Oe0EYD" target="_blank">Here</a>) </div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
To be fair at the time they made these speeches they both thought remain would win. </div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Others somewhat more squeamish about being so clearly identified as being anti-democratic, have another tactic.</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
They want what is laughably called a "Confirmatory" referendum.</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
If this enforced second referendum were to get successfully flushed through
this cesspit of a parliament then I would hope Johnson and others
would call for it to be boycotted.
</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
But if the consensus
among the Leave camp is to vote, I will grudgingly and reluctantly
vote in what I would regard as little better than Hitlers enforced
snap 1934 referendum.
</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Even so, I suspect
that many people who voted leave in the 2016 referendum will not
bother again.</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Once bitten, twice shy. </div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
The turnout will fall and with
it (I am sure this is the game plan) remain will sneak a win. Brexit
will be cancelled.</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Democracy in the UK
will be not only dead but the corpse will be reeking with the stench of privilege and
entitlement.</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Voting is above all
else an altruistic act. It is selfless and without tangible reward.
It is something that those seeking office should be cherish and
promote. Not cynically exploit.</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
If this Hitler style
second referendum is forced through and then used to cancel Brexit then personally, I’ll be done with this cadaver of UK democracy.</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
I will never vote
again.</div>
<br />BilloTheWisphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16221663524948086557noreply@blogger.com0