Ukip got the biggest share of the vote in Boston and Skegness, where they got their highest non-Farage vote in 2010, beating the Tories 36.4% to 33.8%. A 4.6% Conservative -> Ukip swing would have seen them get the highest vote in Epping Forest, which is one of the Tories' safest seats, which shows how potentially vulnerable the Conservatives are in some deep blue seats if Ukip support stays at its current levels, or increases.
Just as there are not many three way marginals now, there would not be many if UKIP support stays at this level. Boston would be a two way battle, so would Aylesbury. It may take an election more before the voters get it figured out who the top two parties are. It will create some dilemmas for Orange bookers like me, whether to vote Tory to keep out UKIP etc
"but if Labour buries its head in the sand then it could be next."
The 'head in the sand' buriers point to Labour's 2010 voters who now say they will vote UKIP - (5% vs 8 for Lib Dem & 19 Con, in today's YouGov) - but how many former Labour voters who voted Lib Dem or stayed at home in 2010 are now UKIP supporters?
All the major parties are out of touch - by both background and education, with the old 'working class' - who won Thatcher her power - and Blair his landslide. UKIP appeals to that - but whether that appeal holds up as they come under increasing scrutiny, only time will tell.
Someone last night made the well-known point that Cameron is a poor-quality Blair, but it got me thinking.
Blair worked for Labour because he atrracted moderate Tories while tribal loyalty kept the traditional working class voters on side. Cameron's problem, unlike Thatcher or Major is that he just doubles down on the Tory appeal to the Shires and has nothing to say to the C1/C2 voters who gave the Tories their majorities.
On this basis, EdM is probably too much of an appeal to Labour's metropolitian heartland; and it's not clear who the Tories have who can authentically stretch their electoral reach.
Insight like that should get you a doctorate in PPE Charles.
Actually Cameron does have something to say to the working class voters who give Conservative governments their majorities:
"Get on your bike or put on your chauffer's cap or got off my road prole"
If you want a cold arrogant line from Cam it is easy.
It is "wait in line!".
The priorities have been:
1. Cut central government spending 2. Transfer public sector employment to private sector. 3. Solve problems with key drivers of the economy: - North Sea Oil & Gas extraction - Global core industries (car manufacture, aerospace, pharmaceuticals etc.) - Banking and Financial Services recovery, recapitalisation & restructure 4. Do 1-3 with minimum impact on employment and growth 5. Reduce then eliminate deficit and start reducing debt. 7. Get credit flowing to SMEs and households.
The coalition government is moving down the list slowly but surely. When it gets to 7, then the march of the small and regional makers can begin.
Can you plausibly argue for a different order of priorities?
As I recall first order of business in 2010 was raising taxes, not cutting government spending.
True. Let us give it 1. and move the successors down to fill 6. Only thing is that increasing taxes was never a goal more a tactical step. All the others can be considered persistent goals!
The budget deficit (5) we were told was the priority of this coalition government when it was first formed. It seems to have drifted from priority, to wouldn't that would be nice.
While department spending has been cut in some cases, I believe overall spending is still up. The public sector wage bill has increased despite the reductions in headcount, because public sector wages are still rising. The problems with north sea oil/gas extraction were I believe introduced in the first budget, and then addressed in later budgets.
A higher priority has been their energy policy. The 'decarbonising' of Britain, which translates into higher energy prices for british businesses which I would think would drive car and aerospace manufacturers overseas.
Eliminating the structural deficit is the primary fiscal mandate. Osborne has allowed himself flexibility to shift phasing of fiscal measures provided the deficit remains forecast to be eliminated within a five year rolling period.
The government has always been within this limit although he was pushing at its boundaries in Q4 2012. There was a small improvement in the forecast completion deadline in the OBR's March forecast, but essentially it was a snapshot of flat-lining deficit reduction over the next two years.
Deficit reduction accelerated in Q1 2013 and it is likely we will see both GDP growth forecasts revised up and deficit forecasts revised down in June when the next OBR EFO is due. The shift is likely to be reasonably significant and the meme of flat-lining will quickly disappear from the lips of the governments detractors..
The March snapshot of no short term movement should not therefore be interpreted as the government moving deficit reduction down its list of priorities.
Spending has been reduced but the welfare budget is essentially a variable cost linked to economic growth and unemployment. The spend on welfare (£10 bn higher than forecast) was the only major area of overspend (more than countered by underspend elsewhere). Osborne's move to cap increases to 1% per annum will see this problem eliminated over the rest of the parliamentary term given forecast or better growth and employment.
The forecast increase in North Sea output is a direct consequence of measures taken by Osborne, Cable and DECC to stimulate increased investment in the sector. It will start paying back with increased output from 2014 (maybe a little earlier if BoE comments are informed).
Energy pricing remains an economic problem whose solution is hampered by political commitments and policies. I see no real sign of there being major plans to reverse current policy. It is unlikely however to affect the existing car manufacturing and aerospace industries where capital investment costs and time to market are the main protective barriers to short term competitive shifts.
All in all, it is quite reasonable to be cautiously optimistic that the current recovery is solid (albeit with significant downside risks) and that the UK will perform relatively better than its main competitors over the short to medium term future. The fiscal targets of the government also look compatible with one of the very few countries with mixed AAA and AA+ credit ratings and low sovereign financing costs.
The unionists maintained North sea oil was in terminal decline just recently, their puppets the OBR forecast it would be worthless and prices would plummet and the oil was almost dried up. You cannot have it both ways.
malcolm, you are over-politicising the issue.
The oil and gas reserves in the North Sea are an economic resource which need effective management regardless of sovereignty or 'ownership' issues.
I am not an industry expert and can only report data from official publications.
But it is not hard to assume that the reserves are not fixed (more are likely to be discovered); that discovered resources formerly considered uneconomic to develop may become cost effective with new technology; and that rises in global energy pricing may alter the cost-benefit equation in favour of development.
Oil output peaked in the late 1990s and has been declining since. Current investments may not return the sector to peak output but could slow the decline or increase outputs from its current levels.
If you want more than these generalist platitudes wait for Richard Tyndall to comment as he knows far more than I do about the prospects for North Sea oil and gas output. In the meantime I will stick with ONS and DECC official figures and forecasts and take with a pinch of salt your allegations that these organisations are "unionist puppets".
UKIP are better of out of that one (unlike the AV issue). If they campaigned Salmond could point out the incongruence between the desire for British self-determination and the opposition to Scottish self-determination.
It is interesting to see that the Better Together folks are just as afraid of anti-establishment politicians as the yes to AV brigade though.
As a rare Scottish UKIP voter (when they have a candidate) I will be voting Yes in the independence referendum. That probably puts me in a very small group. Then again I'd secede from the lot of you tomorrow if I could!
Answering both this post and Uniondivvie's original, this is one area where I disagree fundamentally with Farage and the UKIP position.
It strikes me as utterly ludicrous to promote British Independence from the EU whilst at the same time attacking the idea of Scottish Independence from the rest of the UK. As soon as you try to adopt such a position you start getting into trouble as so many of the reasonable arguments against British membership of the EU are exactly the same as arguments against Scottish membership of the UK.
Two completely and equally illogical positions:
Scottish nationalists who are in favour of the EU BOO Eurosceptics who oppose Scottish Independence
Regarding electoral reform, couldnt there be some kind of small change whereby there are,say, 50 less constituencies, but the same number of MPs, the remaining 50 being split as per the % of the vote each party got?
So if UKIP got 20% of the vote in 2015 but no MPs they would be able to pick 10 of their candidates to speak /vote in the commons..
Regarding electoral reform, couldnt there be some kind of small change whereby there are,say, 50 less constituencies, but the same number of MPs, the remaining 50 being split as per the % of the vote each party got?
So if UKIP got 20% of the vote in 2015 but no MPs they would be able to pick 10 of their candidates to speak /vote in the commons..
That's basically the Additional Member System, as e.g. in Germany. You can win seats by FPTP, or if you get 5% (or three FPTP seats) can can top up with as many candidates as needed to give you a proportional number of MPs. It can have quirky effects - if you gain votes to win an FPTP seat you might lose the right to an additional member, thus tipping out a colleague. But it does quite a good job of delivering both the constituency link and a fairly-represented parliament.
Good luck with persuading the big parties to back it.
UKIP are better of out of that one (unlike the AV issue). If they campaigned Salmond could point out the incongruence between the desire for British self-determination and the opposition to Scottish self-determination.
It is interesting to see that the Better Together folks are just as afraid of anti-establishment politicians as the yes to AV brigade though.
As a rare Scottish UKIP voter (when they have a candidate) I will be voting Yes in the independence referendum. That probably puts me in a very small group. Then again I'd secede from the lot of you tomorrow if I could!
Answering both this post and Uniondivvie's original, this is one area where I disagree fundamentally with Farage and the UKIP position.
It strikes me as utterly ludicrous to promote British Independence from the EU whilst at the same time attacking the idea of Scottish Independence from the rest of the UK. As soon as you try to adopt such a position you start getting into trouble as so many of the reasonable arguments against British membership of the EU are exactly the same as arguments against Scottish membership of the UK.
Two completely and equally illogical positions:
Scottish nationalists who are in favour of the EU BOO Eurosceptics who oppose Scottish Independence
Well, if you are especially attached to the UK, in contrast to both its component members and any supranational body, it is consistent to oppose EU membership and oppose any dimunition of the UK, isn't it? It means you can't use the self-determination argument, but then nobody takes that to its logical conclusion by, say, offering Islington residents a referendum on splitting off from Westminster. The question is whether one thinks that Scotland is primarily a distinct entity, or primarily an important part of the UK.
It's not the messenger, its the message. Green energy, high speed rail, foreign aid are Mr Cameron's signature policies. They're Guardian reader policies.
Foreign aid is something that should have been far better explained.
This should be a policy for the working classes: Do you want to spend money to fix something, or send your kids to a foreign country to fight and die to protect the UK?
It needs to be spent in the right way (and I believe Mr Dancer's favourite lady is making progress on this front), and the 0.7% is a completely arbitrary target [why do politicians do that, btw - who thinks it is better to spend a fixed sum than to spend the minimum necessary to do the job?], but the concept of investing to avoid future problems is clearly sensible
In the interim, Lafontaine has been the leader of the former Communist Left party, so it's not all that odd. It's a bit like digging up things Benn used to say as a technocrat minister under Wilson to show that he's not really left-wing. People change.
Well, if you are especially attached to the UK, in contrast to both its component members and any supranational body, it is consistent to oppose EU membership and oppose any dimunition of the UK, isn't it? It means you can't use the self-determination argument, but then nobody takes that to its logical conclusion by, say, offering Islington residents a referendum on splitting off from Westminster.
I take it at least that far. Then again I don't have a power base to protect.
3. Solve problems with key drivers of the economy: - North Sea Oil & Gas extraction - Global core industries (car manufacture, aerospace, pharmaceuticals etc.) - Banking and Financial Services recovery, recapitalisation & restructure
What criteria makes these sectors the "key drivers" of the economy? They're not the largest sectors, the fastest growing sectors, or the sectors with most potential. Amount of media coverage, perhaps?
Frighteningly, it probably is the basis upon which most MPs consider sectors' importance.
To be fair:
North Sea - major impact on balance of trade and balance of payments Global core industries: all have a very large number of high paid, high value added jobs in the UK Banking & FS: like it or not, a very significant contributor to GDP & tax
I went to the play This House at the National Theatre earlier this afternoon. People were made of sterner stuff then. I doubt any of the protagonists would have gone blabbing and crying to the newspapers because they missed out on the school run and the kids' bedtime due to having to work late. Esther Ranzen was in the audience which I thought appropriate for a play set in the 1970s.
"but if Labour buries its head in the sand then it could be next."
The 'head in the sand' buriers point to Labour's 2010 voters who now say they will vote UKIP - (5% vs 8 for Lib Dem & 19 Con, in today's YouGov) - but how many former Labour voters who voted Lib Dem or stayed at home in 2010 are now UKIP supporters?
All the major parties are out of touch - by both background and education, with the old 'working class' - who won Thatcher her power - and Blair his landslide. UKIP appeals to that - but whether that appeal holds up as they come under increasing scrutiny, only time will tell.
Someone last night made the well-known point that Cameron is a poor-quality Blair, but it got me thinking.
Blair worked for Labour because he atrracted moderate Tories while tribal loyalty kept the traditional working class voters on side. Cameron's problem, unlike Thatcher or Major is that he just doubles down on the Tory appeal to the Shires and has nothing to say to the C1/C2 voters who gave the Tories their majorities.
On this basis, EdM is probably too much of an appeal to Labour's metropolitian heartland; and it's not clear who the Tories have who can authentically stretch their electoral reach.
Insight like that should get you a doctorate in PPE Charles.
Actually Cameron does have something to say to the working class voters who give Conservative governments their majorities:
"Get on your bike or put on your chauffer's cap or got off my road prole"
If you want a cold arrogant line from Cam it is easy.
It is "wait in line!".
The priorities have been:
1. Cut central government spending 2. Transfer public sector employment to private sector. 3. Solve problems with key drivers of the economy: - North Sea Oil & Gas extraction - Global core industries (car manufacture, aerospace, pharmaceuticals etc.) - Banking and Financial Services recovery, recapitalisation & restructure 4. Do 1-3 with minimum impact on employment and growth 5. Reduce then eliminate deficit and start reducing debt. 7. Get credit flowing to SMEs and households.
The coalition government is moving down the list slowly but surely. When it gets to 7, then the march of the small and regional makers can begin.
Can you plausibly argue for a different order of priorities?
As I recall first order of business in 2010 was raising taxes, not cutting government spending.
It was supposed to be 80% cutting spending, 20% raising taxes. Because there have been no spending cuts, it's all been loaded on taxes.
Of course there's been spending cuts. It's just been made up by increased spending elsewhere because spending cuts tend to depress the economy further, increasing automatic stabilisers.
If you increase spending on aid, not much of it sticks in the domestic economy.... Likewise with foreign armed adventures, and higher EU contributions.
Spending on aid is almost a rounding error in macroeconomic terms. It also has a tremendous positive effect on the world economy: Africa's growth rate is double what it was 20 years ago. That has real long term benefit for the UK. Don't get me wrong: I think free trade is worth far more, but while we maintain the madness of EU membership, we can't do that, so sensible aid is the next best thing.
I fail to see how Miliband could possible connect with ordinary, working class, conservative-Labour supporters. What has he possibly got to offer them?
His rarified, privileged, north London, champagne socialist background and his gilded path from university into Labour Policy Unit, a safe seat, Ministerial position and now Leader of Opposition has absolutely nothing in common with their lives.
Every time he opens his mouth he shows the disconnect.
Ed Miliband is not the man to lead a Blue Labour approach, any more than David Cameron could embody a working class Tory movement.
But perhaps Ed Miliband could license a more suitable figure to lead such an approach. Ed Balls has a suitably muscular personality. Jim Murphy also fits the bill.
I've done some rough calculations around the two Thanet seats and it look as if the two encumbents have got their work cut out. The fascinating thing will be to see what Labour do. Do they try and win the seat themselves or do they advise tactical voting? Could Labour advise voters to vote UKIP to keep force the Tory encumbent out
North Thanet Roger Gale (Con)
UKIP 7958 38.16% Con 5654 27.11% Labour 4439 21.28% Liberal Democrat 1073 5.14% Other 1059 5.08% Green 480 2.30% Other 1 193 0.93%
South Thanet Laura Sandys (Con) UKIP 7317 35.08% Con 5858 28.09% Labour 5315 25.48% Liberal Democrat 930 4.46% Green 898 4.31% Other 567 2.72%
3. Solve problems with key drivers of the economy: - North Sea Oil & Gas extraction - Global core industries (car manufacture, aerospace, pharmaceuticals etc.) - Banking and Financial Services recovery, recapitalisation & restructure
What criteria makes these sectors the "key drivers" of the economy? They're not the largest sectors, the fastest growing sectors, or the sectors with most potential. Amount of media coverage, perhaps?
Frighteningly, it probably is the basis upon which most MPs consider sectors' importance.
To be fair:
North Sea - major impact on balance of trade and balance of payments Global core industries: all have a very large number of high paid, high value added jobs in the UK Banking & FS: like it or not, a very significant contributor to GDP & tax
What does "global core industries" even mean? I've never heard that definition before.
If you are going to count any industry that is a significant contributor to GDP, a significant contributor to the tax base, has a major impact on the balance of payments, or has high productivity jobs, then your list would be dozens of sectors long. Why focus on these six?
It's not the messenger, its the message. Green energy, high speed rail, foreign aid are Mr Cameron's signature policies. They're Guardian reader policies.
Foreign aid is something that should have been far better explained.
This should be a policy for the working classes: Do you want to spend money to fix something, or send your kids to a foreign country to fight and die to protect the UK?
It needs to be spent in the right way (and I believe Mr Dancer's favourite lady is making progress on this front), and the 0.7% is a completely arbitrary target [why do politicians do that, btw - who thinks it is better to spend a fixed sum than to spend the minimum necessary to do the job?], but the concept of investing to avoid future problems is clearly sensible
Oh Charles please please please become the Tories head spinner. You are a gift for UKIP.
I can just see the Headline
Tories Threaten to Conscript Working Classes And Send Them To Far Flung Corners Of The Earth To Die For Queen & Country
Scottish nationalists who are in favour of the EU BOO Eurosceptics who oppose Scottish Independence
Up to a point, but the first position at least desires a level of sovereignty for Scotland (we can argue about how much) while the second none at all. On absolute principle what the SNP and UKIP have in common (perhaps the only thing) is that they both want the people to be consulted in referendums on a primary matter of identity, they just have different ideas of what that identity is.
Do you think that at some point UKIP will re-brand itself as an English Independence Party? Their current status seems uncomfortable, at least electorally. I think I heard Farage this am stating that UKIP were now the true national party with support South, North, East and West; there seems to be a fairly big chunk of geographical dissonance in that assertion for a party with UK in its name.
What about the effect of UKIP on the Lib Dems at next year's Euro elections? The LDs are hanging on to a single seat in many regions and the lack of incumbency could reduce their 11 MEPs to 1994's 2 MEPs or maybe 1989's 0.
3. Solve problems with key drivers of the economy: - North Sea Oil & Gas extraction - Global core industries (car manufacture, aerospace, pharmaceuticals etc.) - Banking and Financial Services recovery, recapitalisation & restructure
What criteria makes these sectors the "key drivers" of the economy? They're not the largest sectors, the fastest growing sectors, or the sectors with most potential. Amount of media coverage, perhaps?
Frighteningly, it probably is the basis upon which most MPs consider sectors' importance.
To be fair:
North Sea - major impact on balance of trade and balance of payments Global core industries: all have a very large number of high paid, high value added jobs in the UK Banking & FS: like it or not, a very significant contributor to GDP & tax
What does "global core industries" even mean? I've never heard that definition before.
If you are going to count any industry that is a significant contributor to GDP, a significant contributor to the tax base, has a major impact on the balance of payments, or has high productivity jobs, then your list would be dozens of sectors long. Why focus on these six?
I don't think there is any specific definition of "core global industries". All it means is that (1) these are the most important and (b) they are international rather than local (e.g. retail services).
You focus on 6 because you can't effectively focus on that many. All lists of priorities are, to some extent, arbitrary. But the list doesn't look like they are missing that many key ones - if you look at domestic as well I'd add retail, food service and construction as industries that need special attention
Do you think that at some point UKIP will re-brand itself as an English Independence Party? Their current status seems uncomfortable, at least electorally. I think I heard Farage this am stating that UKIP were now the true national party with support South, North, East and West; there seems to be a big chunk of geographical dissonance in that assertion for a party with UK in its name.
I am not sure what they will do. They do not have the best record of making the right decisions and seem to be very confused about what their true identity is. This is something that I and others would hope to take advantage of to try and make them more of a truly Libertarian party but I think the leadership are too afraid of losing the ultra conservative vote to yet embrace the logical conclusion of being Libertarian as far as gay marriage is concerned.
With regard to the position in Scotland I what I would really like to see is UKIP remaining the UK independence party but realising that means embracing Scottish Independence as well. They could then campaign in Scotland on a wholly logical position of self determination for all nations rather than having this split personality about referenda.
As soon as you try to adopt such a position you start getting into trouble as so many of the reasonable arguments against British membership of the EU are exactly the same as arguments against Scottish membership of the UK.
This is rubbish. There are all sorts of arguments for the UK that do not apply to the EU, but the most notable one is that Scotland shares centuries of language, heritage and a shared identity with the rest of the UK. There's also the critical point that most people in Scotland want to be in political union with England, Wales and Northern Ireland, while most people in the UK don't want to be in political union with France, Italy, Greece etc.
German scientists concede that global warming has stopped and that there has been no temperature rise in the last 15 years. Funnily, UKIP could have told them that some time ago.
It's not the messenger, its the message. Green energy, high speed rail, foreign aid are Mr Cameron's signature policies. They're Guardian reader policies.
Foreign aid is something that should have been far better explained.
This should be a policy for the working classes: Do you want to spend money to fix something, or send your kids to a foreign country to fight and die to protect the UK?
It needs to be spent in the right way (and I believe Mr Dancer's favourite lady is making progress on this front), and the 0.7% is a completely arbitrary target [why do politicians do that, btw - who thinks it is better to spend a fixed sum than to spend the minimum necessary to do the job?], but the concept of investing to avoid future problems is clearly sensible
Oh Charles please please please become the Tories head spinner. You are a gift for UKIP.
I can just see the Headline
Tories Threaten to Conscript Working Classes And Send Them To Far Flung Corners Of The Earth To Die For Queen & Country
Priceless!
Which would, of course, be a lie.
We have a volunteer army, but one which is predominantly drawn from the working classes as it offers an excellent career and training for young men.
Their role is to fight to protect Britain's national interests and, yes, from time to time that does involve going overseas and it does involve a significant amount of risk.
So the question becomes: would you rather invest in a foreign economy to try to prevent it becoming a cesspit of terrorist activity, or you rather send our kids to fight and die there.
I'd rather spend treasure than blood. But that's a personal view - perhaps you value the lives of our children rather less highly than me?
German scientists concede that global warming has stopped and that there has been no temperature rise in the last 15 years. Funnily, UKIP could have told them that some time ago.
I strongly support gay marriage and have done for a very long time, but I struggle to see how it is a "libertarian" position. I would say government recognition of personal relationships, gay or straight, while a good thing, is surely government interference in society.
One thing that I'm slightly lost on is what would UKIP do if any binary question referendum led to the public voting to stay in the EU? Grateful for advice.
I strongly support gay marriage and have done for a very long time, but I struggle to see how it is a "libertarian" position. I would say government recognition of personal relationships, gay or straight, while a good thing, is surely government interference in society.
Not at all. I would say the exact opposite. The Libertarian position regarding government is that it is necessary to facilitate contracts between individuals and organisations - to provide a level playing field so to speak - but it should not be forbidding or interfering in interactions between individuals as long as no one else is harmed by them. The previous arrangements which forbade marriage between same sex couples was just such unnecessary interference. By removing those barriers they are acting in a way that is entirely in accordance with Libertarian principles.
One thing that I'm slightly lost on is what would UKIP do if any binary question referendum led to the public voting to stay in the EU? Grateful for advice.
Continue to campaign to get out I suspect and continue to expose the EU for the culturally corrupt institution it is.
I'm sceptical of accepting scientific arguments from someone arguing that there have been 15 years since the year 2000.
The 15 years period starts in 1998. This is now widely recognised by many including those who still adhere to the standard AGW hypothesis.
I highly doubt this, as I struggle to think of a statistical measure for observing trends that would show this, but I'm open to evidence if you can provide this.
EDIT: I'd also point out that what the German government one scientist from a German government agency "admitted to" was "since 2000".
One thing that I'm slightly lost on is what would UKIP do if any binary question referendum led to the public voting to stay in the EU? Grateful for advice.
I would hope they would continue to campaign for withdrawal but accept that there would not be another vote for at least a generation. In that time I would fully expect much of what they have predicted to come to pass since the EU will not be swayed from its aim of a political union.
In fact the more important question is what the Tories and Labour would do when they are faced a few years after the vote with an ultimatum that they must accept political union.
I strongly support gay marriage and have done for a very long time, but I struggle to see how it is a "libertarian" position. I would say government recognition of personal relationships, gay or straight, while a good thing, is surely government interference in society.
Not at all. I would say the exact opposite. The Libertarian position regarding government is that it is necessary to facilitate contracts between individuals and organisations - to provide a level playing field so to speak - but it should not be forbidding or interfering in interactions between individuals as long as no one else is harmed by them. The previous arrangements which forbade marriage between same sex couples was just such unnecessary interference. By removing those barriers they are acting in a way that is entirely in accordance with Libertarian principles.
Two individuals are quite capable of forming their own contracts, which would then be enforced by the state, without recognition of marriage.
Regarding electoral reform, couldnt there be some kind of small change whereby there are,say, 50 less constituencies, but the same number of MPs, the remaining 50 being split as per the % of the vote each party got?
So if UKIP got 20% of the vote in 2015 but no MPs they would be able to pick 10 of their candidates to speak /vote in the commons..
Not quite the AMS system, which has a number of top-up MPs sufficient to approximate overall proportionality, the overall result being determined by the top-up list vote. The system you suggest is known as a "parallel system", similar to those used in Mexico and Japan, although with only a small proportional element. The FPTP and PR elements are de-linked, and run in parallel.
Disadvantages. 1. Does little to address overall electoral bias and disproportionality. 2. Uses lists, which are anathema (although don't let anyone kid you that FPTP is anything other than a closed list of one) 3. May require two votes, which can be confusing to the voter/manipulable by the parties. 4. Creates two classes of MP.
Probably a few others, depending on the precise details of implementation. The more I look at these types of systems, the less I like them...
I saw your comments from earlier today about the results on council websites. I have to say that the failure of most of them to give a decent summary of the results is no surprise at all: it's always the same, every year. In order to get the full results you have to laboriously go through each individual result.
I highly doubt this, as I struggle to think of a statistical measure for observing trends that would show this, but I'm open to evidence if you can provide this.
I don't understand your question Socrates. The whole AGW hypothesis - or at least the catastrophic version - is based upon a supposed trend of just over 20 years. Why should you consider that trend valid but one that shows no increase for 15 years invalid.
In fact a number of the foremost proponents of the AGW hypothesis including Phil Jones at UEA have said that a 15 year period with no warming would be significant and would be problematic for the hypothesis.
Sorry Charles where this theory falls down is the presumption that it is an either or choice, there is also the neither option and I am sure most families who are feeling the pinch over day to day living would much rather the smug idiots in Westminster did not hand part of their paypackets over nor sent their offspring to die in foreign lands
The days when Labour stood up for the workers are long gone. They've morphed into a public sector trade union pressure group, and there is very little chance of Blue Labour coming to anything. The Tories are no better - still the party for the rich - and the Lib Dems are for the young middle classes.
I highly doubt this, as I struggle to think of a statistical measure for observing trends that would show this, but I'm open to evidence if you can provide this.
I don't understand your question Socrates. The whole AGW hypothesis - or at least the catastrophic version - is based upon a supposed trend of just over 20 years. Why should you consider that trend valid but one that shows no increase for 15 years invalid.
In fact a number of the foremost proponents of the AGW hypothesis including Phil Jones at UEA have said that a 15 year period with no warming would be significant and would be problematic for the hypothesis.
What I'm contesting is the idea that the warming trend has been flat for 15 years. I think any honest statistician looking at the data would accept close to flatness from about 2001, but 1998 was clearly an abnormally high year out of trend.
Sorry Charles where this theory falls down is the presumption that it is an either or choice, there is also the neither option and I am sure most families who are feeling the pinch over day to day living would much rather the smug idiots in Westminster did not hand part of their paypackets over nor sent their offspring to die in foreign lands
The assumptions I am making, which are, of course, assumptions are:
(1) Terrorist states exist which want to hurt the interests of the UK state and its citizens (2) This is a bad thing which should be stopped (3) Part of the cause is economic under-development in these countries (combined with religious and cultural belief structures and dreadful political leadership)
We have a choice between:
(1) Do nothing and take whatever they throw at us without retaliation (2) Let them hit us first and then strike back militarily (blood) (3) Invest to grow the economy and hope reduce the likelihood of a terrorist state emerging
Of course there is no guarantee that (3) will work, but it is worth trying.
But it's important to realise it is not foreign *aid* but an investment in our national interest.
German scientists concede that global warming has stopped and that there has been no temperature rise in the last 15 years. Funnily, UKIP could have told them that some time ago.
Pretty funny - especially the bit saying Chinese pollution (high altitude dust particles) could have stopped global warming lol.
As the man says at the end, if it's all just the big yellow thing in the sky going through cycles then the signs are all pointing at it getting colder.
perhaps the government can print millions of copies of the economic suicide bill we can wrap ourselves in to keep warm.
Shows the flatness slightly later than I thought, but still early 2000s. I don't know what trend analysis would show 1998 as the beginning of the flatness.
Surely the fact that we are still talking about UKIP some 3 days after the elections is proof enough that Labour's results were simply not good enough.
Whether Milliband, Clegg or Cameron are the right people to get back these "lost" voters is another matter. I have my doubts. They seem mostly to be talking to themselves rather than anyone outside their "bubble" and I'm not even a UKIP voter.
Until politicians start listening - really listening - to voters rather than condescending to them or putting them into artificial and stilted categories ("alarm clock Britain", "hard-working families" and the rest) they'll continue to sound like wonks who, whatever their good intentions, will come up with daft and/or irrelevant policies and waste your money.
It's not the messenger, its the message. Green energy, high speed rail, foreign aid are Mr Cameron's signature policies. They're Guardian reader policies.
Foreign aid is something that should have been far better explained.
This should be a policy for the working classes: Do you want to spend money to fix something, or send your kids to a foreign country to fight and die to protect the UK?
It needs to be spent in the right way (and I believe Mr Dancer's favourite lady is making progress on this front), and the 0.7% is a completely arbitrary target [why do politicians do that, btw - who thinks it is better to spend a fixed sum than to spend the minimum necessary to do the job?], but the concept of investing to avoid future problems is clearly sensible
Oh Charles please please please become the Tories head spinner. You are a gift for UKIP.
I can just see the Headline
Tories Threaten to Conscript Working Classes And Send Them To Far Flung Corners Of The Earth To Die For Queen & Country
Priceless!
Which would, of course, be a lie.
We have a volunteer army, but one which is predominantly drawn from the working classes as it offers an excellent career and training for young men.
Their role is to fight to protect Britain's national interests and, yes, from time to time that does involve going overseas and it does involve a significant amount of risk.
So the question becomes: would you rather invest in a foreign economy to try to prevent it becoming a cesspit of terrorist activity, or you rather send our kids to fight and die there.
I'd rather spend treasure than blood. But that's a personal view - perhaps you value the lives of our children rather less highly than me?
Well no its not a lie based on your extremely callous words although granted I purposefully took some liberties which would be taken by any political opponents with such a clumsily phrased argument.
I would take issue with your assumption that the vast majority of International Aid goes to countries which in any way threaten this country? Does China or India threaten this nation? Do you know which countries the EU send aid to because am I right in thinking that a large proportion of the aid is just handed over to the EU to dish out as they think fit. Are we certain that we are not allowing the EU to use our aid money to protect other nations and subsidise their aid responsibilities?
Furthermore the primary issue is not the concept of giving aid it is the lunacy of increasing the aid budget given we are living in a time of austerity when to do so means taking on board additional borrowing. Its absurd. Its insane politics.
However your argument is morally dubious anyway because it seems as if you are arguing that we should bribe countries to stop them sending terrorists here. Yet I would imagine that ideological zealots would not be impressed with bribes and still send the terrorists here. anyway.
Not only that but this country has indulges in a policy of international interventionism wherther or not a particular country threatens us or not so if you are concerned about our troops lives I would have thought first and foremost you would be arguing for the end of our involvement in international interventions.
Additionally, increasingly the majority of terrorists seem to be home grown. Do you not think the money might be better used in trying to avoid home grown terrorism and do you not think that cutting the police budgets in that circumstance whilst increasing the aid budget is equally putting the lives of all of us at risk?
Israeli airspace north of Haifa shut until May 9th reportedly.
Meanwhile 'sources' in the US suggest that Obama is leaning towards some kind of airstrike in Syria. The exact nature and purpose isn't clear. The Syrian air defence system isn't in good nick right now so it wouldn't be too much of a task to deal with that but it would need a lot more clarity what such airstrikes are going to hit.
What I'm contesting is the idea that the warming trend has been flat for 15 years. I think any honest statistician looking at the data would accept close to flatness from about 2001, but 1998 was clearly an abnormally high year out of trend.
Whilst actually I would agree with you on that, 1998 was being used by the AGW proponents as part of their extreme trend line. They were willing to use it as an example of catastrophic warming when they thought it was adhering to their hypothesis and yet you are saying they should not use it when they are looking at the cooling trend the other way.
Actually according to the Met office and UEA the start of the 'flat' period is November 1996 but even with 25 years of looking at climate trends I still can't work out why they have picked that particular month in that particular year as the point at which they say warming stopped.
The problem EdM , Cameron , and Clegg face with Farage is that they are essentially boys whilst he is a man. I've seen little evidence of the three children maturing into manhood.
Yes I have heard this reasoning before about option 3, however as you and I know well it is reasoning that is at best flawed and at worst frankly dishonest
We have given aid for countless years to these countries, I may have failed to notice it but I haven't seen much sign of it stopping the terrorism.
We both know that foreign aid is nothing more than a bribe to these states to buy our weapons. They are a taxpayer subsidy to arms merchants nothing less. Evidence you say I point to all the foreign aid deals that have been tied to arms contracts.
Israeli airspace north of Haifa shut until May 9th reportedly.
Meanwhile 'sources' in the US suggest that Obama is leaning towards some kind of airstrike in Syria. The exact nature and purpose isn't clear. The Syrian air defence system isn't in good nick right now so it wouldn't be too much of a task to deal with that but it would need a lot more clarity what such airstrikes are going to hit.
Shows the flatness slightly later than I thought, but still early 2000s. I don't know what trend analysis would show 1998 as the beginning of the flatness.
The graph you linked to was only land surface temperatures not land and sea.
The NOAA graph for global temperatures rather than just land is :
Interestingly on that one the trend is not just flat but falling.
There is some major dispute about all these temperatures since there has been considerable 'correction' made to historical temperatures, particularly reducing those between 1900 and 1950.
It's not the messenger, its the message. Green energy, high speed rail, foreign aid are Mr Cameron's signature policies. They're Guardian reader policies.
Foreign aid is something that should have been far better explained.
This should be a policy for the working classes: Do you want to spend money to fix something, or send your kids to a foreign country to fight and die to protect the UK?
It needs to be spent in the right way (and I believe Mr Dancer's favourite lady is making progress on this front), and the 0.7% is a completely arbitrary target [why do politicians do that, btw - who thinks it is better to spend a fixed sum than to spend the minimum necessary to do the job?], but the concept of investing to avoid future problems is clearly sensible
Oh Charles please please please become the Tories head spinner. You are a gift for UKIP.
I can just see the Headline
Tories Threaten to Conscript Working Classes And Send Them To Far Flung Corners Of The Earth To Die For Queen & Country
Priceless!
Which would, of course, be a lie.
We have a volunteer army, but one which is predominantly drawn from the working classes as it offers an excellent career and training for young men.
Their role is to fight to protect Britain's national interests and, yes, from time to time that does involve going overseas and it does involve a significant amount of risk.
So the question becomes: would you rather invest in a foreign economy to try to prevent it becoming a cesspit of terrorist activity, or you rather send our kids to fight and die there.
I'd rather spend treasure than blood. But that's a personal view - perhaps you value the lives of our children rather less highly than me?
Well no its not a lie based on your extremely callous words although granted I purposefully took some liberties which would be taken by any political opponents with such a clumsily phrased argument.
I would take issue with your assumption that the vast majority of International Aid goes to countries which in any way threaten this country? Does China or India threaten this nation? Do you know which countries the EU send aid to because am I right in thinking that a large proportion of the aid is just handed over to the EU to dish out as they think fit. Are we certain that we are not allowing the EU to use our aid money to protect other nations and subsidise their aid responsibilities?
Furthermore the primary issue is not the concept of giving aid it is the lunacy of increasing the aid budget given we are living in a time of austerity when to do so means taking on board additional borrowing. Its absurd. Its insane politics.
However your argument is morally dubious anyway because it seems as if you are arguing that we should bribe countries to stop them sending terrorists here. Yet I would imagine that ideological zealots would not be impressed with bribes and still send the terrorists here. anyway.
Not only that but this country has indulges in a policy of international interventionism wherther or not a particular country threatens us or not so if you are concerned about our troops lives I would have thought first and foremost you would be arguing for the end of our involvement in international interventions.
Additionally, increasingly the majority of terrorists seem to be home grown. Do you not think the money might be better used in trying to avoid home grown terrorism and do you not think that cutting the police budgets in that circumstance whilst increasing the aid budget is equally putting the lives of all of us at risk?
I'm not sure which bit of my original posting was callous - it was just a statement of reality that the majority of our armed forces come from a working class background. And it is a lie because at no point did I suggest conscription.
My argument was not about how Aid is spent - and was historically spent - but how it *should* be spent. Mitchell made some good steps towards this - such as supporting secondary education for women in Ethiopia - and Greening appears to be continuing down this path.
And to be clear, we are not talking about bribery, but in investing in countries to help them develop. Ethiopia is interesting, for instance, because the academic work suggests that there is a strong correlation between female secondary eduction, female participation in the economy and a reduction in radicalism.
Fundamentally, I believe that a bad economy creates the environment in which political radicalism - terrorism - flourishes. If you improve the economy, and give young men jobs, then terrorism declines. It will never fall to zero, but it will help a lot.
This policy, of course, doesn't address home grown terrorism, and that is something which needs to be fixed as well.
Anyway my view of aid is not important lets take the words of a Tory Grandee who knows a bit about giving money to good causes and at least one not so worthy cause:
Lord Ashcroft: The case against overseas aid - and for genuinely compassionate conservatism
Sadly, this cavalier approach to other people’s money typifies the aid industry. It is why billions and billions of pounds have been blown over recent decades, despite the lack of convincing hard evidence to prove these vast sums are doing the good deeds claimed by defendants. As the economist Peter Bauer said so famously, aid takes money from poor people in rich countries and gives it to rich people in poor countries.
Yes I have heard this reasoning before about option 3, however as you and I know well it is reasoning that is at best flawed and at worst frankly dishonest
We have given aid for countless years to these countries, I may have failed to notice it but I haven't seen much sign of it stopping the terrorism.
We both know that foreign aid is nothing more than a bribe to these states to buy our weapons. They are a taxpayer subsidy to arms merchants nothing less. Evidence you say I point to all the foreign aid deals that have been tied to arms contracts.
In the past it has been p*ssed away, and much of it still is (e.g. I don't like handing over chunks of money to the EU to disperse and claim the benefits for themselves). The model is changing for the better.
I'd like to get hold of the actual votes rather than percentages and unfortunately they're not on that page.
I did a cut and paste job division by division into a spreadsheet. IIRC, the total was about 338,000 votes. I didn't save the sheet though. Or perhaps that was 2009...
I am terribly sorry Charles I must have missed the part where you actually responded to what I said, doubtless I fell asleep while you were wiffling on about eu waste which you will note my response is lacking any reference to.
The point for us mortals who live below the rarefied atmosphere that yourself and most politicians live in is simple this.
The DFID budget this year is 11 billion, assuming 45 million tax payers (erring well on the high side)
that works out at 244 pounds per tax payer per year.
For the many families that are struggling to put enough food on the table, to pay their fuel bills this squandering of their hard earned money to foreign governements many of which could afford to spend their own money is nothing but a slap in the face.
Yes I have heard this reasoning before about option 3, however as you and I know well it is reasoning that is at best flawed and at worst frankly dishonest
We have given aid for countless years to these countries, I may have failed to notice it but I haven't seen much sign of it stopping the terrorism.
We both know that foreign aid is nothing more than a bribe to these states to buy our weapons. They are a taxpayer subsidy to arms merchants nothing less. Evidence you say I point to all the foreign aid deals that have been tied to arms contracts.
In the past it has been p*ssed away, and much of it still is (e.g. I don't like handing over chunks of money to the EU to disperse and claim the benefits for themselves). The model is changing for the better.
I speculated earlier that much of the Western media reporting potentially underplayed what the Israelis struck at, in particular over the last 24 hours and also whether by striking as they had they had in fact assisted the rebels.
A bit of geography, the Mt Qaissoun area west of Damascus is a symbol of regime power and an area bristling with Assad's forces. It is home to Assads palace, bases for his trusted uniyts and a considerable amount of artillery. In its environs are the 'research institute' and chicken coup' (an interesting term in itself) that the Syrians claimed was attacked.
Local reports, however, suggest that Institute may not have been the main target. Instead the following targets have been reported as potentially being hit.
501st unit, special weapons unit 104th brigade HQ, one of Assads most reliable and trusted units Barrack elements of the 4th Division, headed by Bashar's brother and the most solid mobile spearhead Assad has.
The huge explosions suggest some kind of supply or storage depot facilities went up in smoke.
We do not yet have complete proof of these precise sites being hit other than there was a lot of explosions on the Mount Qaissoun area. In fact the only news agency positively suggesting that military forces and not just a storage facility was struck is Russia Today, the rest is on the ground assessments some of them clearly with their own agendas.
It can be speculated that the Israelis decided that taking out supplies due for Hizbollah wasn't enough and that Assad needed to be warned that they'd start pounding his core forces around his fortress if the weapons transfer kept up.
What is confirmed was definitely an earlier attack on heavy missile transport and also the Damascus airport area, used by the Iranians to fly in kit.
On an added note about Obama 'leaning towards' airstrikes, it appears Canadian officials have suggested they are open to some kind of air operation.
Too early given the President's hesistancy to positively suggest things are going to roll but the argument that Syria has this immense integrated air defence system has been somewhat , pardon the pun, shot down. Its been in partial functioning shape, especially since one of three key strategic radar installations was seized by rebels months ago.
The problem EdM , Cameron , and Clegg face with Farage is that they are essentially boys whilst he is a man. I've seen little evidence of the three children maturing into manhood.
Very trite! Who's been eating my porridge? say's Cammo, Who's been eating my porridge? say's redEd, Who's been eating my porridge? say's Cleggover. I've been eating from all three bowls, laughs Farage, and I'm going to sleep in all your beds next.
Shows the flatness slightly later than I thought, but still early 2000s. I don't know what trend analysis would show 1998 as the beginning of the flatness.
The graph you linked to was only land surface temperatures not land and sea.
The NOAA graph for global temperatures rather than just land is :
Interestingly on that one the trend is not just flat but falling.
There is some major dispute about all these temperatures since there has been considerable 'correction' made to historical temperatures, particularly reducing those between 1900 and 1950.
All fair points. I completely accept the trend has been virtually flat since early 2000s. You accepted that the 1998 spike as an off-trend anomaly, so I think we're in agreement here.
What about the effect of UKIP on the Lib Dems at next year's Euro elections? The LDs are hanging on to a single seat in many regions and the lack of incumbency could reduce their 11 MEPs to 1994's 2 MEPs or maybe 1989's 0.
That seems quite possible.
One thing I think will be interesting is to see how eurosceptism does across the EU. At the moment there are 736 MEPs across Europe.
At the moment the EFD (mainly UKIP and Lega Nord in Italy) has 32 seats. The ECR (mainly the Conservatives, Poland's PiS and PJN and Czech's ODS) have 55 seats. There are also 30 Non-Inscrits which mainly come from racist parties like the BNP and Jobbik. So all in all the Eurosceptics of various shades have maybe 100 MEPs which is a minor irritant.
Now it is likely that UKIP will increase their number of seats but what about other countries? We can expect True Finns and anti-EU parties in Greece to do well but these countries have small numbers of seats. The real test will be in the big population countries - will the new German eurosceptic party take off? Will Berlusconi's group leave the EPP? What about the FN in France?
If the sceptics group increases to 150 or 200 then they could start to be a real thorn in the side of the main blocks.
Please don't think I was being sarcastic towards yourself earlier - merely being a touch ironic about the political 'experts' who were unable to look outside their comfort zone to what might be happening.
I think Douglas Carswell expressed it well when he said "the BBC will now ask someone from dinnerpartyland what is happening outside of dinnerpartyland, other residents of dinnerpartyland will then disagree" or some such.
All fair points. I completely accept the trend has been virtually flat since early 2000s. You accepted that the 1998 spike as an off-trend anomaly, so I think we're in agreement here.
We do seem to have the ability as far as PB is concerned of coming to an amicable (dis) agreement over most issues. Must annoy the hell out of some of the frothers. :-)
It's not the messenger, its the message. Green energy, high speed rail, foreign aid are Mr Cameron's signature policies. They're Guardian reader policies.
The thing is if Cameron had left the Aid budget as it was or cut it by around 10% nobody would have said a dickie-bird. That's austerity but for that idiot Cameron to insist on increasing the aid budget by billions per annum when many millions of British people are finding it tough and are being asked by government to take cuts in benefits is pure and simple political suicide. He might as well rub salt in the wounds and cut the upper rate of tax as well (oh wait a minute)
PS Re conscription. Reread the way you wrote your initial piece. It infers that if the aid increases are not undertaken that working class kids will have to be sent to fight abroad and will die. That is a sufficiently open statement to make pretty much anything you want of it particularlygiven you do not refer to the standing forces in any way at all. You should not assume that people can read your mind. Yes it is a liberty making such a wild assumption but no its not a lie and if it was a headline by the time it was refuted it would have served its purpose.
Rather than just asserting my belief that aid has no impact on terrorism I went to see if I could find any back up for my position. To my surprise I didn't find anything that showed me aid was irrelevant in stopping terrorism instead I found this. It has plenty of sources cited so you can check for veracity but from this it would seem that the correlation between foreign aid and terrorism is strongly suggested
Interesting article from Mr Manson though I find it somewhat curious that he doesn't mention the most conspicuously Farage friendly UKIP pleasing policy Cruddas came up with.
Lest we forget it is Cruddas who was pushing for an IN/OUT referendum on Europe.
Not the hilarious new referendum on a referendum, that panicking tory MPs unnacountably seem to think will fool the kippers and Farage, but the real deal.
Ed Miliband's new policy chief backs a vote on Europe
Ed Miliband's new policy chief is backing demands for an “immediate” referendum on whether Britain should leave the European Union.
Blue Labour also reeks of tactics. Yet more Bliarite triangulation that can be adapted to UKIP which would also have the purely coincidental and benefiicial effect of keeping the political narrative firmly on core kipper issues. Something I don't believe Cammie will be too keen on continuing for much longer given the local election results.
If labour really do want to get back the old labour voters then not only is little Ed not the man to do it but posturing is also extremely unlikely to do so. Little Ed either gives them some policies or he is back to relying on them coming back to the fold in the face of another possible tory govt. Not guaranteed in this austerity era of attractive protest voting.
Israeli airspace north of Haifa shut until May 9th reportedly.
Meanwhile 'sources' in the US suggest that Obama is leaning towards some kind of airstrike in Syria. The exact nature and purpose isn't clear. The Syrian air defence system isn't in good nick right now so it wouldn't be too much of a task to deal with that but it would need a lot more clarity what such airstrikes are going to hit.
that sounds like Assad is winning?
His strategic situation on the ground has improved recently yes but winning? Yes he is, if not having control of over half the land mass is winning.
Why are we proposing to help Assad's opponents? Didn't they ally themselves with some branch of Al-Qaeda recently? I hold no brief for Assad but we're deluding ourselves if we think that his opponents are fighting for a free liberal democracy. It's more likely that the country will end up in the hands of the sorts of people with the sort of ideology which will make terrorism (unlike Charles I think that we hugely underplay the role of ideology in the growth of the sort of terrorism we've seen in recent years) more - rather than less - likely.
I am terribly sorry Charles I must have missed the part where you actually responded to what I said, doubtless I fell asleep while you were wiffling on about eu waste which you will note my response is lacking any reference to.
The point for us mortals who live below the rarefied atmosphere that yourself and most politicians live in is simple this.
The DFID budget this year is 11 billion, assuming 45 million tax payers (erring well on the high side)
that works out at 244 pounds per tax payer per year.
For the many families that are struggling to put enough food on the table, to pay their fuel bills this squandering of their hard earned money to foreign governements many of which could afford to spend their own money is nothing but a slap in the face.
Given the number of people who are being forced to go to food banks the idea that government is increasing the Aid Budget (not forgetting the additional interests as it is borrowoed money) is outrageous.
I've now had my Fox Soccer Plus subscription for several weeks, which gives me all the rugby codes - Super League, Heineken Cup, the Irish stuff, NRL, and Aussie rules football.
NRL seems a much superior product to Super League, and I was born and raised on Rugby League, watching Eddie Waring do his thing - and on It's a Knockout with the increasingly repellent Stuart Hall. Other than Cilla Black, Bruce Forsyth and Lulu, are there any 1970s BBC variety show or deejay people who haven't been implicated in the Savile operation?
Regarding climate change - I'm not really a proponent of either side of the argument. I'm open to the idea that mankind's activities have affected the climate, I'd just like to see some quantified and measured rationale for it, before all these ludicrous conferences agreeing to reduce world temperature by 2 degrees in the next x years by spending obscene amounts of other people's money. We know climate changes over time anyway, and there have been high CO2 periods in the past.
Also we know there are problems with the dataset - the original has been lost and all that is remaining is the 'adjusted' one.
Also there are problems with the land based measuring stations - they are overwhelmingly placed on coasts and in populated areas, with comparatively few in unpopulated areas or far inland.
In addition the satellite data is suspect - an increasing number of satellites are producing inaccurate readings. The classic of the genre is the satellite measurement of 604 degrees fahrenheit water temperature in Lake Michigan at Egg Harbor WI in 2010. Feed that into the climate prediction model and all sorts of things happen.
Before doing anything, we need a dataset that all can agree is accurate.
Why are we proposing to help Assad's opponents? Didn't they ally themselves with some branch of Al-Qaeda recently? I hold no brief for Assad but we're deluding ourselves if we think that his opponents are fighting for a free liberal democracy. It's more likely that the country will end up in the hands of the sorts of people with the sort of ideology which will make terrorism (unlike Charles I think that we hugely underplay the role of ideology in the growth of the sort of terrorism we've seen in recent years) more - rather than less - likely.
The Assads have been in power for forty years. You think propping them up for longer will improve the situation with Islamic radicals in the country? Should Syria move to democracy, we probably will get some unpleasant Muslim nutters in charge some of the time, but, as we have seen in Egypt, the changed dynamic means the democratic progressives have far more influence then they do under a secure dictator. More split political power will evolve towards moderation over time, as it has done in European countries.
I've had a thought that some of the more extreme Cameroons - or some Cameron sycophant who knows what his master really thinks - might want to increase speed rather than change course.
"By getting rid of all these provincial bigots it shows how much the Conservative party has changed and how modern and detoxed we are. All those urban trendies and guardianistas will take a fresh look at us and they'll like what they say - we're green, we're gay, we're good. No turning back now Dave our breakthrough is on its way"
Ludicrous of course, but its the sort of thing Cameron would want to hear and Cameron's the sort of man vulnerable to wishful thinking and with a history of surrounding himself with sycophants who will indulge it.
Why are we proposing to help Assad's opponents? Didn't they ally themselves with some branch of Al-Qaeda recently? I hold no brief for Assad but we're deluding ourselves if we think that his opponents are fighting for a free liberal democracy. It's more likely that the country will end up in the hands of the sorts of people with the sort of ideology which will make terrorism (unlike Charles I think that we hugely underplay the role of ideology in the growth of the sort of terrorism we've seen in recent years) more - rather than less - likely.
Why are we proposing to help Assad's opponents? Didn't they ally themselves with some branch of Al-Qaeda recently? I hold no brief for Assad but we're deluding ourselves if we think that his opponents are fighting for a free liberal democracy. It's more likely that the country will end up in the hands of the sorts of people with the sort of ideology which will make terrorism (unlike Charles I think that we hugely underplay the role of ideology in the growth of the sort of terrorism we've seen in recent years) more - rather than less - likely.
Socrates - no I hadn't. There are all the Premier League games you can eat on Fox Soccer and Fox Soccer Plus. I'm just not a soccer fan. Plus they all start either mid morning or mid afternoon, many mid-week here. Tough to build an audience with times like that.
Rather than just asserting my belief that aid has no impact on terrorism I went to see if I could find any back up for my position. To my surprise I didn't find anything that showed me aid was irrelevant in stopping terrorism instead I found this. It has plenty of sources cited so you can check for veracity but from this it would seem that the correlation between foreign aid and terrorism is strongly suggested
I think it's more that we tend to be eager to help areas where terrorists tend to recruit, on the theory that it makes young men less disaffected and thus less likely to be terrorists.
But most foreign aid goes to countries with no discernible UK-directed terrorism whatever. When was the last time you heard of an Indian, or Ethiopian, or Sri Lankan terrorist plot against Britain?
There are actually at least four positions on this:
1. Foreign aid is bad, we need the money 2. Foreign aid is good, it makes people like us and buy our stuff 3. Foreign aid is good, it reduces terrorism 4. Foreign aid is good, we can spare 1/140th of our income to help people in desperate need.
Number 2 tends to lead to tied aid, which is in my opinion morally shaky though maybe necessary to reassure taxpayers (don't buy the stuff you most need, buy whatever we happen to want to sell you). Number 3 leads naturally to the idea of military aid being classed as foreign aid, which is readily satirised ("We had to destroy the village to save it"). I support number 4.
Why are we proposing to help Assad's opponents? Didn't they ally themselves with some branch of Al-Qaeda recently? I hold no brief for Assad but we're deluding ourselves if we think that his opponents are fighting for a free liberal democracy. It's more likely that the country will end up in the hands of the sorts of people with the sort of ideology which will make terrorism (unlike Charles I think that we hugely underplay the role of ideology in the growth of the sort of terrorism we've seen in recent years) more - rather than less - likely.
It is hard to envisage an option which would positively lessen the threat faced. I certainly do not envy our leaders on this one.
Although with Iran and Hizbollah apparently lending so much crucial support for Assad, surely their influence in any restabilized regime would be far greater from hereon out? Not (openly) arming rebels has not helped the situation any, and arming them (or elements of them) is also fraught with risk, but we don't seem much safer afterwards for definite whichever happens.
According to the AP, Israel has attacked Syria for the second time in 3 days.
Israels' attack was exactly what Arab leaders have been calling on the West to do - but because the attacks came from Israel it means the Arabs condemned them immediately, giving an immediate conundrum for Arab leaders.
Rather than just asserting my belief that aid has no impact on terrorism I went to see if I could find any back up for my position. To my surprise I didn't find anything that showed me aid was irrelevant in stopping terrorism instead I found this. It has plenty of sources cited so you can check for veracity but from this it would seem that the correlation between foreign aid and terrorism is strongly suggested
There are actually at least four positions on this:
1. Foreign aid is bad, we need the money 2. Foreign aid is good, it makes people like us and buy our stuff 3. Foreign aid is good, it reduces terrorism 4. Foreign aid is good, we can spare 1/140th of our income to help people in desperate need.
Number 2 tends to lead to tied aid, which is in my opinion morally shaky though maybe necessary to reassure taxpayers (don't buy the stuff you most need, buy whatever we happen to want to sell you). Number 3 leads naturally to the idea of military aid being classed as foreign aid, which is readily satirised ("We had to destroy the village to save it"). I support number 4.
I would too, but I think for many there is a fifth position, namely:
5. Foreign aid is good in theory, but it mostly ends up wasted/misappropriated/misused so there's no point to it.
I could not speak to the truth of that - the bad cases are no doubt widely highlighted than the successes - but it is the position I hear most commonly among people I know.
Personally I think the amounts we give is negligible compared to other spending and we can probably afford it, but if one follows positions 1 or 5, it is a quick and easy saving, so I understand the focus on it.
Speaking very tangentially to UKIP and previous perceptions of them as racist (something that seems no longer to be widely thought of as the case), I must say it is a tremendous shock when one enounters genuine, flagrant racism in the flesh.
I recently discovered, to my shock, that a close family member was quite evidently anti-semitic, and after at first thinking it was just a cross-boundaries joke, was left utterly flabbergasted at how to respond further when it was clear they were serious. Quite upsetting.
I agree with the assessments of the 4 reasons totally Nick
My argument is in the current conditions 1 should be prime
2 My argument is there is a reason we just passed laws stopping companies using bribery to get foreign contracts, how can we therefore justifying using taxpayer money to bribe instead
3 See my link. The assertion as stated seems to not only not bear scrutiny but be positively contradicted
4 It makes the dinnerparty Islington crowd (of all colours) happy, them being happy is irrelevant to the good of the country
Socrates - no I hadn't. There are all the Premier League games you can eat on Fox Soccer and Fox Soccer Plus. I'm just not a soccer fan. Plus they all start either mid morning or mid afternoon, many mid-week here. Tough to build an audience with times like that.
If you read down the feed more closely you'll see it's an American guy satirically being over-American in his reporting of soccer to annoy Brits. It's very, very funny some of the spats he gets into. I thought you'd appreciate it.
Why are we proposing to help Assad's opponents? Didn't they ally themselves with some branch of Al-Qaeda recently? I hold no brief for Assad but we're deluding ourselves if we think that his opponents are fighting for a free liberal democracy.
Why on earth do you think that has the slightest bearing on who the west currently supports in Syria? For those with an acute memory loss, before Assad 'suddenly' transformed into yet another in a long, long series of madman dictators he was happily doing deals, and rendering/torturing people for a distinctly unsqueamish west at the time.
Socrates - no I hadn't. There are all the Premier League games you can eat on Fox Soccer and Fox Soccer Plus. I'm just not a soccer fan. Plus they all start either mid morning or mid afternoon, many mid-week here. Tough to build an audience with times like that.
If you read down the feed more closely you'll see it's an American guy satirically being over-American in his reporting of soccer to annoy Brits. It's very, very funny some of the spats he gets into. I thought you'd appreciate it.
Thanks Socrates - I shall make a point of reading it!
I've had a thought that some of the more extreme Cameroons - or some Cameron sycophant who knows what his master really thinks - might want to increase speed rather than change course.
"By getting rid of all these provincial bigots it shows how much the Conservative party has changed and how modern and detoxed we are. All those urban trendies and guardianistas will take a fresh look at us and they'll like what they say - we're green, we're gay, we're good. No turning back now Dave our breakthrough is on its way"
Ludicrous of course, but its the sort of thing Cameron would want to hear and Cameron's the sort of man vulnerable to wishful thinking and with a history of surrounding himself with sycophants who will indulge it.
I think Cameron might be perfectly happy in a new SDP with Orange Bookers. A Tory party split, with UKIP absorbing the rest of it seems quite likely at some point in the next few years. I think it's also likely that Lib Dems will be not as we know them, splitting to Orange and Green in recrimination for failure in government. I'm not convinced that Labour will hold together either. Interesting times.
Things being complicated should not prevent action being taken where
a) it is in the strategic self interest to do so and/or b) heaven forbid it has some end humanitarian purposes
The problem in Syria from the Wests point of view is they did the same thing in Bosnia, they sat and said 'oh its very difficult'. As a result its got more complicated. You don t deal with extremists on any side of a conflict by being vague you deal with them by being firm.
You can't be hamstrung by the recent past such as Iraq and Afghanistan.
The core fact about the Syrian rebellion is that it started off as street protests and defecting soldiers who concluded they couldn't shoot the populace . The global Jihadists (and just how many are there in Syria? ) appeared later. In fact the West watched them walk into the country knew how they were coming in then used it as another reason to suggest it was all very cloudy.
Its curious that I rarely hear criticism of the West's, in particular the USA's support of the Muslim Brotherhood, that world renowned bastion of tolerance in Egypt. In fact Ive heard little mention by anyone that they basically tried to create a virtual dictatorship and had their own militia on the streets. Apparently though that was fine.
It is like this, if you want something you have to do something about it, do it with commitment and do it early. Instead the West did none of those things.
The parallel here is as much Bosnia as Iraq, the West's attitude is pure Douglas Hurd Foreign Office wonk thinking. Having had spent some time in the Balkans I can tell you now, Europe and our own government sat on their hands for way too long.
It is like this, if you want something you have to do something about it, do it with commitment and do it early. Instead the West did none of those things.
Yet more sense from our resident expert. Having missed earlier windows to act, the hesitation of then just becomes magnified from now on, no doubt.
Has the West handled Syria as badly as it possibly could have, or have there been any reasonable moves in your opinion?
Good thing early 'decisive' intervention worked so well in Iraq, isn't it?
Neoconservatives never learn.
For all the amusing armchair general antics getting overexcited about tank movements etc. there is nothing complicated about Syria.
It is a bloody civil war and anyone who thinks they can control the eventual political and regional outcome with some more arms or missile strikes are delusional. That goes for Russia just as much as the west.
Good thing early 'decisive' intervention worked so well in Iraq, isn't it?
Neoconservatives never learn.
For all the amusing armchair general antics getting overexcited about tank movements etc. there is nothing complicated about Syria.
It is a bloody civil war and anyone who thinks they can control the eventual political and regional outcome with some more arms or missile strikes are delusional. That goes for Russia just as much as the west.
You could have said a similar thing about Rwanda in 1994.
Comments
UKIP 7613 31.9%
Con 7113 29.8%
LD 4424 18.5%
Lab 2792 11.7%
Ind 1438 6.0%
Grn 446 1.9%
TUSC 73 0.3%
http://vote-2012.proboards.com/thread/519/buckinghamshire?page=2##ixzz2SRM8Pn00
The oil and gas reserves in the North Sea are an economic resource which need effective management regardless of sovereignty or 'ownership' issues.
I am not an industry expert and can only report data from official publications.
But it is not hard to assume that the reserves are not fixed (more are likely to be discovered); that discovered resources formerly considered uneconomic to develop may become cost effective with new technology; and that rises in global energy pricing may alter the cost-benefit equation in favour of development.
Oil output peaked in the late 1990s and has been declining since. Current investments may not return the sector to peak output but could slow the decline or increase outputs from its current levels.
If you want more than these generalist platitudes wait for Richard Tyndall to comment as he knows far more than I do about the prospects for North Sea oil and gas output. In the meantime I will stick with ONS and DECC official figures and forecasts and take with a pinch of salt your allegations that these organisations are "unionist puppets".
It strikes me as utterly ludicrous to promote British Independence from the EU whilst at the same time attacking the idea of Scottish Independence from the rest of the UK. As soon as you try to adopt such a position you start getting into trouble as so many of the reasonable arguments against British membership of the EU are exactly the same as arguments against Scottish membership of the UK.
Two completely and equally illogical positions:
Scottish nationalists who are in favour of the EU
BOO Eurosceptics who oppose Scottish Independence
So if UKIP got 20% of the vote in 2015 but no MPs they would be able to pick 10 of their candidates to speak /vote in the commons..
Good luck with persuading the big parties to back it.
This should be a policy for the working classes: Do you want to spend money to fix something, or send your kids to a foreign country to fight and die to protect the UK?
It needs to be spent in the right way (and I believe Mr Dancer's favourite lady is making progress on this front), and the 0.7% is a completely arbitrary target [why do politicians do that, btw - who thinks it is better to spend a fixed sum than to spend the minimum necessary to do the job?], but the concept of investing to avoid future problems is clearly sensible
North Sea - major impact on balance of trade and balance of payments
Global core industries: all have a very large number of high paid, high value added jobs in the UK
Banking & FS: like it or not, a very significant contributor to GDP & tax
People were made of sterner stuff then. I doubt any of the protagonists would have gone blabbing and crying to the newspapers because they missed out on the school run and the kids' bedtime due to having to work late.
Esther Ranzen was in the audience which I thought appropriate for a play set in the 1970s.
His rarified, privileged, north London, champagne socialist background and his gilded path from university into Labour Policy Unit, a safe seat, Ministerial position and now Leader of Opposition has absolutely nothing in common with their lives.
Every time he opens his mouth he shows the disconnect.
North Thanet Roger Gale (Con)
UKIP 7958 38.16%
Con 5654 27.11%
Labour 4439 21.28%
Liberal Democrat 1073 5.14%
Other 1059 5.08%
Green 480 2.30%
Other 1 193 0.93%
South Thanet Laura Sandys (Con)
UKIP 7317 35.08%
Con 5858 28.09%
Labour 5315 25.48%
Liberal Democrat 930 4.46%
Green 898 4.31%
Other 567 2.72%
If you are going to count any industry that is a significant contributor to GDP, a significant contributor to the tax base, has a major impact on the balance of payments, or has high productivity jobs, then your list would be dozens of sectors long. Why focus on these six?
I can just see the Headline
Tories Threaten to Conscript Working Classes And Send Them To Far Flung Corners Of The Earth To Die For Queen & Country
Priceless!
Hope you don't mind me pointing this out but the overall Surrey percentages are in fact available on the official website:
http://mycouncil.surreycc.gov.uk/mgElectionResults.aspx?ID=5&V=0
I'd like to get hold of the actual votes rather than percentages and unfortunately they're not on that page.
Do you think that at some point UKIP will re-brand itself as an English Independence Party? Their current status seems uncomfortable, at least electorally. I think I heard Farage this am stating that UKIP were now the true national party with support South, North, East and West; there seems to be a fairly big chunk of geographical dissonance in that assertion for a party with UK in its name.
It is so last week.
Time for a greengasm.
You focus on 6 because you can't effectively focus on that many. All lists of priorities are, to some extent, arbitrary. But the list doesn't look like they are missing that many key ones - if you look at domestic as well I'd add retail, food service and construction as industries that need special attention
With regard to the position in Scotland I what I would really like to see is UKIP remaining the UK independence party but realising that means embracing Scottish Independence as well. They could then campaign in Scotland on a wholly logical position of self determination for all nations rather than having this split personality about referenda.
http://notrickszone.com/2013/05/05/baffled-german-government-concedes-global-warming-has-stopped-warming-pause-is-remarkable-unexpected/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
We have a volunteer army, but one which is predominantly drawn from the working classes as it offers an excellent career and training for young men.
Their role is to fight to protect Britain's national interests and, yes, from time to time that does involve going overseas and it does involve a significant amount of risk.
So the question becomes: would you rather invest in a foreign economy to try to prevent it becoming a cesspit of terrorist activity, or you rather send our kids to fight and die there.
I'd rather spend treasure than blood. But that's a personal view - perhaps you value the lives of our children rather less highly than me?
I strongly support gay marriage and have done for a very long time, but I struggle to see how it is a "libertarian" position. I would say government recognition of personal relationships, gay or straight, while a good thing, is surely government interference in society.
Labour has three problems:
It does not have anyone on its front bench capable of carrying this programme through.
It would have to plead mea culpa for its errors of its last 13 ears in power - unfortunately the damage caused cannot be reversed.
It would have to ditch the Guardianista thinking and remove its reliance on the Unions.
Too many steps too far for its political elite.
EDIT: I'd also point out that what the German government one scientist from a German government agency "admitted to" was "since 2000".
In fact the more important question is what the Tories and Labour would do when they are faced a few years after the vote with an ultimatum that they must accept political union.
The system you suggest is known as a "parallel system", similar to those used in Mexico and Japan, although with only a small proportional element. The FPTP and PR elements are de-linked, and run in parallel.
Disadvantages.
1. Does little to address overall electoral bias and disproportionality.
2. Uses lists, which are anathema (although don't let anyone kid you that FPTP is anything other than a closed list of one)
3. May require two votes, which can be confusing to the voter/manipulable by the parties.
4. Creates two classes of MP.
Probably a few others, depending on the precise details of implementation. The more I look at these types of systems, the less I like them...
I saw your comments from earlier today about the results on council websites. I have to say that the failure of most of them to give a decent summary of the results is no surprise at all: it's always the same, every year. In order to get the full results you have to laboriously go through each individual result.
In fact a number of the foremost proponents of the AGW hypothesis including Phil Jones at UEA have said that a 15 year period with no warming would be significant and would be problematic for the hypothesis.
Davy Crockett says it best in my opinion
http://www.fee.org/library/detail/not-your-to-give-2#axzz2SRgnG88l
Hence Ukip.
(1) Terrorist states exist which want to hurt the interests of the UK state and its citizens
(2) This is a bad thing which should be stopped
(3) Part of the cause is economic under-development in these countries (combined with religious and cultural belief structures and dreadful political leadership)
We have a choice between:
(1) Do nothing and take whatever they throw at us without retaliation
(2) Let them hit us first and then strike back militarily (blood)
(3) Invest to grow the economy and hope reduce the likelihood of a terrorist state emerging
Of course there is no guarantee that (3) will work, but it is worth trying.
But it's important to realise it is not foreign *aid* but an investment in our national interest.
As the man says at the end, if it's all just the big yellow thing in the sky going through cycles then the signs are all pointing at it getting colder.
perhaps the government can print millions of copies of the economic suicide bill we can wrap ourselves in to keep warm.
Here's a five year mean for global temperatures:
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/temp/hansen/graphics/gl_land.gif
Shows the flatness slightly later than I thought, but still early 2000s. I don't know what trend analysis would show 1998 as the beginning of the flatness.
Whether Milliband, Clegg or Cameron are the right people to get back these "lost" voters is another matter. I have my doubts. They seem mostly to be talking to themselves rather than anyone outside their "bubble" and I'm not even a UKIP voter.
Until politicians start listening - really listening - to voters rather than condescending to them or putting them into artificial and stilted categories ("alarm clock Britain", "hard-working families" and the rest) they'll continue to sound like wonks who, whatever their good intentions, will come up with daft and/or irrelevant policies and waste your money.
I would take issue with your assumption that the vast majority of International Aid goes to countries which in any way threaten this country? Does China or India threaten this nation? Do you know which countries the EU send aid to because am I right in thinking that a large proportion of the aid is just handed over to the EU to dish out as they think fit. Are we certain that we are not allowing the EU to use our aid money to protect other nations and subsidise their aid responsibilities?
Furthermore the primary issue is not the concept of giving aid it is the lunacy of increasing the aid budget given we are living in a time of austerity when to do so means taking on board additional borrowing. Its absurd. Its insane politics.
However your argument is morally dubious anyway because it seems as if you are arguing that we should bribe countries to stop them sending terrorists here. Yet I would imagine that ideological zealots would not be impressed with bribes and still send the terrorists here. anyway.
Not only that but this country has indulges in a policy of international interventionism wherther or not a particular country threatens us or not so if you are concerned about our troops lives I would have thought first and foremost you would be arguing for the end of our involvement in international interventions.
Additionally, increasingly the majority of terrorists seem to be home grown. Do you not think the money might be better used in trying to avoid home grown terrorism and do you not think that cutting the police budgets in that circumstance whilst increasing the aid budget is equally putting the lives of all of us at risk?
Israeli airspace north of Haifa shut until May 9th reportedly.
Meanwhile 'sources' in the US suggest that Obama is leaning towards some kind of airstrike in Syria. The exact nature and purpose isn't clear. The Syrian air defence system isn't in good nick right now so it wouldn't be too much of a task to deal with that but it would need a lot more clarity what such airstrikes are going to hit.
Actually according to the Met office and UEA the start of the 'flat' period is November 1996 but even with 25 years of looking at climate trends I still can't work out why they have picked that particular month in that particular year as the point at which they say warming stopped.
We have given aid for countless years to these countries, I may have failed to notice it but I haven't seen much sign of it stopping the terrorism.
We both know that foreign aid is nothing more than a bribe to these states to buy our weapons. They are a taxpayer subsidy to arms merchants nothing less. Evidence you say I point to all the foreign aid deals that have been tied to arms contracts.
The NOAA graph for global temperatures rather than just land is :
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/global-land-ocean-mntp-anom/201101-201112.png
Interestingly on that one the trend is not just flat but falling.
There is some major dispute about all these temperatures since there has been considerable 'correction' made to historical temperatures, particularly reducing those between 1900 and 1950.
My argument was not about how Aid is spent - and was historically spent - but how it *should* be spent. Mitchell made some good steps towards this - such as supporting secondary education for women in Ethiopia - and Greening appears to be continuing down this path.
And to be clear, we are not talking about bribery, but in investing in countries to help them develop. Ethiopia is interesting, for instance, because the academic work suggests that there is a strong correlation between female secondary eduction, female participation in the economy and a reduction in radicalism.
Fundamentally, I believe that a bad economy creates the environment in which political radicalism - terrorism - flourishes. If you improve the economy, and give young men jobs, then terrorism declines. It will never fall to zero, but it will help a lot.
This policy, of course, doesn't address home grown terrorism, and that is something which needs to be fixed as well.
Lord Ashcroft: The case against overseas aid - and for genuinely compassionate conservatism
Sadly, this cavalier approach to other people’s money typifies the aid industry. It is why billions and billions of pounds have been blown over recent decades, despite the lack of convincing hard evidence to prove these vast sums are doing the good deeds claimed by defendants. As the economist Peter Bauer said so famously, aid takes money from poor people in rich countries and gives it to rich people in poor countries.
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/platform/2013/04/from-lordashcroft-the-case-against-overseas-aid-and-for-genuinely-compassionate-conservatism.html
In the past it has been p*ssed away, and much of it still is (e.g. I don't like handing over chunks of money to the EU to disperse and claim the benefits for themselves). The model is changing for the better.
I now have all 81 seats by Lib Dem winnablity plus UKIP targets. Try this:
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Bxc8YBRHB-zQbUtESzdOSjBseVU/edit?usp=sharing
The point for us mortals who live below the rarefied atmosphere that yourself and most politicians live in is simple this.
The DFID budget this year is 11 billion, assuming 45 million tax payers (erring well on the high side)
that works out at 244 pounds per tax payer per year.
For the many families that are struggling to put enough food on the table, to pay their fuel bills this squandering of their hard earned money to foreign governements many of which could afford to spend their own money is nothing but a slap in the face.
In the past it has been p*ssed away, and much of it still is (e.g. I don't like handing over chunks of money to the EU to disperse and claim the benefits for themselves). The model is changing for the better.
I speculated earlier that much of the Western media reporting potentially underplayed what the Israelis struck at, in particular over the last 24 hours and also whether by striking as they had they had in fact assisted the rebels.
A bit of geography, the Mt Qaissoun area west of Damascus is a symbol of regime power and an area bristling with Assad's forces. It is home to Assads palace, bases for his trusted uniyts and a considerable amount of artillery. In its environs are the 'research institute' and chicken coup' (an interesting term in itself) that the Syrians claimed was attacked.
Local reports, however, suggest that Institute may not have been the main target. Instead the following targets have been reported as potentially being hit.
501st unit, special weapons unit
104th brigade HQ, one of Assads most reliable and trusted units
Barrack elements of the 4th Division, headed by Bashar's brother and the most solid mobile spearhead Assad has.
The huge explosions suggest some kind of supply or storage depot facilities went up in smoke.
We do not yet have complete proof of these precise sites being hit other than there was a lot of explosions on the Mount Qaissoun area. In fact the only news agency positively suggesting that military forces and not just a storage facility was struck is Russia Today, the rest is on the ground assessments some of them clearly with their own agendas.
It can be speculated that the Israelis decided that taking out supplies due for Hizbollah wasn't enough and that Assad needed to be warned that they'd start pounding his core forces around his fortress if the weapons transfer kept up.
What is confirmed was definitely an earlier attack on heavy missile transport and also the Damascus airport area, used by the Iranians to fly in kit.
On an added note about Obama 'leaning towards' airstrikes, it appears Canadian officials have suggested they are open to some kind of air operation.
Too early given the President's hesistancy to positively suggest things are going to roll but the argument that Syria has this immense integrated air defence system has been somewhat , pardon the pun, shot down. Its been in partial functioning shape, especially since one of three key strategic radar installations was seized by rebels months ago.
Who's been eating my porridge? say's Cammo,
Who's been eating my porridge? say's redEd,
Who's been eating my porridge? say's Cleggover.
I've been eating from all three bowls, laughs Farage, and I'm going to sleep in all your beds next.
One thing I think will be interesting is to see how eurosceptism does across the EU. At the moment there are 736 MEPs across Europe.
At the moment the EFD (mainly UKIP and Lega Nord in Italy) has 32 seats. The ECR (mainly the Conservatives, Poland's PiS and PJN and Czech's ODS) have 55 seats. There are also 30 Non-Inscrits which mainly come from racist parties like the BNP and Jobbik. So all in all the Eurosceptics of various shades have maybe 100 MEPs which is a minor irritant.
Now it is likely that UKIP will increase their number of seats but what about other countries? We can expect True Finns and anti-EU parties in Greece to do well but these countries have small numbers of seats. The real test will be in the big population countries - will the new German eurosceptic party take off? Will Berlusconi's group leave the EPP? What about the FN in France?
If the sceptics group increases to 150 or 200 then they could start to be a real thorn in the side of the main blocks.
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Bxc8YBRHB-zQSW1ZM2p2Nnl1Qkk/edit?usp=sharing
Please don't think I was being sarcastic towards yourself earlier - merely being a touch ironic about the political 'experts' who were unable to look outside their comfort zone to what might be happening.
I think Douglas Carswell expressed it well when he said "the BBC will now ask someone from dinnerpartyland what is happening outside of dinnerpartyland, other residents of dinnerpartyland will then disagree" or some such.
Rather than just asserting my belief that aid has no impact on terrorism I went to see if I could find any back up for my position. To my surprise I didn't find anything that showed me aid was irrelevant in stopping terrorism instead I found this. It has plenty of sources cited so you can check for veracity but from this it would seem that the correlation between foreign aid and terrorism is strongly suggested
more aid = more terrorism is the correlation
http://www.meforum.org/1926/does-foreign-aid-fuel-palestinian-violence
Lest we forget it is Cruddas who was pushing for an IN/OUT referendum on Europe.
Not the hilarious new referendum on a referendum, that panicking tory MPs unnacountably seem to think will fool the kippers and Farage, but the real deal. Blue Labour also reeks of tactics. Yet more Bliarite triangulation that can be adapted to UKIP which would also have the purely coincidental and benefiicial effect of keeping the political narrative firmly on core kipper issues. Something I don't believe Cammie will be too keen on continuing for much longer given the local election results.
If labour really do want to get back the old labour voters then not only is little Ed not the man to do it but posturing is also extremely unlikely to do so. Little Ed either gives them some policies or he is back to relying on them coming back to the fold in the face of another possible tory govt. Not guaranteed in this austerity era of attractive protest voting.
(not forgetting the additional interest payments as it is borrowed money)
NRL seems a much superior product to Super League, and I was born and raised on Rugby League, watching Eddie Waring do his thing - and on It's a Knockout with the increasingly repellent Stuart Hall. Other than Cilla Black, Bruce Forsyth and Lulu, are there any 1970s BBC variety show or deejay people who haven't been implicated in the Savile operation?
Regarding climate change - I'm not really a proponent of either side of the argument. I'm open to the idea that mankind's activities have affected the climate, I'd just like to see some quantified and measured rationale for it, before all these ludicrous conferences agreeing to reduce world temperature by 2 degrees in the next x years by spending obscene amounts of other people's money. We know climate changes over time anyway, and there have been high CO2 periods in the past.
Also we know there are problems with the dataset - the original has been lost and all that is remaining is the 'adjusted' one.
Also there are problems with the land based measuring stations - they are overwhelmingly placed on coasts and in populated areas, with comparatively few in unpopulated areas or far inland.
In addition the satellite data is suspect - an increasing number of satellites are producing inaccurate readings. The classic of the genre is the satellite measurement of 604 degrees fahrenheit water temperature in Lake Michigan at Egg Harbor WI in 2010. Feed that into the climate prediction model and all sorts of things happen.
Before doing anything, we need a dataset that all can agree is accurate.
https://twitter.com/usasoccerguy
"By getting rid of all these provincial bigots it shows how much the Conservative party has changed and how modern and detoxed we are. All those urban trendies and guardianistas will take a fresh look at us and they'll like what they say - we're green, we're gay, we're good. No turning back now Dave our breakthrough is on its way"
Ludicrous of course, but its the sort of thing Cameron would want to hear and Cameron's the sort of man vulnerable to wishful thinking and with a history of surrounding himself with sycophants who will indulge it.
But most foreign aid goes to countries with no discernible UK-directed terrorism whatever. When was the last time you heard of an Indian, or Ethiopian, or Sri Lankan terrorist plot against Britain?
There are actually at least four positions on this:
1. Foreign aid is bad, we need the money
2. Foreign aid is good, it makes people like us and buy our stuff
3. Foreign aid is good, it reduces terrorism
4. Foreign aid is good, we can spare 1/140th of our income to help people in desperate need.
Number 2 tends to lead to tied aid, which is in my opinion morally shaky though maybe necessary to reassure taxpayers (don't buy the stuff you most need, buy whatever we happen to want to sell you). Number 3 leads naturally to the idea of military aid being classed as foreign aid, which is readily satirised ("We had to destroy the village to save it"). I support number 4.
Although with Iran and Hizbollah apparently lending so much crucial support for Assad, surely their influence in any restabilized regime would be far greater from hereon out? Not (openly) arming rebels has not helped the situation any, and arming them (or elements of them) is also fraught with risk, but we don't seem much safer afterwards for definite whichever happens.
Israels' attack was exactly what Arab leaders have been calling on the West to do - but because the attacks came from Israel it means the Arabs condemned them immediately, giving an immediate conundrum for Arab leaders.
5. Foreign aid is good in theory, but it mostly ends up wasted/misappropriated/misused so there's no point to it.
I could not speak to the truth of that - the bad cases are no doubt widely highlighted than the successes - but it is the position I hear most commonly among people I know.
Personally I think the amounts we give is negligible compared to other spending and we can probably afford it, but if one follows positions 1 or 5, it is a quick and easy saving, so I understand the focus on it.
Unfortunately there is no law which states that toppling a despot results in a regime more acceptable to the West.
Corollaries include:
You cannot bomb, invade, fight, starve or blockade countries into democracy.
I recently discovered, to my shock, that a close family member was quite evidently anti-semitic, and after at first thinking it was just a cross-boundaries joke, was left utterly flabbergasted at how to respond further when it was clear they were serious. Quite upsetting.
My argument is in the current conditions 1 should be prime
2 My argument is there is a reason we just passed laws stopping companies using bribery to get foreign contracts, how can we therefore justifying using taxpayer money to bribe instead
3 See my link. The assertion as stated seems to not only not bear scrutiny but be positively contradicted
4 It makes the dinnerparty Islington crowd (of all colours) happy, them being happy is irrelevant to the good of the country
MCG is otherwise known as Melbourne Cricket Ground.
a) it is in the strategic self interest to do so and/or
b) heaven forbid it has some end humanitarian purposes
The problem in Syria from the Wests point of view is they did the same thing in Bosnia, they sat and said 'oh its very difficult'. As a result its got more complicated. You don t deal with extremists on any side of a conflict by being vague you deal with them by being firm.
You can't be hamstrung by the recent past such as Iraq and Afghanistan.
The core fact about the Syrian rebellion is that it started off as street protests and defecting soldiers who concluded they couldn't shoot the populace . The global Jihadists (and just how many are there in Syria? ) appeared later. In fact the West watched them walk into the country knew how they were coming in then used it as another reason to suggest it was all very cloudy.
Its curious that I rarely hear criticism of the West's, in particular the USA's support of the Muslim Brotherhood, that world renowned bastion of tolerance in Egypt. In fact Ive heard little mention by anyone that they basically tried to create a virtual dictatorship and had their own militia on the streets. Apparently though that was fine.
It is like this, if you want something you have to do something about it, do it with commitment and do it early. Instead the West did none of those things.
The parallel here is as much Bosnia as Iraq, the West's attitude is pure Douglas Hurd Foreign Office wonk thinking. Having had spent some time in the Balkans I can tell you now, Europe and our own government sat on their hands for way too long.
Has the West handled Syria as badly as it possibly could have, or have there been any reasonable moves in your opinion?
Neoconservatives never learn.
For all the amusing armchair general antics getting overexcited about tank movements etc. there is nothing complicated about Syria.
It is a bloody civil war and anyone who thinks they can control the eventual political and regional outcome with some more arms or missile strikes are delusional. That goes for Russia just as much as the west.