I hear the criticism and you put it much more reasonably than antifrank does. I agree it's a weakness in UKIP's message and they need to sort it out. What I disagree with is the argument that such a lack of clarity is unique to UKIP. It affects all our major parties. UKIP, however, should hold themselves to a higher standard than the establishment three.
Good afternoon. There are still some policies that are only partly or half formed in the new UKIP. This is only to be expected, as the rapid rise and growth of UKIP has not only surprised commentators and opposition parties, it's also surprised those who are running UKIP at present, although perhaps, by not as much.
As the party gains more members and adherents there will be greater feed-back and a natural hardening of UKIP policies.
As a partner in an asset management firm, I can tell you that we benefit from the Single Financial Passport, which enables us to sell our product (fund management) to people across the EU. For countries outside the EU, there are extensive regulatory hurdles that need to be crossed, and (in many cases) the requirement for a local subsidiary if you want to sell asset management products. But - of course - not all industries are like financial services.
The Financial passport system also applies to EEA countries not just the EU.
Are you sure? We aren't allowed to sell to Swiss individuals directly and have to use a local agent (who takes 75% of our fees).
I hear the criticism and you put it much more reasonably than antifrank does. I agree it's a weakness in UKIP's message and they need to sort it out. What I disagree with is the argument that such a lack of clarity is unique to UKIP. It affects all our major parties. UKIP, however, should hold themselves to a higher standard than the establishment three.
Good afternoon. There are still some policies that are only partly or half formed in the new UKIP. This is only to be expected, as the rapid rise and growth of UKIP has not only surprised commentators and opposition parties, it's also surprised those who are running UKIP at present, although perhaps, by not as much.
As the party gains more members and adherents there will be greater feed-back and a natural hardening of UKIP policies.
Does that mean they'll get an energy policy based on reality?
As a partner in an asset management firm, I can tell you that we benefit from the Single Financial Passport, which enables us to sell our product (fund management) to people across the EU. For countries outside the EU, there are extensive regulatory hurdles that need to be crossed, and (in many cases) the requirement for a local subsidiary if you want to sell asset management products. But - of course - not all industries are like financial services.
The Financial passport system also applies to EEA countries not just the EU.
Are you sure? We aren't allowed to sell to Swiss individuals directly and have to use a local agent (who takes 75% of our fees).
That's because Switzerland are not in the EEA. They are a member of EFTA but unlike the other three EFTA members they chose not to join the EEA after EFTA membership shrank with new members joining the EU.
Just last week they gave France a 2 year extension on its budgert deficit something no other Eurozone country would be offered.
Actually, the Eurozone is offering extensions all round right now: I'm pretty certain that Spain, Ireland, Portugal, the Netherlands and Greece have all been offered extension on getting their budget deficits down.
rcs if you're right I haven't yet seen it in any of the press I follow ( french, german, irish ) so far I've only seen France.
Spain's application has yet to be approved by the EU but all the noises have been indicative that it will be granted. Even Germany has been supportive.
The extended deadlines policy has also been advocated as a generic solution for the problem countries by the ECB and EU Commission in recent policy announcements. The general line is exchange delays in meeting deficit targets for "structural reforms".
Structural reforms to agriculture and labour markets in France!
*titters*
No chance, as I said downthread France will get the hospital pass and do nothing for it. It remains to be seen which hoops the other states will have to jump through to secure a deal.
As a partner in an asset management firm, I can tell you that we benefit from the Single Financial Passport, which enables us to sell our product (fund management) to people across the EU. For countries outside the EU, there are extensive regulatory hurdles that need to be crossed, and (in many cases) the requirement for a local subsidiary if you want to sell asset management products. But - of course - not all industries are like financial services.
The Financial passport system also applies to EEA countries not just the EU.
Are you sure? We aren't allowed to sell to Swiss individuals directly and have to use a local agent (who takes 75% of our fees).
That's because Switzerland are not in the EEA. They are a member of EFTA but unlike the other three EFTA members they chose not to join the EEA after EFTA membership shrank with new members joining the EU.
Ah ha. That would make sense. The Swiss do want to protect their local asset managers :-)
Just last week they gave France a 2 year extension on its budgert deficit something no other Eurozone country would be offered.
Actually, the Eurozone is offering extensions all round right now: I'm pretty certain that Spain, Ireland, Portugal, the Netherlands and Greece have all been offered extension on getting their budget deficits down.
rcs if you're right I haven't yet seen it in any of the press I follow ( french, german, irish ) so far I've only seen France.
Spain's application has yet to be approved by the EU but all the noises have been indicative that it will be granted. Even Germany has been supportive.
The extended deadlines policy has also been advocated as a generic solution for the problem countries by the ECB and EU Commission in recent policy announcements. The general line is exchange delays in meeting deficit targets for "structural reforms".
Structural reforms to agriculture and labour markets in France!
*titters*
No chance, as I said downthread France will get the hospital pass and do nothing for it. It remains to be seen which hoops the other states will have to jump through to secure a deal.
The Wikipedia article on the EEA is quite interesting, although the issue is that if the UK gave up involvement in drafting EU law, would the rules imposed on EEA members still be so desirable,
"The non EU members of the EEA (Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway) have agreed to enact legislation similar to that passed in the EU in the areas of social policy, consumer protection, environment, company law and statistics. These are some of the areas covered by the European Community (the "first pillar" of the European Union).
The non-EU members of the EEA have no representation in Institutions of the European Union such as the European Parliament or European Commission. This situation has been described as a “fax democracy”, with Norway waiting for their latest legislation to be faxed from the Commission."
The Wikipedia article on the EEA is quite interesting, although the issue is that if the UK gave up involvement in drafting EU law, would the rules imposed on EEA members still be so desirable,
"The non EU members of the EEA (Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway) have agreed to enact legislation similar to that passed in the EU in the areas of social policy, consumer protection, environment, company law and statistics. These are some of the areas covered by the European Community (the "first pillar" of the European Union).
The non-EU members of the EEA have no representation in Institutions of the European Union such as the European Parliament or European Commission. This situation has been described as a “fax democracy”, with Norway waiting for their latest legislation to be faxed from the Commission."
The Wikipedia article on the EEA is quite interesting, although the issue is that if the UK gave up involvement in drafting EU law, would the rules imposed on EEA members still be so desirable,
"The non EU members of the EEA (Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway) have agreed to enact legislation similar to that passed in the EU in the areas of social policy, consumer protection, environment, company law and statistics. These are some of the areas covered by the European Community (the "first pillar" of the European Union).
The non-EU members of the EEA have no representation in Institutions of the European Union such as the European Parliament or European Commission. This situation has been described as a “fax democracy”, with Norway waiting for their latest legislation to be faxed from the Commission."
And yet there are vast areas of EU policy which Norway does not have to abide by. In fact most of the legislation that comes to Norway from the EU is for standards that are lower than those in Norway anyway - certainly when it comes to working conditions. So the idea that Norway suffers by choosing top abide by these rules is a myth.
There are vast tracts of EU law which do not apply to the EEA members - and more so to EFTA membership which would be my preferred option. So this argument about fax democracy is misleading in the extreme.
Energy, is one UKIP policy that seems fine to me. I gather you are a windmill fan?
No, I hate windmills.
See my comment down-thread. Offering everyone bets on the price of electricity in 2016, and on whether UKIP's forecast of brown-outs and rationing from 2015. (Which won't happen.)
I hear the criticism and you put it much more reasonably than antifrank does. I agree it's a weakness in UKIP's message and they need to sort it out. What I disagree with is the argument that such a lack of clarity is unique to UKIP. It affects all our major parties. UKIP, however, should hold themselves to a higher standard than the establishment three.
Good afternoon. There are still some policies that are only partly or half formed in the new UKIP. This is only to be expected, as the rapid rise and growth of UKIP has not only surprised commentators and opposition parties, it's also surprised those who are running UKIP at present, although perhaps, by not as much.
As the party gains more members and adherents there will be greater feed-back and a natural hardening of UKIP policies.
As I've said, the sensible policy for UKIP is to have a temporary period outside the EU and inside the EEA on the way out, while we put in place trade deals, before leaving the EEA too.
hmm, the Irish deal is the bank restructuring and Portugal and Greece imo is simply recognising the facts, it's not that the commission have decide to relax austerity. France has got a let and no real pain to go with it.
Talking about Greece, Ahem! Greek youth unemployment now at 64% Thanks Euro.
lemasabachthani @lemasabachthani A tale of great achievements: Greek youth unemployment: 2008: 23.0%, 2009: 26.1%, 2010: 30.7%, 2012: 40.3%, 2012: 54.1%, 2013: 64.2% (Feb.)
I'm not defending the Euro. I'm simply pointing out (for AlanBrooke) that it's not just France that's been given an extension to meet its deficit targets.
Is it correct that part of the money raised by VAT goes to the EU?
Yes.
One of the ways the EU calculates its budget demands from member states is through what are known as VAT based resources. Robert uis right that there is not strict hypothecation but the EU uses the VAT receipts for each country to help calculate contributions.... I think.
To be honest it is bloody complicated so it is probably best to use the wiki entry in this case to get a basic idea.
"VAT based own resources[5] are taxes on EU citizens derived as a proportion of VAT levied in each member country. VAT rates and exemptions vary in different countries, so a formula is used to create the 'harmonised tax base', upon which the EU charge is levied. The starting point for calculations is the total VAT raised in a country. This is then adjusted using a weighted average of VAT rates applying in that country, producing the intermediate tax base. Further adjustments are made where there is a derogation from the VAT directive allowing certain goods to be zero-rated. The tax base is capped, such that it may not be greater than 50% of a country's Gross national income (GNI).
The EU applies a call-up rate to the tax base, generally of 0.33%, but this is varied for some countries. For 2007–2013 the rate proposed for Austria is 0.225%, and Germany 0.15%, the Netherlands and Sweden 0.1%. Countries are required to make an account of VAT revenues to the EU before July after the end of the budget year. The EU examines the submission for accuracy, including control visits by officials from the Directorate-General for Budget and Directorate-General for Taxation, and reports back to the country concerned."
hmm, the Irish deal is the bank restructuring and Portugal and Greece imo is simply recognising the facts, it's not that the commission have decide to relax austerity. France has got a let and no real pain to go with it.
Recognising the facts is still the same as granting an extension!
My point is that the EU has relaxed deficit conditions on pretty much every troubled country (the PIIGS, less Italy which is already below on the deficit) - and is now doing the same with the Dutch and the French.
As a partner in an asset management firm, I can tell you that we benefit from the Single Financial Passport, which enables us to sell our product (fund management) to people across the EU. For countries outside the EU, there are extensive regulatory hurdles that need to be crossed, and (in many cases) the requirement for a local subsidiary if you want to sell asset management products. But - of course - not all industries are like financial services.
The Financial passport system also applies to EEA countries not just the EU.
Are you sure? We aren't allowed to sell to Swiss individuals directly and have to use a local agent (who takes 75% of our fees).
Well done, Sunil! Mental arithmetic skills intact. Strictly speaking it was 21 months ago, and I doubt it had much to do with an SNP honeymoon - the best polling figures for independence were when the Labour-Lib Dem coalition were still in power at Holyrood (probably because they were being utterly ineffective in standing up for Scotland).
Why would you say hasn't there been a majority 'yes' poll in the intervening 2 years - sorry, 21 months?
I believe EFTA membership also gives access to the single market. Still good to see that people now recognising UK current membership of the EEA also keeps this. Wonder how long before it goes mainstream.
Can any of the PB Euroholics justify the 18 billion GBP we give Brussels per year in protection money?
Net cost £8bn.
A snip for access and influence over the world's largest market.
Net cost is garbage.
No one considers the tax they pay as a net cost by knocking off the value of the services they get back. . Nor should the EU contribution be looked at in the same way. We pay somewhere between £15bn and £18bn a year to the EU and any monies that are returned are dolled out by the EU, often in ways that we as a country would not choose to spend them. Worse still much of that money that comes back comes with a demand for matched funding which warps our own spending patterns again in ways that often don't match the needs and desires of the British public or government.
The only proper way to look at how much the EU costs us in direct fees is to look at the gross figure not the net.
@Socrates When UKIP come up with a policy I'll debate it. While it remains the party for people with a problem with the 21st century, I'll mock it.
Can you (or any other Euroholic) justify the 18 billion GBP we give Brussels per year in protection money?
1) I'm not a Euroholic. My views on the EU have barely been explored on here. Given the bonkers terms in which all EU matters are discussed on here, it would be like discussing the finer points of the thinking of St Thomas Aquinas in the sixth circle of Dante's Inferno.
2) What is this protection money of which you speak? Tony Blair gave a succinct explanation of Britain's current contribution to the EU and why we make it in the Times today:
Talking about Greece, Ahem! Greek youth unemployment now at 64% Thanks Euro.
lemasabachthani @lemasabachthani A tale of great achievements: Greek youth unemployment: 2008: 23.0%, 2009: 26.1%, 2010: 30.7%, 2012: 40.3%, 2012: 54.1%, 2013: 64.2% (Feb.)
I'm not defending the Euro. I'm simply pointing out (for AlanBrooke) that it's not just France that's been given an extension to meet its deficit targets.
and my point rcs is that France has got an offer no-one else in the Eurozone will get. The extensions as you call them are simply Rehn recognisisng he can't squeeze any more blood out of the stone. There's no squeeze on France, there are merely helpful suggestions from interested parties that France should use its time to reform. I loved this quote from Schaeuble : "Frankreich braucht vielleicht laenger als andere - France needs a bit more time than everybody else." L'exception francaise in action.
Can any of the PB Euroholics justify the 18 billion GBP we give Brussels per year in protection money?
Net cost £8bn.
A snip for access and influence over the world's largest market.
It's not the world's largest market. NAFTA is much bigger.
I wonder, would the Commonwealth trump them both?
No, the commonwealth will be quite a bit smaller than either. India has a smaller GDP than the UK. Canada, and Australia are rich countries, but don't have that many people. I would guess its combined GDP is c. $10bn, so 60% of the size of either.
Can any of the PB Euroholics justify the 18 billion GBP we give Brussels per year in protection money?
Net cost £8bn.
A snip for access and influence over the world's largest market.
Can you give any evidence that we will not have any access to, or influence over, European markets if we leave the EU?
No?
Thought not.
Am I right in thinking you supported joining the Euro? If so, perhaps you should consider that you are wrong here as well.
We'll have access of course and perhaps some strings may be attached to that (the UK would not be in a great negotiating position), but we'd certainly have little influence over the single market and the future rules that govern it (the destination for half our exports).
We'd have to comply with those rules given the volume of trade the UK has there whatever our misgivings. As Norway and Switzerland do now - and those economies are not comparable to the UK's in complexity and size.
This is the reason eurosceptics have so singularly failed to get business as a whole on their side - and will continue to fail on this. They cannot answer the "what's the real benefit for us?" question posed to the Outers by industries reliant on trading in the single market.
Consumers too would lose out - the EU has been the UK consumers' friend on issues like mobile roaming charges and compensation for air passengers suffering delays.
I supported joining the euro, yes. My error on that forced me to review my position on the EU itself. I am glad to say to you that I am happy with my support for continued EU membership as it currently stands with future treaties to go to referenda.
Out of date, I guess. The IMF's 2012 data is $15.7, Canada is $1.8 and Mexico is $1.2. The EU for the same year is $16.6. That means NAFTA is about 10% larger. The gap is also growing as North America recovers and the EU falls behind.
And, of course, for the purposes of what we get access to, it's a bit silly to include the UK in the EU number.
Energy, is one UKIP policy that seems fine to me. I gather you are a windmill fan?
No, I hate windmills.
See my comment down-thread. Offering everyone bets on the price of electricity in 2016, and on whether UKIP's forecast of brown-outs and rationing from 2015. (Which won't happen.)
It may happen; it may not. If it does not happen it will not be because of government action, but because of companies taking enormous risks that have been increased by green policies.
Spare generation capacity is falling from around 14% in 2012, to just 4% in 2015/16. All we need is a few large plants to go down, or problems with the interconnectors, and we will have brownouts.
That'll be the point when we discover that many of our nice, shiny electronic gizmos give off their magic smoke during a brownout (*).
4% *may* be enough excess capacity. But it's running things mightily close.
(*) Many cheap, and some expensive, electronic devices are not well protected against serious voltage and/or current fluctuations beyond the standard 216-253 volt range.
Out of date, I guess. The IMF's 2012 data is $15.7, Canada is $1.8 and Mexico is $1.2. The EU for the same year is $16.6. That means NAFTA is about 10% larger. The gap is also growing as North America recovers and the EU falls behind.
And, of course, for the purposes of what we get access to, it's a bit silly to include the UK in the EU number.
So, $18bn for NAFTA; and $16bn for the EU - but it's a good point about the UK, which would make it $20 vs $14.
hmm, the Irish deal is the bank restructuring and Portugal and Greece imo is simply recognising the facts, it's not that the commission have decide to relax austerity. France has got a let and no real pain to go with it.
Recognising the facts is still the same as granting an extension!
My point is that the EU has relaxed deficit conditions on pretty much every troubled country (the PIIGS, less Italy which is already below on the deficit) - and is now doing the same with the Dutch and the French.
and my point rcs is the favoured sons get much preferential terms than anybody else. It's not a level playing field.
Out of date, I guess. The IMF's 2012 data is $15.7, Canada is $1.8 and Mexico is $1.2. The EU for the same year is $16.6. That means NAFTA is about 10% larger. The gap is also growing as North America recovers and the EU falls behind.
And, of course, for the purposes of what we get access to, it's a bit silly to include the UK in the EU number.
So, $18bn for NAFTA; and $16bn for the EU - but it's a good point about the UK, which would make it $20 vs $14.
Energy, is one UKIP policy that seems fine to me. I gather you are a windmill fan?
No, I hate windmills.
See my comment down-thread. Offering everyone bets on the price of electricity in 2016, and on whether UKIP's forecast of brown-outs and rationing from 2015. (Which won't happen.)
It may happen; it may not. If it does not happen it will not be because of government action, but because of companies taking enormous risks that have been increased by green policies.
Spare generation capacity is falling from around 14% in 2012, to just 4% in 2015/16. All we need is a few large plants to go down, or problems with the interconnectors, and we will have brownouts.
That'll be the point when we discover that many of our nice, shiny electronic gizmos give off their magic smoke during a brownout (*).
4% *may* be enough excess capacity. But it's running things mightily close.
(*) Many cheap, and some expensive, electronic devices are not well protected against serious voltage and/or current fluctuations beyond the standard 216-253 volt range.
Josias - having spent time with Siemens, Alstom and GE, I'm pretty sure there will be lots of new CCGT capacity coming on stream in the UK in the next five years. There is West Burton and Knottingley, and the Uskmouth plant will almost certainly come on stream too.
No one considers the tax they pay as a net cost by knocking off the value of the services they get back. .
They should. In fact that would be the proper way to assess cost/benefit of taxation.
Such an exercise would undermine the small state nonsense in a flash.
Of course they shouldn't. For most people it is like being forced to buy something in a shop that you don't want, don't need, can't afford and are having to pay a grossly inflated price for.
There is a damn good reason people don't like paying taxes and showing how much of it is wasted woudl do nothing to improve its public image.
@NickPalmer: "There is no appetite for a major rethink of the EU to suit Britain. The more senior politicians would take it more seriously, but are also more irritated by British tactics and keen to avoid a precedent that being awkward pays dividends, so again a major rethink is not on the cards."
Thanks Nick. If that's so, isn't this talk of renegotitation so much hot air?
"Why would you say hasn't there been a majority 'yes' poll in the intervening 2 years - sorry, 21 months?"
Various reasons. YouGov in particular have methodoligical problems - they seem to be undersampling SNP voters of late, and Peter Kellner has an ongoing bee in his bonnet about "explaining" the referendum question to his respondents. The dramatic change in TNS-BMRB findings (they were the last to show a Yes lead) has been peculiar, and I don't have an explanation for it, because there hasn't been a change on that scale detected by other pollsters.
Can any of the PB Euroholics justify the 18 billion GBP we give Brussels per year in protection money?
Net cost £8bn.
A snip for access and influence over the world's largest market.
Can you give any evidence that we will not have any access to, or influence over, European markets if we leave the EU?
No?
Thought not.
Am I right in thinking you supported joining the Euro? If so, perhaps you should consider that you are wrong here as well.
We'll have access of course and perhaps some strings may be attached to that (the UK would not be in a great negotiating position), but we'd certainly have little influence over the single market and the future rules that govern it (the destination for half our exports).
We'd have to comply with those rules given the volume of trade the UK has there whatever our misgivings. As Norway and Switzerland do now - and those economies are not comparable to the UK's in complexity and size.
This is the reason eurosceptics have so singularly failed to get business as a whole on their side - and will continue to fail on this. They cannot answer the "what's the real benefit for us?" question posed to the Outers by industries reliant on trading in the single market.
Consumers too would lose out - the EU has been the UK consumers' friend on issues like mobile roaming charges and compensation for air passengers suffering delays.
I supported joining the euro, yes. My error on that forced me to review my position on the EU itself. I am glad to say to you that I am happy with my support for continued EU membership as it currently stands with future treaties to go to referenda.
We would only have to comply for those rules for the goods and services we exported to the EU. The 80% of economic activity that is domestic or goes elsewhere does not. It's a bit silly that UK companies selling products to China need to comply with EU product regulations. Norway and Switzerland do not have to do this.
The real economic benefit for us on leaving is that (1) we would escape this regulation for most of our activity, (2) we can reduce outgoing trade barriers with the rest of the world by other free trade agreements, making our goods and services relatively cheaper to customers there and (3) we can reduce incoming trade barriers, reducing costs for families and businesses here.
Note for moderators. I just looked at my Vanilla profile page for the first time and see that @tim has reported - is that the right word? - me as a troll twice. I cannot see that this has any particular consequences. It was last month when I drew attention to tim's hyperactive posting rate *quickly scrolls down this thread; yup he's here, 2,696 posts now*. I see that @Seant and others have also since drawn attention to this strange, quesy-making and sad phenomonen. Just saying.
Out of date, I guess. The IMF's 2012 data is $15.7, Canada is $1.8 and Mexico is $1.2. The EU for the same year is $16.6. That means NAFTA is about 10% larger. The gap is also growing as North America recovers and the EU falls behind.
And, of course, for the purposes of what we get access to, it's a bit silly to include the UK in the EU number.
So, $18bn for NAFTA; and $16bn for the EU - but it's a good point about the UK, which would make it $20 vs $14.
$19 and $17 for the first two numbers surely? Why does the NAFTA one change in the second case?
Energy, is one UKIP policy that seems fine to me. I gather you are a windmill fan?
No, I hate windmills.
See my comment down-thread. Offering everyone bets on the price of electricity in 2016, and on whether UKIP's forecast of brown-outs and rationing from 2015. (Which won't happen.)
It may happen; it may not. If it does not happen it will not be because of government action, but because of companies taking enormous risks that have been increased by green policies.
Spare generation capacity is falling from around 14% in 2012, to just 4% in 2015/16. All we need is a few large plants to go down, or problems with the interconnectors, and we will have brownouts.
That'll be the point when we discover that many of our nice, shiny electronic gizmos give off their magic smoke during a brownout (*).
4% *may* be enough excess capacity. But it's running things mightily close.
(*) Many cheap, and some expensive, electronic devices are not well protected against serious voltage and/or current fluctuations beyond the standard 216-253 volt range.
Josias - having spent time with Siemens, Alstom and GE, I'm pretty sure there will be lots of new CCGT capacity coming on stream in the UK in the next five years. There is West Burton and Knottingley, and the Uskmouth plant will almost certainly come on stream too.
Wikiing those projects it seems that one was due in 2011, another in 2010 and the third (Knottingley) will be due in 2018. Seems the ones due earlier are still being built...
Here we are: "Siemens is managing the design, engineering, construction, commissioning, testing and management of the new 850MW combined cycle gas turbine plant at Severn Power in Uskmouth. The station due to start commercial operation in 2010 following a 30 month construction period and four months of commissioning."
"The West Burton power stations are a pair of power stations on the River Trent near Retford, in Nottinghamshire, England, located between Bole to the north and Sturton le Steeple to the south. One is a coal-fired power station, which was commissioned in 1968, and the second is a combined cycle gas turbine power station, due to be commissioned in 2011."
Energy, is one UKIP policy that seems fine to me. I gather you are a windmill fan?
No, I hate windmills.
See my comment down-thread. Offering everyone bets on the price of electricity in 2016, and on whether UKIP's forecast of brown-outs and rationing from 2015. (Which won't happen.)
It may happen; it may not. If it does not happen it will not be because of government action, but because of companies taking enormous risks that have been increased by green policies.
Spare generation capacity is falling from around 14% in 2012, to just 4% in 2015/16. All we need is a few large plants to go down, or problems with the interconnectors, and we will have brownouts.
That'll be the point when we discover that many of our nice, shiny electronic gizmos give off their magic smoke during a brownout (*).
4% *may* be enough excess capacity. But it's running things mightily close.
(*) Many cheap, and some expensive, electronic devices are not well protected against serious voltage and/or current fluctuations beyond the standard 216-253 volt range.
Josias - having spent time with Siemens, Alstom and GE, I'm pretty sure there will be lots of new CCGT capacity coming on stream in the UK in the next five years. There is West Burton and Knottingley, and the Uskmouth plant will almost certainly come on stream too.
Wikiing those projects it seems that one was due in 2011, another in 2010 and the third (Knottingley) will be due in 2018. Seems the ones due earlier are still being built...
@RobD The solution is not to join any closed trade agreements at all! That way you can have deals with NAFTA AND the EU AND India AND Australia etc etc.
Out of date, I guess. The IMF's 2012 data is $15.7, Canada is $1.8 and Mexico is $1.2. The EU for the same year is $16.6. That means NAFTA is about 10% larger. The gap is also growing as North America recovers and the EU falls behind.
And, of course, for the purposes of what we get access to, it's a bit silly to include the UK in the EU number.
So, $18bn for NAFTA; and $16bn for the EU - but it's a good point about the UK, which would make it $20 vs $14.
$19 and $17 for the first two numbers surely? Why does the NAFTA one change in the second case?
In that if we were to join NAFTA, it would become an even bigger market. But you are right (again) in that we should compare the markets on an ex-UK basis if we're deciding which one to be a member of...
@RobD The solution is not to join any closed trade agreements at all! That way you can have deals with NAFTA AND the EU AND India AND Australia etc etc.
Energy, is one UKIP policy that seems fine to me. I gather you are a windmill fan?
No, I hate windmills.
See my comment down-thread. Offering everyone bets on the price of electricity in 2016, and on whether UKIP's forecast of brown-outs and rationing from 2015. (Which won't happen.)
It may happen; it may not. If it does not happen it will not be because of government action, but because of companies taking enormous risks that have been increased by green policies.
Spare generation capacity is falling from around 14% in 2012, to just 4% in 2015/16. All we need is a few large plants to go down, or problems with the interconnectors, and we will have brownouts.
That'll be the point when we discover that many of our nice, shiny electronic gizmos give off their magic smoke during a brownout (*).
4% *may* be enough excess capacity. But it's running things mightily close.
(*) Many cheap, and some expensive, electronic devices are not well protected against serious voltage and/or current fluctuations beyond the standard 216-253 volt range.
Josias - having spent time with Siemens, Alstom and GE, I'm pretty sure there will be lots of new CCGT capacity coming on stream in the UK in the next five years. There is West Burton and Knottingley, and the Uskmouth plant will almost certainly come on stream too.
Wikiing those projects it seems that one was due in 2011, another in 2010 and the third (Knottingley) will be due in 2018. Seems the ones due earlier are still being built...
The ones due earlier are still being build :-)
It kind of reinforces my thoughts on power in the UK...
Out of date, I guess. The IMF's 2012 data is $15.7, Canada is $1.8 and Mexico is $1.2. The EU for the same year is $16.6. That means NAFTA is about 10% larger. The gap is also growing as North America recovers and the EU falls behind.
And, of course, for the purposes of what we get access to, it's a bit silly to include the UK in the EU number.
So, $18bn for NAFTA; and $16bn for the EU - but it's a good point about the UK, which would make it $20 vs $14.
$19 and $17 for the first two numbers surely? Why does the NAFTA one change in the second case?
In that if we were to join NAFTA, it would become an even bigger market. But you are right (again) in that we should compare the markets on an ex-UK basis if we're deciding which one to be a member of...
Right - and, as I've said to RobD, the crucial fact that NAFTA membership doesn't force you to be exclusive.
A further fact in NAFTA's favour is that UK firms would find it easier to export there due to less linguistic difficulties (Mexico aside).
Out of date, I guess. The IMF's 2012 data is $15.7, Canada is $1.8 and Mexico is $1.2. The EU for the same year is $16.6. That means NAFTA is about 10% larger. The gap is also growing as North America recovers and the EU falls behind.
And, of course, for the purposes of what we get access to, it's a bit silly to include the UK in the EU number.
So, $18bn for NAFTA; and $16bn for the EU - but it's a good point about the UK, which would make it $20 vs $14.
$19 and $17 for the first two numbers surely? Why does the NAFTA one change in the second case?
In that if we were to join NAFTA, it would become an even bigger market. But you are right (again) in that we should compare the markets on an ex-UK basis if we're deciding which one to be a member of...
We should be a member of the world with free trade policed by a much needed beefed up WTO with more powers to stop protectionism.
Energy, is one UKIP policy that seems fine to me. I gather you are a windmill fan?
No, I hate windmills.
See my comment down-thread. Offering everyone bets on the price of electricity in 2016, and on whether UKIP's forecast of brown-outs and rationing from 2015. (Which won't happen.)
It may happen; it may not. If it does not happen it will not be because of government action, but because of companies taking enormous risks that have been increased by green policies.
Spare generation capacity is falling from around 14% in 2012, to just 4% in 2015/16. All we need is a few large plants to go down, or problems with the interconnectors, and we will have brownouts.
That'll be the point when we discover that many of our nice, shiny electronic gizmos give off their magic smoke during a brownout (*).
4% *may* be enough excess capacity. But it's running things mightily close.
(*) Many cheap, and some expensive, electronic devices are not well protected against serious voltage and/or current fluctuations beyond the standard 216-253 volt range.
Josias - having spent time with Siemens, Alstom and GE, I'm pretty sure there will be lots of new CCGT capacity coming on stream in the UK in the next five years. There is West Burton and Knottingley, and the Uskmouth plant will almost certainly come on stream too.
I don't have any access to the companies, and I hope you are right.
But note the timescales: you mention Knottignley. Work on that plant will start in 2015, and it will start operating in 2018. Which is too late.
We may have some very lean years. If we get through it will be down to luck, not planning. And the fault will lie at the feet of the last Labour government and, to a certain extent, Ed Miliband.
@RobD The solution is not to join any closed trade agreements at all! That way you can have deals with NAFTA AND the EU AND India AND Australia etc etc.
Comparison of annual aid to India (c. 300 million GBP) and net annual aid to the EU (c. 10 billion GBP) https://t.co/WJC9aJEUH0
You know those YouGov questions which "explain things" that seems to upset some of the Scottish Nationalists?
How's this :
There have been media reports about the No campaign accepting a £500,000 donation from Mr Ian Taylor. Mr Taylor is the chief executive of the oil trading firm Vitol which has previously been fined after admitting making payments to the national oil company in Iraq during the regime of Saddam Hussein, and are reported to have paid $1m to the Serbian paramilitary Arkan as part of an oil deal in the 1990s. Vitol are also in discussion with HMRC over links to tax avoidance schemes in the UK. The company said it had not acted illegally. There has been no suggestion that the donation is illegal or has broken any rules and the donation has been given by Mr Taylor in a personal capacity. Do you believe that the No campaign should or should not return this donation?
Despite all that they only manage to get 43:34 for "return/keep" the donation - with SNP voters the most in favour of return (75:18).
Curiously enough the SNP do not appear to be trumpeting this result.
"Curiously enough the SNP do not appear to be trumpeting this result."
Well I did - see earlier in the thread. The No side have got themselves into a huge pickle over this donation - their campaign is going to look permanently tainted if they don't return it, but can they afford to?
Another YouGov finding the SNP have been coy about:
If the Yes Scotland campaign persuaded you that an independent Scotland would be fairer and wealthier compared to the UK, would you be more or less likely to vote for an independent Scotland in the referendum?
More likely: 35 Less likely: 2 No difference - vote yes anyway: 12 No difference - vote no anyway: 43 (Con: 85, Lab: 59, Lib 67)
Thinking about the independence debate so far and what you have heard from the No campaign... How convincing a case, if at all, do you think the No campaign have made to persuade you that Scotland would gain more devolved powers if there was a No vote in the referendum?
The fallback for the failure of renegotiations is the referendum on a referendum or "mandate referendum" The idea being should Cammie win the next election and has no new deal or treaty renegotiations by 2017 he can just turn round and say an IN/OUT referendum without renegotiation would be a "false choice". (which he has already done) and then go for the mandate referendum instead. Thus placating tory MPs and enabling him to say there has been a referendum on the EU to his base.
"Curiously enough the SNP do not appear to be trumpeting this result."The No side have got themselves into a huge pickle over this donation - their campaign is going to look permanently tainted if they don't return it
You know those YouGov questions which "explain things" that seems to upset some of the Scottish Nationalists?
How's this :
There have been media reports about the No campaign accepting a £500,000 donation from Mr Ian Taylor. Mr Taylor is the chief executive of the oil trading firm Vitol which has previously been fined after admitting making payments to the national oil company in Iraq during the regime of Saddam Hussein, and are reported to have paid $1m to the Serbian paramilitary Arkan as part of an oil deal in the 1990s. Vitol are also in discussion with HMRC over links to tax avoidance schemes in the UK. The company said it had not acted illegally. There has been no suggestion that the donation is illegal or has broken any rules and the donation has been given by Mr Taylor in a personal capacity. Do you believe that the No campaign should or should not return this donation?
Despite all that they only manage to get 43:34 for "return/keep" the donation - with SNP voters the most in favour of return (75:18).
Curiously enough the SNP do not appear to be trumpeting this result.
Can any of the PB Euroholics justify the 18 billion GBP we give Brussels per year in protection money?
Net cost £8bn.
A snip for access and influence over the world's largest market.
Can you give any evidence that we will not have any access to, or influence over, European markets if we leave the EU?
No?
Thought not.
Am I right in thinking you supported joining the Euro? If so, perhaps you should consider that you are wrong here as well.
We'll have access of course and perhaps some strings may be attached to that (the UK would not be in a great negotiating position), but we'd certainly have little influence over the single market and the future rules that govern it (the destination for half our exports).
We'd have to comply with those rules given the volume of trade the UK has there whatever our misgivings. As Norway and Switzerland do now - and those economies are not comparable to the UK's in complexity and size.
This is the reason eurosceptics have so singularly failed to get business as a whole on their side - and will continue to fail on this. They cannot answer the "what's the real benefit for us?" question posed to the Outers by industries reliant on trading in the single market.
Consumers too would lose out - the EU has been the UK consumers' friend on issues like mobile roaming charges and compensation for air passengers suffering delays.
I supported joining the euro, yes. My error on that forced me to review my position on the EU itself. I am glad to say to you that I am happy with my support for continued EU membership as it currently stands with future treaties to go to referenda.
Deluded bollocks I'm afraid.
The EU is the consumers friend? How much does it cost the average UK family in extra food costs, mostly due to the CAP? Business leaders are falling over themselves to support withdrawal, the one exception I've read recently is Chris Mullins of Pimlico Plumbers, I wonder why that is?
People like him who slander Ukip supporters act only out of self interest, I hope anyone thinking of using his company take his views into account and ask why he holds them.
Nice little error you made over joining the Euro, makes your further case for staying in pretty weak.
Well I did - see earlier in the thread. The No side have got themselves into a huge pickle over this donation - their campaign is going to look permanently tainted if they don't return it, but can they afford to?
You don't think Labour are going to enjoy debating giving back money tainted by Iraq, Saddam and Serbian war criminals for the next year and a bit? I would guess not as well.
Mr Farage will not be a Westminster by-election candidate. He will be an MEP candidate in 2014. "According to our [UKIP] pollster 2/3 of UKIP South Shields votes were old Labour".
"Another YouGov finding the SNP have been coy about:
If the Yes Scotland campaign persuaded you that an independent Scotland would be fairer and wealthier compared to the UK, would you be more or less likely to vote for an independent Scotland in the referendum?
More likely: 35 Less likely: 2 No difference - vote yes anyway: 12 No difference - vote no anyway: 43 (Con: 85, Lab: 59, Lib 67)"
What on earth are you talking about, Carlotta? YouGov wouldn't have been able to publish that without the SNP's express permission. It's not hard to see why the SNP wanted it out either - 35% is a big number by the normal standard of that type of question.
I think Scots should be asked if they're happy that the Yes campaign is funded from the proceeds of gambling :-)"
Yes, as it turned out introducing the Lottery was the best thing John Major ever did for Scotland. Good old John. Come the great day, we'll look back and raise a glass to him.
IDS caught using dodgy stats trying to justify another failing 'reform'
The EU civil war rumbling on.
Councils warning of the lights going out thanks to Tory policies.
Tories polling their lowest ever YouGov.
Cameron's Tories resemble Brown's Labour so much it's untrue. A dog of a Government, just waiting for the end, the sweet mercy that the electorate will hand out.
Councils warning of the lights going out thanks to Tory policies.
Failure to improve electricity generation capacity can be laid firmly at the feet of the previous administration.
A certain Ed Miliband, as Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change bears some responsibility, during his tenure between 3 October 2008 – 11 May 2010.
'A month later, Miliband announced to the House of Commons a change to the government's policy on coal-fired power stations, saying that any potential new coal-fired power stations would be unable to receive government consent unless they could demonstrate that they would be able to effectively capture and bury 25% of the emissions they produce immediately, with a view to seeing that rise to 100% of emissions by 2025. This, a government source told the Guardian, effectively represented "a complete rewrite of UK energy policy for the future"'
Comments
As the party gains more members and adherents there will be greater feed-back and a natural hardening of UKIP policies.
Energy, is one UKIP policy that seems fine to me. I gather you are a windmill fan?
"Rehn said that he was prepared to give France, Spain and the Netherlands additional time to meet their deficit-reduction targets"
"The non EU members of the EEA (Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway) have agreed to enact legislation similar to that passed in the EU in the areas of social policy, consumer protection, environment, company law and statistics. These are some of the areas covered by the European Community (the "first pillar" of the European Union).
The non-EU members of the EEA have no representation in Institutions of the European Union such as the European Parliament or European Commission. This situation has been described as a “fax democracy”, with Norway waiting for their latest legislation to be faxed from the Commission."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Economic_Area
Portugal was already given an extension: http://www.digitallook.com/news/20764840/Portugal_gets_one-year_extension_on_deficit_target.html?&username=&ac=210892
Ireland has already been given until 2015: http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/04/10/uk-ireland-economy-watchdog-idUKBRE9390ON20130410
Greece was given two more years (until 2016) late last year: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-20307514
That's the crashing naivite of eurosceptics right there.
There is no such thing as 100% sovereignty any longer.
There are vast tracts of EU law which do not apply to the EEA members - and more so to EFTA membership which would be my preferred option. So this argument about fax democracy is misleading in the extreme.
See my comment down-thread. Offering everyone bets on the price of electricity in 2016, and on whether UKIP's forecast of brown-outs and rationing from 2015. (Which won't happen.)
Number of people worth more than $30 million:
London: 4,224
Tokyo: 3,525
Singapore: 3,154
New York City: 2,929
Hong Kong: 2,560
Frankfurt: 1,868
Mexico City: 1,850
Paris: 1,500
Osaka: 1,450
Beijing: 1,318
Seoul: 1,302
Toronto: 1,184
Munich: 1,113
Shanghai: 1,028
Los Angeles: 950
Rome: 945
Sydney: 931
Moscow: 821
Chicago: 804
Houston: 777
http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2013/05/daily-chart-7
No?
Thought not.
Am I right in thinking you supported joining the Euro? If so, perhaps you should consider that you are wrong here as well.
Greek youth unemployment now at 64% Thanks Euro.
lemasabachthani @lemasabachthani
A tale of great achievements: Greek youth unemployment: 2008: 23.0%, 2009: 26.1%, 2010: 30.7%, 2012: 40.3%, 2012: 54.1%, 2013: 64.2% (Feb.)
One of the ways the EU calculates its budget demands from member states is through what are known as VAT based resources. Robert uis right that there is not strict hypothecation but the EU uses the VAT receipts for each country to help calculate contributions.... I think.
To be honest it is bloody complicated so it is probably best to use the wiki entry in this case to get a basic idea.
"VAT based own resources[5] are taxes on EU citizens derived as a proportion of VAT levied in each member country. VAT rates and exemptions vary in different countries, so a formula is used to create the 'harmonised tax base', upon which the EU charge is levied. The starting point for calculations is the total VAT raised in a country. This is then adjusted using a weighted average of VAT rates applying in that country, producing the intermediate tax base. Further adjustments are made where there is a derogation from the VAT directive allowing certain goods to be zero-rated. The tax base is capped, such that it may not be greater than 50% of a country's Gross national income (GNI).
The EU applies a call-up rate to the tax base, generally of 0.33%, but this is varied for some countries. For 2007–2013 the rate proposed for Austria is 0.225%, and Germany 0.15%, the Netherlands and Sweden 0.1%. Countries are required to make an account of VAT revenues to the EU before July after the end of the budget year. The EU examines the submission for accuracy, including control visits by officials from the Directorate-General for Budget and Directorate-General for Taxation, and reports back to the country concerned."
My point is that the EU has relaxed deficit conditions on pretty much every troubled country (the PIIGS, less Italy which is already below on the deficit) - and is now doing the same with the Dutch and the French.
Indeed, I hear there is a queue of IMF economists outside George's office in the Treasury waiting to get his autograph.
No one considers the tax they pay as a net cost by knocking off the value of the services they get back. . Nor should the EU contribution be looked at in the same way. We pay somewhere between £15bn and £18bn a year to the EU and any monies that are returned are dolled out by the EU, often in ways that we as a country would not choose to spend them. Worse still much of that money that comes back comes with a demand for matched funding which warps our own spending patterns again in ways that often don't match the needs and desires of the British public or government.
The only proper way to look at how much the EU costs us in direct fees is to look at the gross figure not the net.
http://www.faz.net/aktuell/wirtschaft/europas-schuldenkrise/nach-fristverlaengerung-durch-eu-bundesbankchef-mahnt-frankreich-zu-mehr-sparen-12177088.html
I'm sure that will motivate the Slovenians as they line up for their next kicking.
We'd have to comply with those rules given the volume of trade the UK has there whatever our misgivings. As Norway and Switzerland do now - and those economies are not comparable to the UK's in complexity and size.
This is the reason eurosceptics have so singularly failed to get business as a whole on their side - and will continue to fail on this. They cannot answer the "what's the real benefit for us?" question posed to the Outers by industries reliant on trading in the single market.
Consumers too would lose out - the EU has been the UK consumers' friend on issues like mobile roaming charges and compensation for air passengers suffering delays.
I supported joining the euro, yes. My error on that forced me to review my position on the EU itself. I am glad to say to you that I am happy with my support for continued EU membership as it currently stands with future treaties to go to referenda.
And, of course, for the purposes of what we get access to, it's a bit silly to include the UK in the EU number.
Spare generation capacity is falling from around 14% in 2012, to just 4% in 2015/16. All we need is a few large plants to go down, or problems with the interconnectors, and we will have brownouts.
That'll be the point when we discover that many of our nice, shiny electronic gizmos give off their magic smoke during a brownout (*).
4% *may* be enough excess capacity. But it's running things mightily close.
Study the following OFGEM report:
http://www.ofgem.gov.uk/Markets/WhlMkts/monitoring-energy-security/elec-capacity-assessment/Documents1/Electricity Capacity Assessment 2012.pdf
(*) Many cheap, and some expensive, electronic devices are not well protected against serious voltage and/or current fluctuations beyond the standard 216-253 volt range.
Such an exercise would undermine the small state nonsense in a flash.
Such an exercise would undermine the small state nonsense in a flash.
Of course they shouldn't. For most people it is like being forced to buy something in a shop that you don't want, don't need, can't afford and are having to pay a grossly inflated price for.
There is a damn good reason people don't like paying taxes and showing how much of it is wasted woudl do nothing to improve its public image.
Thanks Nick. If that's so, isn't this talk of renegotitation so much hot air?
Various reasons. YouGov in particular have methodoligical problems - they seem to be undersampling SNP voters of late, and Peter Kellner has an ongoing bee in his bonnet about "explaining" the referendum question to his respondents. The dramatic change in TNS-BMRB findings (they were the last to show a Yes lead) has been peculiar, and I don't have an explanation for it, because there hasn't been a change on that scale detected by other pollsters.
The real economic benefit for us on leaving is that (1) we would escape this regulation for most of our activity, (2) we can reduce outgoing trade barriers with the rest of the world by other free trade agreements, making our goods and services relatively cheaper to customers there and (3) we can reduce incoming trade barriers, reducing costs for families and businesses here.
Here we are: "Siemens is managing the design, engineering, construction, commissioning, testing and management of the new 850MW combined cycle gas turbine plant at Severn Power in Uskmouth. The station due to start commercial operation in 2010 following a 30 month construction period and four months of commissioning."
"The West Burton power stations are a pair of power stations on the River Trent near Retford, in Nottinghamshire, England, located between Bole to the north and Sturton le Steeple to the south. One is a coal-fired power station, which was commissioned in 1968, and the second is a combined cycle gas turbine power station, due to be commissioned in 2011."
http://www.knottingleypower.co.uk/ 2018 they say... Not holding my breath.
A further fact in NAFTA's favour is that UK firms would find it easier to export there due to less linguistic difficulties (Mexico aside).
But note the timescales: you mention Knottignley. Work on that plant will start in 2015, and it will start operating in 2018. Which is too late.
We may have some very lean years. If we get through it will be down to luck, not planning. And the fault will lie at the feet of the last Labour government and, to a certain extent, Ed Miliband.
On another note, we cannot let the idiotic iPhone-wielding protesters win:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/apr/22/no-dash-for-gas-west-burton-protest
https://t.co/WJC9aJEUH0
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2013/may/09/eurozone-crisis-bank-of-england-unemployment
How's this :
There have been media reports about the No campaign accepting a £500,000 donation from Mr Ian Taylor.
Mr Taylor is the chief executive of the oil trading firm Vitol which has previously been fined after admitting making payments to the national oil company in Iraq during the regime of Saddam Hussein, and are reported to have paid $1m to the Serbian paramilitary Arkan as part of an oil deal in the 1990s. Vitol are also in discussion with HMRC over links to tax avoidance schemes in the UK. The company said it had not acted illegally.
There has been no suggestion that the donation is illegal or has broken any rules and the donation has been given by Mr Taylor in a personal capacity.
Do you believe that the No campaign should or should not return this donation?
Despite all that they only manage to get 43:34 for "return/keep" the donation - with SNP voters the most in favour of return (75:18).
Curiously enough the SNP do not appear to be trumpeting this result.
http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/c288p3zcpl/YG-Archive-SNP-results-030513-currency.pdf
Well I did - see earlier in the thread. The No side have got themselves into a huge pickle over this donation - their campaign is going to look permanently tainted if they don't return it, but can they afford to?
If the Yes Scotland campaign persuaded you that an independent Scotland would be fairer and wealthier compared to the UK, would you be more or less likely to vote for an
independent Scotland in the referendum?
More likely: 35
Less likely: 2
No difference - vote yes anyway: 12
No difference - vote no anyway: 43 (Con: 85, Lab: 59, Lib 67)
Thinking about the independence debate so far and what you have heard from the No campaign...
How convincing a case, if at all, do you think the No campaign have made to persuade you that Scotland would gain more devolved powers if there was a No vote in the referendum?
Net convincing:
Con: +38
Lab: +10
LibD: +32
SNP: - 72
Of course it is and it was pointed out at the time but few listened.
Not now. Now the BOO tories are beginning to realise that UKIPs failure to melt away means the time for fence sitting is fast coming to an end. Classic Boris too. The fallback for the failure of renegotiations is the referendum on a referendum or "mandate referendum" The idea being should Cammie win the next election and has no new deal or treaty renegotiations by 2017 he can just turn round and say an IN/OUT referendum without renegotiation would be a "false choice". (which he has already done) and then go for the mandate referendum instead. Thus placating tory MPs and enabling him to say there has been a referendum on the EU to his base.
With the web browser Camino, the page keeps resetting itself every 10 seconds or so. Anyone know why?
I think Scots should be asked if they're happy that the Yes campaign is funded from the proceeds of gambling :-)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01s8qth/Jeremy_Vine_09_05_2013/?t=33m31s
The EU is the consumers friend? How much does it cost the average UK family in extra food costs, mostly due to the CAP? Business leaders are falling over themselves to support withdrawal, the one exception I've read recently is Chris Mullins of Pimlico Plumbers, I wonder why that is?
People like him who slander Ukip supporters act only out of self interest, I hope anyone thinking of using his company take his views into account and ask why he holds them.
Nice little error you made over joining the Euro, makes your further case for staying in pretty weak.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/telegram/100215993/after-the-earthquake-is-dave-dancing-to-ukips-tune/
Dear God. Even you can't be entirely relaxed that your campaign is being bankrolled by someone with Ian Taylor's track record.
I'm not a fan of Ed Balls, but that was excellent.
If the Yes Scotland campaign persuaded you that an independent Scotland would be fairer and wealthier compared to the UK, would you be more or less likely to vote for an
independent Scotland in the referendum?
More likely: 35
Less likely: 2
No difference - vote yes anyway: 12
No difference - vote no anyway: 43 (Con: 85, Lab: 59, Lib 67)"
What on earth are you talking about, Carlotta? YouGov wouldn't have been able to publish that without the SNP's express permission. It's not hard to see why the SNP wanted it out either - 35% is a big number by the normal standard of that type of question.
I think Scots should be asked if they're happy that the Yes campaign is funded from the proceeds of gambling :-)"
Yes, as it turned out introducing the Lottery was the best thing John Major ever did for Scotland. Good old John. Come the great day, we'll look back and raise a glass to him.
Tory childcare 'reforms' in utter chaos.
IDS caught using dodgy stats trying to justify another failing 'reform'
The EU civil war rumbling on.
Councils warning of the lights going out thanks to Tory policies.
Tories polling their lowest ever YouGov.
Cameron's Tories resemble Brown's Labour so much it's untrue. A dog of a Government, just waiting for the end, the sweet mercy that the electorate will hand out.
A certain Ed Miliband, as Secretary of State for Energy and
Climate Change bears some responsibility, during his tenure between 3 October 2008 – 11 May 2010.
'A month later, Miliband announced to the House of Commons a change to the government's policy on coal-fired power stations, saying that any potential new coal-fired power stations would be unable to receive government consent unless they could demonstrate that they would be able to effectively capture and bury 25% of the emissions they produce immediately, with a view to seeing that rise to 100% of emissions by 2025. This, a government source told the Guardian, effectively represented "a complete rewrite of UK energy policy for the future"'
Genius.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed_Miliband
It's not a Tory govt., it's a Coalition with the LDs.
http://metro.co.uk/2013/05/09/age-of-consent-should-be-lowered-to-13-in-light-of-stuart-hall-prosecution-top-barrister-says-3747054/
Does that make it better or worse in your view, Sunil?
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/ed-miliband-is-my-action-hero-says-cyclist-after-kentish-town-accident-8608631.html