"History teaches us that ingenuity can solve complex problems and produce more, it also teaches us that there is a limit to what ingenuity can achieve."
Really, Comrade? What limits to ingenuity have been shown up by history? OK Godel's incompleteness theorem tells us that there are some points in mathematics that cannot be proved, but that is a pretty obscure point of logic and philosophy and hardly relevant to the practical world. Other than that I am struggling to think of a case where man's ingenuity has failed.
The oil and coal industries want to impose their worldview on everyone else and hang the consequences.
Am I green-red or red-green? Hard to tell, really.
No, they don't as a rule*. They operate within the constraints of a highly regulated industry, looking to maximise economic production in a sustainable manner. If they just went "hand the consequences" it would have a major impact on their ability to develop new sites in future because there are so many powerful stakeholders in the natural resources sector
* Of course there are exceptions, such as Toxic Bob. It will be a cool epitaph, but he is despised in the industry. The majors deal with him because they have to, but they do it with a very long spoon. My wife is friends with someone who led a negotiation against TB, and the stories are something special!
Highly regulated? Mountain top removal coal mining and the wild-west style shale gas industry in the US? Oil production in Nigeria? And how much do these industries spend on promoting climate change denial through PR, lobbying and funding of dodgy 'academics'?
If we fully account for the externalities, the oil and coal industries are the biggest destroyers of 'wealth' that there is.
I can see you are a true believer.
No point in discussing with you really.
I tend to be sceptical about all radical propositions
He made specific points with case examples. I fail to see how that is "true believer" that won't debate.
He generalised from specific examples. To refute them would take more time than I have available right now (I'd need to do research). It wasn't a point on not debating - just that I suspect neither of us will change our minds, so it's not worth the investment.
Labour NEC Organization Sub Committee met and decided
Great Grimsby (man retiring) AWS Swansea East (female MP retiring) AWS Cynon Valley (woman retiring) AWS Ahston under Lyne (man retiring) AWS Salford and Eccles (woman retiring): tie. Decision goes to full NEC
Mind you, almost all NEC members, except 3-4, are already sitting on the organization subcommittee
The Salford outcome is anyway interesting as CLPs with a female MP retiring usually get an AWS regardless of their will
I don't think AWS are a great way to get UKIP waverers back on side.
I don't think AWS are at all good as a long term innovation. They first appeared in advance of 1997 IIRC which given the landslide gave Labour hundreds of female MPs many, but by no means all, of whom were worse than useless. I think by this stage they should have been phased out. AWS may have been an interesting short term mechanism for rapidly boosting female numbers but it's long term use is dangerous and I don't think necessary.
"Positive" discrimination is invariably advocated as a short-term one-off measure, and invariably turns out to be permanent.
"I tend to be sceptical about all radical propositions "
I tend to be sceptical that people who seek greater wealth really care that much about the long term good of the world. Their track record is not good.
Long term greedy works best.
We've been doing the same thing, quite successfully, for the last 300 years or so.
And our success is absolutely dependent on a functional society: with wealth comes obligation; with power, responsibility; with position, duty.
Charles, I agree with much of what you say, but 'obligation', 'responsibility' and 'duty' are foreign words to many people today as well as being unknown in many people-serving organisations - both public and private sector.
Labour NEC Organization Sub Committee met and decided
Great Grimsby (man retiring) AWS Swansea East (female MP retiring) AWS Cynon Valley (woman retiring) AWS Ahston under Lyne (man retiring) AWS Salford and Eccles (woman retiring): tie. Decision goes to full NEC
Mind you, almost all NEC members, except 3-4, are already sitting on the organization subcommittee
The Salford outcome is anyway interesting as CLPs with a female MP retiring usually get an AWS regardless of their will
I don't think AWS are a great way to get UKIP waverers back on side.
I don't think AWS are at all good as a long term innovation. They first appeared in advance of 1997 IIRC which given the landslide gave Labour hundreds of female MPs many, but by no means all, of whom were worse than useless. I think by this stage they should have been phased out. AWS may have been an interesting short term mechanism for rapidly boosting female numbers but it's long term use is dangerous and I don't think necessary.
Remind me how the proportion of women MPs from parties that use AWS compares to those that don't?
It's a bit like what Churchill said about democracy. AWS isn't great but it has been much more successful at boosting the number of women MPs than anything else tried.
Anyone got a link to how the number of Lib Dem councillors that make up the constituencies of: a) Lynne Featherstone. b) Ed Davey and c) Vince Cable has changed since the recent elections compared to pre GE 2010?
With regard to climate change and the use of finite resources...one man could make enormous inroads into both problems...The Pope...he is too dumb to do anything though
Mr. F, must admit to being mildly amused by Sadiq "I want quotas for ethnic minorities" Khan then trying to say Labour was wrong on immigration and they're listening.
@Morris_Dancer Capitalism has no drawbacks whatsoever? Everyone in the world will become "wealthy" eventually. Or do you mean that the majority of the human race will continue in poverty and subservience while the favoured few rule them like kings? And I thought you were a student of history?
I'd rather not give out my home neighbourhood for privacy reasons, but I have lived several places in London and know most of Zones 1 to 3. What specific claim of mine did you prove factually wrong?
@Morris_Dancer Capitalism has no drawbacks whatsoever? Everyone in the world will become "wealthy" eventually. Or do you mean that the majority of the human race will continue in poverty and subservience while the favoured few rule them like kings? And I thought you were a student of history?
Most of the places in the world where the bulk of the population remain poor are because of state-dominated economies or a lack of property rights.
I'd rather not give out my home neighbourhood for privacy reasons, but I have lived several places in London and know most of Zones 1 to 3. What specific claim of mine did you prove factually wrong?
Careful, Socrates, Mr Fett IS London, he's an ethnic white pearly king investment banker barrow boy socialite. Like all good Labourite Londoners
When you look at fertility rates it is clear that a lot of supposedly Catholic countries ignore the pope on family planning. Families are bigger in Africa, but not particularly so in Catholic africa compared to Protestant or Muslim.
With regard to climate change and the use of finite resources...one man could make enormous inroads into both problems...The Pope...he is too dumb to do anything though
And when greed fails and causes collapse? We just pick ourselves up and carry on in the same way? I thought someone warned us about this a couple of thousand years ago? (and well before that if you look into the Vedetic texts)
@TGOHF History teaches us that ingenuity can solve complex problems and produce more, it also teaches us that there is a limit to what ingenuity can achieve.
Fairly apocalyptic thinking there bud. If history teaches us anything, then it is surely that human ingenuity consistently surpasses prophesies of doom.
Since the dawn of the industrial revolution, humankind has been prospering by maxing-out our environmental credit card. Now we have reached our credit limit, and, worse still, it is time to repay the debt and a couple of guys with baseball bats are ringing the doorbell.
Given how much energy prices have risen, it is clear that the main reason is the increase in gas prices, due to increased global demand and reduced North Sea supply.
Of course, I completely agree that it would be better to fund investment in renewables from general taxation.
From the guardian link SSE's own figures, analysed by Reg Platt at the IPPR think tank, show the rise equates to £93 a year. Of that, £23 is due to rising wholesale energy costs and £28 for investment in the grid and meters. VAT adds £5 and another £23 is unaccounted for, but will include SSE's own costs, profit and projected rises for the next year, during which SSE has pledged to freeze its tarfiffs. That all means that just one sixth of SSE's rise - £15 - is due to the rise in government "green taxes".
So: wholesale costs £23, investment in grid and meters £28, costs/profits £23 and green taxes/VAT £20. IIRC, the meters are centrally government mandated and should be inclduded in the government bucket. Additionally, an element of the wholesale costs are pass through of government actions in the supply chain.
So, in absolute terms, the green tax/VAT element is probably larger than the wholesale cost element.
However, in percentage terms, it is clearly the fastest growing element of the cost of energy. Additionally, the green taxes element alone is > 8% of bills, which would be a meaningful cut for most people.
O/T on the why did Labour do so well in London. Surely is just an example of Labours open door immigration policy working a treat in shoring up their vote, which is why the policy existed
I'm sure this is the case, but why don't we have any polls by ethnic group? They clearly have huge explanatory power and they're not so hand-wringing about doing it in the US.
It is probably because of the difference between this and this.
"HSE has today confirmed that white asbestos (chrysotile) is a major health hazard."
Note the phrasing in the HSE bulletin from 12 years ago. Hazard always means the potential to do harm, risk means that potential is likely to be realised. In fact, there is no substance on earth that is zero hazard, and that includes water and oxygen.
The discussion about risk is the important one. I don't think anyone in the world believes that crocidolite or amosite are zero risk because they are potent carcinogens. Chrysotile (white asbestsos) is potentially hazardous - it depends on whether it can be made airborne. Also, remember there are many carcinogens that you encounter daily - in your tea, in your coffee, in sunshine, And silica is another one if it is ground small enough. Silica comprises 12% of the earth and you'll find it on every beach - as sand. Would you consider sand a health hazard?
There's been an ongoing scientific discussion on chrysotile for the last few decades and HSE will always take a precautionary line. But they have always recommended that if the white asbestos is in good condition, then leave it alone, it's probably doing no harm. Removing it can convert hazard into risk.
As always in politics, science is used to prove a point not bring enlightenment.
With regard to climate change and the use of finite resources...one man could make enormous inroads into both problems...The Pope...he is too dumb to do anything though
How many Catholic countries do you think there are in the, say, top 50 for birth rates?
Or perhaps you meant eschewing use of the popemobiles?
Labour NEC Organization Sub Committee met and decided
Great Grimsby (man retiring) AWS Swansea East (female MP retiring) AWS Cynon Valley (woman retiring) AWS Ahston under Lyne (man retiring) AWS Salford and Eccles (woman retiring): tie. Decision goes to full NEC
Mind you, almost all NEC members, except 3-4, are already sitting on the organization subcommittee
The Salford outcome is anyway interesting as CLPs with a female MP retiring usually get an AWS regardless of their will
I don't think AWS are a great way to get UKIP waverers back on side.
I don't think AWS are at all good as a long term innovation. They first appeared in advance of 1997 IIRC which given the landslide gave Labour hundreds of female MPs many, but by no means all, of whom were worse than useless. I think by this stage they should have been phased out. AWS may have been an interesting short term mechanism for rapidly boosting female numbers but it's long term use is dangerous and I don't think necessary.
Remind me how the proportion of women MPs from parties that use AWS compares to those that don't?
It's a bit like what Churchill said about democracy. AWS isn't great but it has been much more successful at boosting the number of women MPs than anything else tried.
Inevitably, a party that bars men from contesting half of its winnable seats will have a higher proportion of women MPs than the others do.
And when greed fails and causes collapse? We just pick ourselves up and carry on in the same way? I thought someone warned us about this a couple of thousand years ago? (and well before that if you look into the Vedetic texts)
Short term greedy is bad.
Long term greedy involves growing society around you.
@kieran I'm not averse to short term use of AWS to rapidly boost numbers. Of course stacking the deck works, it doesn't mean it's right as a long term measure. If someone said we will use AWS for 2 elections to rapidly boost the number of women and then show that picking a woman isn't a disaster etc then I'd be ok with it. I am a meritocratic person though and want the best person available not merely the best person of a certain category. I'm also not massively turned on by a paint by numbers approach to representation.
On the climate change discussion it seems obvious to me that current strategies to curb CO2 emissions have no chance of success. They are a political impossibility. I think the environmental movement needs to rethink.
Ironically it is investment in a market solution which I believe is the problem. Cap and trade won't work - it will simply push energy costs higher and higher which is politically unacceptable.
So what is the alternative?
In my view it should be massive public investment in a global scientific research effort into alternative sources of energy. If you think of the cost of cap and trade in the EU - probably tens of billions of pounds a year - for very marginal CO2 reductions.
Instead invest that money in a new Manhatten-style project. This can only be done by government because only they will be willing to invest the money needed in such as speculative exercise. Then industry could take over in terms of commercialisation.
Would it work? Possibly not. But even a 10% chance is a better bet than the current approach which has zero chance of succeeding.
On the climate change discussion it seems obvious to me that current strategies to curb CO2 emissions have no chance of success. They are a political impossibility. I think the environmental movement needs to rethink.
Ironically it is investment in a market solution which I believe is the problem. Cap and trade won't work - it will simply push energy costs higher and higher which is politically unacceptable.
So what is the alternative?
In my view it should be massive public investment in a global scientific research effort into alternative sources of energy. If you think of the cost of cap and trade in the EU - probably tens of billions of pounds a year - for very marginal CO2 reductions.
Instead invest that money in a new Manhatten-style project. This can only be done by government because only they will be willing to invest the money needed in such as speculative exercise. Then industry could take over in terms of commercialisation.
Would it work? Possibly not. But even a 10% chance is a better bet than the current approach which has zero chance of succeeding.
Labour NEC Organization Sub Committee met and decided
Great Grimsby (man retiring) AWS Swansea East (female MP retiring) AWS Cynon Valley (woman retiring) AWS Ahston under Lyne (man retiring) AWS Salford and Eccles (woman retiring): tie. Decision goes to full NEC
Mind you, almost all NEC members, except 3-4, are already sitting on the organization subcommittee
The Salford outcome is anyway interesting as CLPs with a female MP retiring usually get an AWS regardless of their will
I don't think AWS are a great way to get UKIP waverers back on side.
I don't think AWS are at all good as a long term innovation. They first appeared in advance of 1997 IIRC which given the landslide gave Labour hundreds of female MPs many, but by no means all, of whom were worse than useless. I think by this stage they should have been phased out. AWS may have been an interesting short term mechanism for rapidly boosting female numbers but it's long term use is dangerous and I don't think necessary.
Remind me how the proportion of women MPs from parties that use AWS compares to those that don't?
It's a bit like what Churchill said about democracy. AWS isn't great but it has been much more successful at boosting the number of women MPs than anything else tried.
Inevitably, a party that bars men from contesting half of its winnable seats will have a higher proportion of women MPs than the others do.
That's not necessarily a good thing.
That's the crux of the matter - those who think that addressing the under-representation of women in Parliament is important will admire Labour's single-mindedness (and success) in tackling it. Those who dont think it's all that big an issue will think their approach is over-the-top.
Labour NEC Organization Sub Committee met and decided
Great Grimsby (man retiring) AWS Swansea East (female MP retiring) AWS Cynon Valley (woman retiring) AWS Ahston under Lyne (man retiring) AWS Salford and Eccles (woman retiring): tie. Decision goes to full NEC
Mind you, almost all NEC members, except 3-4, are already sitting on the organization subcommittee
The Salford outcome is anyway interesting as CLPs with a female MP retiring usually get an AWS regardless of their will
I don't think AWS are a great way to get UKIP waverers back on side.
I don't think AWS are at all good as a long term innovation. They first appeared in advance of 1997 IIRC which given the landslide gave Labour hundreds of female MPs many, but by no means all, of whom were worse than useless. I think by this stage they should have been phased out. AWS may have been an interesting short term mechanism for rapidly boosting female numbers but it's long term use is dangerous and I don't think necessary.
Remind me how the proportion of women MPs from parties that use AWS compares to those that don't?
It's a bit like what Churchill said about democracy. AWS isn't great but it has been much more successful at boosting the number of women MPs than anything else tried.
Inevitably, a party that bars men from contesting half of its winnable seats will have a higher proportion of women MPs than the others do.
That's not necessarily a good thing.
And a party that has fewer than 20% of MPs who are women is probably missing out on a lot of female talent.
@Morris_Dancer Capitalism has no drawbacks whatsoever? Everyone in the world will become "wealthy" eventually. Or do you mean that the majority of the human race will continue in poverty and subservience while the favoured few rule them like kings? And I thought you were a student of history?
It's a matter of fact that country's that have adopted capitalist economic systems in recent times (eg China, India, Taiwan, South Korea) have seen very big improvements in living standards across the board, with big reductions in poverty,
Pulpstar - if nuclear can only proceed on the terms recently agreed by the government it is not the answer. Just like renewables it is expensive. The number of new nuclear power plants needed globally to reduce CO2 emissions significantly would cost a massive amount in annual subsidy - tens if not hundreds of billions a year forever. It is just not politically feasible.
On the climate change discussion it seems obvious to me that current strategies to curb CO2 emissions have no chance of success. They are a political impossibility. I think the environmental movement needs to rethink.
Ironically it is investment in a market solution which I believe is the problem. Cap and trade won't work - it will simply push energy costs higher and higher which is politically unacceptable.
So what is the alternative?
In my view it should be massive public investment in a global scientific research effort into alternative sources of energy. If you think of the cost of cap and trade in the EU - probably tens of billions of pounds a year - for very marginal CO2 reductions.
Instead invest that money in a new Manhatten-style project. This can only be done by government because only they will be willing to invest the money needed in such as speculative exercise. Then industry could take over in terms of commercialisation.
Would it work? Possibly not. But even a 10% chance is a better bet than the current approach which has zero chance of succeeding.
Labour NEC Organization Sub Committee met and decided
Great Grimsby (man retiring) AWS Swansea East (female MP retiring) AWS Cynon Valley (woman retiring) AWS Ahston under Lyne (man retiring) AWS Salford and Eccles (woman retiring): tie. Decision goes to full NEC
Mind you, almost all NEC members, except 3-4, are already sitting on the organization subcommittee
The Salford outcome is anyway interesting as CLPs with a female MP retiring usually get an AWS regardless of their will
I don't think AWS are a great way to get UKIP waverers back on side.
I don't think AWS are at all good as a long term innovation. They first appeared in advance of 1997 IIRC which given the landslide gave Labour hundreds of female MPs many, but by no means all, of whom were worse than useless. I think by this stage they should have been phased out. AWS may have been an interesting short term mechanism for rapidly boosting female numbers but it's long term use is dangerous and I don't think necessary.
Remind me how the proportion of women MPs from parties that use AWS compares to those that don't?
It's a bit like what Churchill said about democracy. AWS isn't great but it has been much more successful at boosting the number of women MPs than anything else tried.
Inevitably, a party that bars men from contesting half of its winnable seats will have a higher proportion of women MPs than the others do.
That's not necessarily a good thing.
That's the crux of the matter - those who think that addressing the under-representation of women in Parliament is important will admire Labour's single-mindedness (and success) in tackling it. Those who dont think it's all that big an issue will think their approach is over-the-top.
What matters, primarily, to me is having representatives who are competent, honest, and right wing.
As it happens, UKIP got 7 women out of 24 MEPs without having AWS.
Yes, and also a commensurate increase in energy consumption and resource competition. I am not saying that they are wrong to pursue a better life, but basic maths once again comes into play.
The problem is the atomised, consumerist society in which we live. If people think that nothing matters beyond their own personal wealth then they will seek to maximise that. It's human nature.
So education, culture and social environment matters. It's why it was so frustrating that the left chose to mock to death Cameron's tenantive steps to establish the little platoons
The Big Society is the Tories' big idea. As an alternative to the clunking fist of the central state, Mr Cameron and his colleagues envisage a civil society comprised of so many "little platoons", a term they have borrowed from Edmund Burke to describe the voluntary groups and neighbourhood associations that would be integral to a "broad culture of responsibility, mutuality and obligation".
Does this qualify as a Tory lead with yougov? Cause some of us have bets on this.
Imagine that at the next election the party leaders remained David Cameron for the Conservatives, Ed Miliband for Labour and Nick Clegg for the Lib Democrats.
Since the dawn of the industrial revolution, humankind has been prospering by maxing-out our environmental credit card. Now we have reached our credit limit, and, worse still, it is time to repay the debt and a couple of guys with baseball bats are ringing the doorbell.
It's all OK though - here's the number for Wonga.
For at least the last 1,100 years there have been sects claiming the end of the world was upon us and demanding that we all conform to their strange rituals for our salvation. We are still here. During mankind's time the planet has been both cooler and hotter than it is now. We adapted, learned how to cope and survived. In terms as ability to adapt and cope and act as a steward of the natural environment mankind is better equipped now than at any time in history.
So, in absolute terms, the green tax/VAT element is probably larger than the wholesale cost element.
However, in percentage terms, it is clearly the fastest growing element of the cost of energy. Additionally, the green taxes element alone is > 8% of bills, which would be a meaningful cut for most people.
Really?
On the first point I have quoted here, you are lumping together VAT with green taxes. And what you call "green" taxes here also includes a whole bunch of "social" stuff that has nothing to do with renewable energy, etc.
Secondly, and most obviously, if the "green" element of the bill is rising more quickly than anything else, why are gas prices rising more quickly than electricity prices - give that the green element is applied to electricity bills and not to gas bills?
[Hint: The answer is that you are wrong. You really should simply withdraw your baseless accusation that Green policy is to force pensioners to choose between eating and heating.]
Labour NEC Organization Sub Committee met and decided
Great Grimsby (man retiring) AWS Swansea East (female MP retiring) AWS Cynon Valley (woman retiring) AWS Ahston under Lyne (man retiring) AWS Salford and Eccles (woman retiring): tie. Decision goes to full NEC
Mind you, almost all NEC members, except 3-4, are already sitting on the organization subcommittee
The Salford outcome is anyway interesting as CLPs with a female MP retiring usually get an AWS regardless of their will
I don't think AWS are a great way to get UKIP waverers back on side.
I don't think AWS are at all good as a long term innovation. They first appeared in advance of 1997 IIRC which given the landslide gave Labour hundreds of female MPs many, but by no means all, of whom were worse than useless. I think by this stage they should have been phased out. AWS may have been an interesting short term mechanism for rapidly boosting female numbers but it's long term use is dangerous and I don't think necessary.
Remind me how the proportion of women MPs from parties that use AWS compares to those that don't?
It's a bit like what Churchill said about democracy. AWS isn't great but it has been much more successful at boosting the number of women MPs than anything else tried.
Inevitably, a party that bars men from contesting half of its winnable seats will have a higher proportion of women MPs than the others do.
That's not necessarily a good thing.
That's the crux of the matter - those who think that addressing the under-representation of women in Parliament is important will admire Labour's single-mindedness (and success) in tackling it. Those who dont think it's all that big an issue will think their approach is over-the-top.
The divide is really between those who believe "more women" is important regardless on the impact of the overall quality of MPs. I think it would be great to have more perspectives and different views represented in Parliament, but don't want to dilute the overall standard*.
* admittedly, am on sticky ground with the current generation of MPs, but talking in principles!
Pulpstar - if nuclear can only proceed on the terms recently agreed by the government it is not the answer. Just like renewables it is expensive. The number of new nuclear power plants needed globally to reduce CO2 emissions significantly would cost a massive amount in annual subsidy - tens if not hundreds of billions a year forever. It is just not politically feasible.
If you want low cost nuclear, you do it as France do - as a base load supply, with a long term commitment, and with a consistent design.
Yes, and also a commensurate increase in energy consumption and resource competition. I am not saying that they are wrong to pursue a better life, but basic maths once again comes into play.
It seems to me, though, that the environmental damage which we've suffered due to the Industrial Revolution has been worth it, due to the improvement in living standards that's taken place since then. A pre-Industrial world is one in which a tiny minority live well, and the majority have lives that are nasty, brutish, and short.
Labour NEC Organization Sub Committee met and decided
Great Grimsby (man retiring) AWS Swansea East (female MP retiring) AWS Cynon Valley (woman retiring) AWS Ahston under Lyne (man retiring) AWS Salford and Eccles (woman retiring): tie. Decision goes to full NEC
Mind you, almost all NEC members, except 3-4, are already sitting on the organization subcommittee
The Salford outcome is anyway interesting as CLPs with a female MP retiring usually get an AWS regardless of their will
I don't think AWS are a great way to get UKIP waverers back on side.
I don't think AWS are at all good as a long term innovation. They first appeared in advance of 1997 IIRC which given the landslide gave Labour hundreds of female MPs many, but by no means all, of whom were worse than useless. I think by this stage they should have been phased out. AWS may have been an interesting short term mechanism for rapidly boosting female numbers but it's long term use is dangerous and I don't think necessary.
Remind me how the proportion of women MPs from parties that use AWS compares to those that don't?
It's a bit like what Churchill said about democracy. AWS isn't great but it has been much more successful at boosting the number of women MPs than anything else tried.
Inevitably, a party that bars men from contesting half of its winnable seats will have a higher proportion of women MPs than the others do.
That's not necessarily a good thing.
That's the crux of the matter - those who think that addressing the under-representation of women in Parliament is important will admire Labour's single-mindedness (and success) in tackling it. Those who dont think it's all that big an issue will think their approach is over-the-top.
What matters, primarily, to me is having representatives who are competent, honest, and right wing.
@Charles "The problem is the atomised, consumerist society in which we live. If people think that nothing matters beyond their own personal wealth then they will seek to maximise that. It's human nature."
On this point I wholeheartedly agree, but the problem is that Camerons "Big Society" requires the public to act like socialists while all around them, others are grabbing what they can with the states blessing.
On the climate change discussion it seems obvious to me that current strategies to curb CO2 emissions have no chance of success. They are a political impossibility. I think the environmental movement needs to rethink.
Ironically it is investment in a market solution which I believe is the problem. Cap and trade won't work - it will simply push energy costs higher and higher which is politically unacceptable.
So what is the alternative?
In my view it should be massive public investment in a global scientific research effort into alternative sources of energy. If you think of the cost of cap and trade in the EU - probably tens of billions of pounds a year - for very marginal CO2 reductions.
Instead invest that money in a new Manhatten-style project. This can only be done by government because only they will be willing to invest the money needed in such as speculative exercise. Then industry could take over in terms of commercialisation.
Would it work? Possibly not. But even a 10% chance is a better bet than the current approach which has zero chance of succeeding.
Nuclear is the answer.
There's only so much uranium in the world.
Thorium looks promising.
If you look at the readers' comments on 'The Engineer' website, whatever the issue being discussed in the article, someone pops up and says that Thorium is the answer.
Too many immigrants? Thorium power can sort that out.
Pulpstar - if nuclear can only proceed on the terms recently agreed by the government it is not the answer. Just like renewables it is expensive. The number of new nuclear power plants needed globally to reduce CO2 emissions significantly would cost a massive amount in annual subsidy - tens if not hundreds of billions a year forever. It is just not politically feasible.
If we're going on a subsidy-less argument then coal power stations fuelled by open pit mining is the ONLY way to go. However this is NIMBY/environmentally unacceptable to most.
I don't like the Nuclear deal we've done with the French/Chinese, I have no idea why its costing so much - when they can do it much cheaper in their own countries. Sounds like a classic case of the state negotiating with private enterprises and being taken for a ride (See ATOS subbing back it's disability work BACK to the NHS, and plenty more examples...)
But Nuclear (& Gas) have big roles to play.
Thorium/Fusion should be researched certainly further too.
Oh I don't mind Wind turbines either. But keep them near motorways, and out of places of ONB...
Does this qualify as a Tory lead with yougov? Cause some of us have bets on this.
Imagine that at the next election the party leaders remained David Cameron for the Conservatives, Ed Miliband for Labour and Nick Clegg for the Lib Democrats.
Might be worth trying to twist Paddy's arm... As a poll however it is extremely dull - showing that Ed's "drag" on the ticket is minimal as is Dave's boost.
That the Liberals are screwed any which way isn't news...
Does this qualify as a Tory lead with yougov? Cause some of us have bets on this.
Imagine that at the next election the party leaders remained David Cameron for the Conservatives, Ed Miliband for Labour and Nick Clegg for the Lib Democrats.
Might be worth trying to twist Paddy's arm... As a poll however it is extremely dull - showing that Ed's "drag" on the ticket is minimal as is Dave's boost.
That the Liberals are screwed any which way isn't news...
You should have been paid out on the level yougov.
@Sean_F The lives of those that walked into the German machine guns could hardly be described as idyllic. But yes, the industrial revolution has improved the lot of a great many, I just think that the time has come to step back from the roulette table and reassess the odds
Given how much energy prices have risen, it is clear that the main reason is the increase in gas prices, due to increased global demand and reduced North Sea supply.
Of course, I completely agree that it would be better to fund investment in renewables from general taxation.
From the guardian link SSE's own figures, analysed by Reg Platt at the IPPR think tank, show the rise equates to £93 a year. Of that, £23 is due to rising wholesale energy costs and £28 for investment in the grid and meters. VAT adds £5 and another £23 is unaccounted for, but will include SSE's own costs, profit and projected rises for the next year, during which SSE has pledged to freeze its tarfiffs. That all means that just one sixth of SSE's rise - £15 - is due to the rise in government "green taxes".
So: wholesale costs £23, investment in grid and meters £28, costs/profits £23 and green taxes/VAT £20. IIRC, the meters are centrally government mandated and should be inclduded in the government bucket. Additionally, an element of the wholesale costs are pass through of government actions in the supply chain.
So, in absolute terms, the green tax/VAT element is probably larger than the wholesale cost element.
However, in percentage terms, it is clearly the fastest growing element of the cost of energy. Additionally, the green taxes element alone is > 8% of bills, which would be a meaningful cut for most people.
"I have tabled a lot of questions to the Minister on the issue. In reply to one, he has said that by 2020 around 23% of household electricity bills will be as a result of climate change policy."
It's why it was so frustrating that the left chose to mock to death Cameron's tenantive steps to establish the little platoons
The Big Society is the Tories' big idea. As an alternative to the clunking fist of the central state, Mr Cameron and his colleagues envisage a civil society comprised of so many "little platoons", a term they have borrowed from Edmund Burke to describe the voluntary groups and neighbourhood associations that would be integral to a "broad culture of responsibility, mutuality and obligation".
Yes, that was a major mistake by the Left. They could have picked up Cameron's idea and run with it, and used it as a way to encourage more social solidarity in society in general.
Much of the Left has found itself in a dead-end of always arguing for the State to intervene, when the options are broader than State versus Market.
On the climate change discussion it seems obvious to me that current strategies to curb CO2 emissions have no chance of success. They are a political impossibility. I think the environmental movement needs to rethink.
Ironically it is investment in a market solution which I believe is the problem. Cap and trade won't work - it will simply push energy costs higher and higher which is politically unacceptable.
So what is the alternative?
In my view it should be massive public investment in a global scientific research effort into alternative sources of energy. If you think of the cost of cap and trade in the EU - probably tens of billions of pounds a year - for very marginal CO2 reductions.
Instead invest that money in a new Manhatten-style project. This can only be done by government because only they will be willing to invest the money needed in such as speculative exercise. Then industry could take over in terms of commercialisation.
Would it work? Possibly not. But even a 10% chance is a better bet than the current approach which has zero chance of succeeding.
Nuclear is the answer.
There's only so much uranium in the world.
Thorium looks promising.
If you look at the readers' comments on 'The Engineer' website, whatever the issue being discussed in the article, someone pops up and says that Thorium is the answer.
Too many immigrants? Thorium power can sort that out.
Does this qualify as a Tory lead with yougov? Cause some of us have bets on this.
Imagine that at the next election the party leaders remained David Cameron for the Conservatives, Ed Miliband for Labour and Nick Clegg for the Lib Democrats.
Might be worth trying to twist Paddy's arm... As a poll however it is extremely dull - showing that Ed's "drag" on the ticket is minimal as is Dave's boost.
That the Liberals are screwed any which way isn't news...
You should have been paid out on the level yougov.
That was for the second round of bets, the original bets were for a Tory lead.
If someone said we will use AWS for 2 elections to rapidly boost the number of women and then show that picking a woman isn't a disaster etc
Women arent under-represented because party members think they dont make good MPs. AWS cant work in just 2 elections.
The issue is role models - if all MPs are middle-aged white men, it seems weird to consider a young black female candidate - people say "I don't know what it is exactly, but she just doesn't seem like an MP". AWSs are seen by everyone as a blunt tool, but they do the job. Introducing them for a fixed period could work, but it might be better to aim to end them when the proportion of women is at a level suggesting that the issue has been resolved - say 40%.
And yes, the same issues arise about ethnic minorities and the possibility of having some all-minority shortlists has been knocking around for years, though the feeling up to now is that adding another special requirement would be a complexity too far.
The party’s powerful org-sub met today to discuss the latest upcoming selections – and in particular which selections will be All Women Shortlists and which will be open. Four seats were confirmed as AWS, but one – Salford and Eccles – is still to be decided.
After a discussion described by one org-sub member as “fractious”, the vote was tied (an unusual result), meaning that the full NEC will need to decide what kind of selection will be held there.
The other selections are as follows:
Great Grimsby – AWS
Cynon Valley – AWS
Swansea East – AWS
Ashton under Lyne – AWS
These selections (all in Labour-held seats) will take place over the coming months
So, in absolute terms, the green tax/VAT element is probably larger than the wholesale cost element.
However, in percentage terms, it is clearly the fastest growing element of the cost of energy. Additionally, the green taxes element alone is > 8% of bills, which would be a meaningful cut for most people.
Really?
On the first point I have quoted here, you are lumping together VAT with green taxes. And what you call "green" taxes here also includes a whole bunch of "social" stuff that has nothing to do with renewable energy, etc.
Secondly, and most obviously, if the "green" element of the bill is rising more quickly than anything else, why are gas prices rising more quickly than electricity prices - give that the green element is applied to electricity bills and not to gas bills?
[Hint: The answer is that you are wrong. You really should simply withdraw your baseless accusation that Green policy is to force pensioners to choose between eating and heating.]
Ok, I'll accept that when I refer to "green" taxes, I really mean obligations that central government should be funding but have chosen to push onto customer bills in the hope that energy companies get the blame.
Mr. Smarmeron, worth pointing out wars did happen before the industrial revolution. The death toll at Cannae is comparable to that at battles in World War One.
If someone said we will use AWS for 2 elections to rapidly boost the number of women and then show that picking a woman isn't a disaster etc
Women arent under-represented because party members think they dont make good MPs. AWS cant work in just 2 elections.
The issue is role models - if all MPs are middle-aged white men, it seems weird to consider a young black female candidate - people say "I don't know what it is exactly, but she just doesn't seem like an MP". AWSs are seen by everyone as a blunt tool, but they do the job. Introducing them for a fixed period could work, but it might be better to aim to end them when the proportion of women is at a level suggesting that the issue has been resolved - say 40%.
And yes, the same issues arise about ethnic minorities and the possibility of having some all-minority shortlists has been knocking around for years, though the feeling up to now is that adding another special requirement would be a complexity too far.
I'd be so annoyed if I was picked for a job based purely on the colour of my skin.
So yeah, I'm calling this a crossover with YouGov, and the fourth different pollster this month to show the Tories ahead.
While I don't think the wording will have made a big difference, I think it's important for comparison purposes that the headline VI with parties only is used for consistency. I don't think this counts, though obviously it's a valuable data point.
If someone said we will use AWS for 2 elections to rapidly boost the number of women and then show that picking a woman isn't a disaster etc
Women arent under-represented because party members think they dont make good MPs. AWS cant work in just 2 elections.
Why are they under-represented then? Why won't it work in a short time?
Not getting into the first question - too complicated.
But the 2nd one is straightforward. There is only usually a relatively small turnover in MPs at each election. So even if half seats are AWS then it does not have a big impact.
Take the example of a party with 300 MPs of which 50 are female - so 1 in 6.
At the election 50 MPs stand down, including 10 women. Half seats are AWS so lets say 30 women get selected.
If the seats don't change then the new numbers will be 300 MPs of which 70 are female - not much better.
You do get a big lift where a party makes gains as it can impose lots of AWS in seats it is targeting compared to seats it holds. That is why 97 provided such a big lead.
And if Labour win the next election then it will get another big leap - and probably be close to 40%. At that point you may be right to argue it should be withdrawn or scaled back.
If someone said we will use AWS for 2 elections to rapidly boost the number of women and then show that picking a woman isn't a disaster etc
Women arent under-represented because party members think they dont make good MPs. AWS cant work in just 2 elections.
The issue is role models - if all MPs are middle-aged white men, it seems weird to consider a young black female candidate - people say "I don't know what it is exactly, but she just doesn't seem like an MP". AWSs are seen by everyone as a blunt tool, but they do the job. Introducing them for a fixed period could work, but it might be better to aim to end them when the proportion of women is at a level suggesting that the issue has been resolved - say 40%.
And yes, the same issues arise about ethnic minorities and the possibility of having some all-minority shortlists has been knocking around for years, though the feeling up to now is that adding another special requirement would be a complexity too far.
I'd be so annoyed if I was picked for a job based purely on the colour of my skin.
You wouldnt be forced to apply for selection in a BME-only seat!
So yeah, I'm calling this a crossover with YouGov, and the fourth different pollster this month to show the Tories ahead.
While I don't think the wording will have made a big difference, I think it's important for comparison purposes that the headline VI with parties only is used for consistency. I don't think this counts, though obviously it's a valuable data point.
My position is based solely on the fact that if this poll is classed as an official Tory lead, Paddy Power will pay me some money.
@Charles "The problem is the atomised, consumerist society in which we live. If people think that nothing matters beyond their own personal wealth then they will seek to maximise that. It's human nature."
On this point I wholeheartedly agree, but the problem is that Camerons "Big Society" requires the public to act like socialists while all around them, others are grabbing what they can with the states blessing.
No, it requires everyone to recognise that they are members of a broader community and to act accordingly.
As an example: Michael Hintze.
Is he an "capitalist pig-dog" or a generous philanthropist. Or both?
If someone said we will use AWS for 2 elections to rapidly boost the number of women and then show that picking a woman isn't a disaster etc
Women arent under-represented because party members think they dont make good MPs. AWS cant work in just 2 elections.
The issue is role models - if all MPs are middle-aged white men, it seems weird to consider a young black female candidate - people say "I don't know what it is exactly, but she just doesn't seem like an MP". AWSs are seen by everyone as a blunt tool, but they do the job. Introducing them for a fixed period could work, but it might be better to aim to end them when the proportion of women is at a level suggesting that the issue has been resolved - say 40%.
And yes, the same issues arise about ethnic minorities and the possibility of having some all-minority shortlists has been knocking around for years, though the feeling up to now is that adding another special requirement would be a complexity too far.
I'd be so annoyed if I was picked for a job based purely on the colour of my skin.
You wouldnt be forced to apply for selection in a BME-only seat!
You say that now, it's the beginning of a slippery slope.
Mr. Eagles, there's not just that. Colleagues will have no idea if you got it on merit or if you're Jonny Token. Same would happen with quotas for women on boards. And that's without considering the evil of discriminating against people based on their gender, or the colour of their skin.
The party’s powerful org-sub met today to discuss the latest upcoming selections – and in particular which selections will be All Women Shortlists and which will be open. Four seats were confirmed as AWS, but one – Salford and Eccles – is still to be decided.
After a discussion described by one org-sub member as “fractious”, the vote was tied (an unusual result), meaning that the full NEC will need to decide what kind of selection will be held there.
The other selections are as follows:
Great Grimsby – AWS
Cynon Valley – AWS
Swansea East – AWS
Ashton under Lyne – AWS
These selections (all in Labour-held seats) will take place over the coming months
Hmm Nice to see Great Grimsby in there. I have an image of that place as precisely the sort of Old Labour/working class Tory flirting with UKIP by the sea, where this sort of thing could backfire.
Particularly if UKIP find another Diane James type figure, a woman that can point out to the Labour lady that she got there on merit and not through an AWS.
Edit: Even better would be to have Euan Blair parachuted in !
Mr. Eagles, there's not just that. Colleagues will have no idea if you got it on merit or if you're Jonny Token. Same would happen with quotas for women on boards. And that's without considering the evil of discriminating against people based on their gender, or the colour of their skin.
Nah, spending 5 mins with me, everyone would know I'm awesomely brilliant.
If someone said we will use AWS for 2 elections to rapidly boost the number of women and then show that picking a woman isn't a disaster etc
Women arent under-represented because party members think they dont make good MPs. AWS cant work in just 2 elections.
Why are they under-represented then? Why won't it work in a short time?
There are a whole host of reasons why women are under-represented in Parliament. I dont think so badly of party members to believe that direct discrimination (ie people thinking they are not good enough) is a significant one. The reason it cant work in 2 elections is the reason it hasnt worked in 2 elections - not enough seats come up in that space of time.
I too don't think the LibDems will replace Clegg this side of the GE. There is nothing for them to gain from it, and much to lose. The LibDems will be hoping that with the economic recovery the LibDems will get some of the credit. Their best hope is probably to go on the attack against Labour and then sweep in on the coat-tails of the Conservative victory, which as TSE and others pointed out yesterday now looks inevitable.
As I've mentioned previously, a much more interesting question is the position of EdM. I think he is more vulnerable than Clegg to being ousted this year. Unlike the LibDems, Labour have little to lose from a putsch, and much to gain. It's the potential big game changer and the Conservatives have got to hope and pray they're stupid enough to retain EdM into the General Election.
LOL. Show me where TSE forecast an inevitable Tory victory yesterday?
My apologies: it was Rod Crosby's guest article rather than TSE's. The point still stands: a growing number of us think there's only one way the GE is going and that's a Conservative victory. Rod's article yesterday gave impressive statistical backup to this. The question really is whether they can win outright on seats.
I return to the more interesting issue given that I think the GE is foregone: EdM's position over the next 11 months. Will Labour have the courage to ditch the liability leader?
They won't ditch him because a/ everyone else is as bad or worse, and b/ given the GE is 11 months away, the new leader will still lose anyway, so nobody will step up.
Losing in 2015 will cost Moribund his job, but would also cost any new leader considerable authority, limiting their ability to reshape the party as desired. Any replacement leader would be better off letting Moribund own the defeat. You then take over and start from scratch - as an undefeated leader - after he has done so. 2015 will anyway be Moribund's failure; why take the blame for his ineptness? Given his innate oily treacherousness he will anyway insist to the end of time that he would have won.
If someone said we will use AWS for 2 elections to rapidly boost the number of women and then show that picking a woman isn't a disaster etc
Women arent under-represented because party members think they dont make good MPs. AWS cant work in just 2 elections.
The issue is role models - if all MPs are middle-aged white men, it seems weird to consider a young black female candidate - people say "I don't know what it is exactly, but she just doesn't seem like an MP". AWSs are seen by everyone as a blunt tool, but they do the job. Introducing them for a fixed period could work, but it might be better to aim to end them when the proportion of women is at a level suggesting that the issue has been resolved - say 40%.
And yes, the same issues arise about ethnic minorities and the possibility of having some all-minority shortlists has been knocking around for years, though the feeling up to now is that adding another special requirement would be a complexity too far.
I'd be so annoyed if I was picked for a job based purely on the colour of my skin.
You wouldnt be forced to apply for selection in a BME-only seat!
You say that now, it's the beginning of a slippery slope.
Where do you imagine this slippery slope ending up?
So, in absolute terms, the green tax/VAT element is probably larger than the wholesale cost element.
However, in percentage terms, it is clearly the fastest growing element of the cost of energy. Additionally, the green taxes element alone is > 8% of bills, which would be a meaningful cut for most people.
Really?
On the first point I have quoted here, you are lumping together VAT with green taxes. And what you call "green" taxes here also includes a whole bunch of "social" stuff that has nothing to do with renewable energy, etc.
Secondly, and most obviously, if the "green" element of the bill is rising more quickly than anything else, why are gas prices rising more quickly than electricity prices - give that the green element is applied to electricity bills and not to gas bills?
[Hint: The answer is that you are wrong. You really should simply withdraw your baseless accusation that Green policy is to force pensioners to choose between eating and heating.]
Ok, I'll accept that when I refer to "green" taxes, I really mean obligations that central government should be funding but have chosen to push onto customer bills in the hope that energy companies get the blame.
This seems to have been a major imperative from the Major** years onwards - politicians don't really care what is done, just that they can avoid the blame if it's unpopular!
** Caveat to this, I remember very little of politics from before the Major years, so this may have been going on for some time already...
On a frivolous note (because I'm replaying Dragon Age: Origins), if you choose the noble human route and make your character black, the Cousland family stays white, raising some rather interesting question over what Mother Cousland has been getting up to...
How far away are we from matter/anti matter reactors.
The energy the produce in Star Trek is amazing.
A hell of a long way because the huge problem is storing anti-matter if you can even create sufficient quantities of it. You have to store antimatter so that it doesn't touch the sides of its container otherwise kaboom. The energy drain on storage would be colossal.
It's why it was so frustrating that the left chose to mock to death Cameron's tenantive steps to establish the little platoons
The Big Society is the Tories' big idea. As an alternative to the clunking fist of the central state, Mr Cameron and his colleagues envisage a civil society comprised of so many "little platoons", a term they have borrowed from Edmund Burke to describe the voluntary groups and neighbourhood associations that would be integral to a "broad culture of responsibility, mutuality and obligation".
Yes, that was a major mistake by the Left. They could have picked up Cameron's idea and run with it, and used it as a way to encourage more social solidarity in society in general.
Much of the Left has found itself in a dead-end of always arguing for the State to intervene, when the options are broader than State versus Market.
And that for me is why I struggle to see the situation where I could vote for the current Labour party: it is the party of vested interests and the state, rather than a party of the One Nation acting cohensively.
The death toll at Cannae might have been high as individual battles go, but the industrial revolution also made wars possible on an industrial scale, day after day after day. Tell me, why were the Punnic wars fought?
Comments
"History teaches us that ingenuity can solve complex problems and produce more, it also teaches us that there is a limit to what ingenuity can achieve."
Really, Comrade? What limits to ingenuity have been shown up by history? OK Godel's incompleteness theorem tells us that there are some points in mathematics that cannot be proved, but that is a pretty obscure point of logic and philosophy and hardly relevant to the practical world. Other than that I am struggling to think of a case where man's ingenuity has failed.
It's a bit like what Churchill said about democracy. AWS isn't great but it has been much more successful at boosting the number of women MPs than anything else tried.
a) Lynne Featherstone. b) Ed Davey and c) Vince Cable
has changed since the recent elections compared to pre GE 2010?
Capitalism has no drawbacks whatsoever? Everyone in the world will become "wealthy" eventually. Or do you mean that the majority of the human race will continue in poverty and subservience while the favoured few rule them like kings?
And I thought you were a student of history?
John Rentoul @JohnRentoul · 5m
EdM says local elections "suggest chances of Tory majority at next election extremely remote" http://youtu.be/64WdWwpgAgU#t=1m45s … Peculiar thing to say
If history teaches us anything, then it is surely that human ingenuity consistently surpasses prophesies of doom.
Are you referencing Revelations there?
It's all OK though - here's the number for Wonga.
Property rights are interesting, Who has the property rights? The indigenous people or businesses and Investments?
So: wholesale costs £23, investment in grid and meters £28, costs/profits £23 and green taxes/VAT £20. IIRC, the meters are centrally government mandated and should be inclduded in the government bucket. Additionally, an element of the wholesale costs are pass through of government actions in the supply chain.
So, in absolute terms, the green tax/VAT element is probably larger than the wholesale cost element.
However, in percentage terms, it is clearly the fastest growing element of the cost of energy. Additionally, the green taxes element alone is > 8% of bills, which would be a meaningful cut for most people.
The man is an idiot
"HSE has today confirmed that white asbestos (chrysotile) is a major health hazard."
Note the phrasing in the HSE bulletin from 12 years ago. Hazard always means the potential to do harm, risk means that potential is likely to be realised. In fact, there is no substance on earth that is zero hazard, and that includes water and oxygen.
The discussion about risk is the important one. I don't think anyone in the world believes that crocidolite or amosite are zero risk because they are potent carcinogens. Chrysotile (white asbestsos) is potentially hazardous - it depends on whether it can be made airborne. Also, remember there are many carcinogens that you encounter daily - in your tea, in your coffee, in sunshine, And silica is another one if it is ground small enough. Silica comprises 12% of the earth and you'll find it on every beach - as sand. Would you consider sand a health hazard?
There's been an ongoing scientific discussion on chrysotile for the last few decades and HSE will always take a precautionary line. But they have always recommended that if the white asbestos is in good condition, then leave it alone, it's probably doing no harm. Removing it can convert hazard into risk.
As always in politics, science is used to prove a point not bring enlightenment.
Yes, I'm a cynic.
Or perhaps you meant eschewing use of the popemobiles?
That's not necessarily a good thing.
By your logic, the Thames should never have been cleaned up as it imposes an unnecessary cost to business?
Long term greedy involves growing society around you.
I'm not averse to short term use of AWS to rapidly boost numbers. Of course stacking the deck works, it doesn't mean it's right as a long term measure. If someone said we will use AWS for 2 elections to rapidly boost the number of women and then show that picking a woman isn't a disaster etc then I'd be ok with it. I am a meritocratic person though and want the best person available not merely the best person of a certain category. I'm also not massively turned on by a paint by numbers approach to representation.
Once the greed at the top has been satisfied, they will suddenly become altruistic you mean?
http://www.politicshome.com/uk/story/42403/
Same as that "tough action" for Rennard, Hancock and Ward?
That's not necessarily a good thing either.
Look at these pictures, then tell me, why anyone wouldn't want to live here?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/77/North_York_Moors.jpg
http://farm1.staticflickr.com/102/291715275_8448612f80_o.jpg
http://www.blackbeecreative.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/A-walk-on-the-moor-by-Steve-Jackson3.jpg
Allah's own country
As it happens, UKIP got 7 women out of 24 MEPs without having AWS.
Yes, and also a commensurate increase in energy consumption and resource competition.
I am not saying that they are wrong to pursue a better life, but basic maths once again comes into play.
If you look at those families which do - the Tatas, for example - they have a very enlightened approach.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tata_group#Philanthropy
The problem is the atomised, consumerist society in which we live. If people think that nothing matters beyond their own personal wealth then they will seek to maximise that. It's human nature.
So education, culture and social environment matters. It's why it was so frustrating that the left chose to mock to death Cameron's tenantive steps to establish the little platoons
The Big Society is the Tories' big idea. As an alternative to the clunking fist of the central state, Mr Cameron and his colleagues envisage a civil society comprised of so many "little platoons", a term they have borrowed from Edmund Burke to describe the voluntary groups and neighbourhood associations that would be integral to a "broad culture of responsibility, mutuality and obligation".
http://www.newstatesman.com/uk-politics/2010/04/platoons-burke-leader-groups
Imagine that at the next election the party leaders remained David Cameron for the Conservatives, Ed Miliband for Labour and Nick Clegg for the Lib Democrats.
Con 34, Lab 33, LD 8,
http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/hhstanj4fd/YG-Archive-140527-Parties-and-elections.pdf
No need to panic, old boy.
On the first point I have quoted here, you are lumping together VAT with green taxes. And what you call "green" taxes here also includes a whole bunch of "social" stuff that has nothing to do with renewable energy, etc.
Secondly, and most obviously, if the "green" element of the bill is rising more quickly than anything else, why are gas prices rising more quickly than electricity prices - give that the green element is applied to electricity bills and not to gas bills?
[Hint: The answer is that you are wrong. You really should simply withdraw your baseless accusation that Green policy is to force pensioners to choose between eating and heating.]
* admittedly, am on sticky ground with the current generation of MPs, but talking in principles!
"The problem is the atomised, consumerist society in which we live. If people think that nothing matters beyond their own personal wealth then they will seek to maximise that. It's human nature."
On this point I wholeheartedly agree, but the problem is that Camerons "Big Society" requires the public to act like socialists while all around them, others are grabbing what they can with the states blessing.
"Talking of London, do you all still break into song and dance over trivial day to day matters or did that go out with the chimney sweeps?"
I liked that.
Even though shires were not up hell of a job for Tory victory imho.
Where are the gains by constituncy over 2010 coming from
Too many immigrants? Thorium power can sort that out.
I don't like the Nuclear deal we've done with the French/Chinese, I have no idea why its costing so much - when they can do it much cheaper in their own countries. Sounds like a classic case of the state negotiating with private enterprises and being taken for a ride (See ATOS subbing back it's disability work BACK to the NHS, and plenty more examples...)
But Nuclear (& Gas) have big roles to play.
Thorium/Fusion should be researched certainly further too.
Oh I don't mind Wind turbines either. But keep them near motorways, and out of places of ONB...
That the Liberals are screwed any which way isn't news...
You endless drumbeat this week that the Labour surge in London was down to immigrants. You ignore the big leftie professional class here.
But fair enough on the address thing - I think the same.
The lives of those that walked into the German machine guns could hardly be described as idyllic. But yes, the industrial revolution has improved the lot of a great many, I just think that the time has come to step back from the roulette table and reassess the odds
http://www.thegwpf.org/mps-attack-impact-climate-change-act-families-industry/
Much of the Left has found itself in a dead-end of always arguing for the State to intervene, when the options are broader than State versus Market.
http://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2013/08/29/betting-on-when-will-a-conservative-lead-with-yougov-occur/
TaxPayers' Alliance @the_tpa 1h
Across the year, the average British household pays more in tax than it spends on food, clothing and housing.
pic.twitter.com/PqKlQiJiMG
The energy the produce in Star Trek is amazing.
And yes, the same issues arise about ethnic minorities and the possibility of having some all-minority shortlists has been knocking around for years, though the feeling up to now is that adding another special requirement would be a complexity too far.
The party’s powerful org-sub met today to discuss the latest upcoming selections – and in particular which selections will be All Women Shortlists and which will be open. Four seats were confirmed as AWS, but one – Salford and Eccles – is still to be decided.
After a discussion described by one org-sub member as “fractious”, the vote was tied (an unusual result), meaning that the full NEC will need to decide what kind of selection will be held there.
The other selections are as follows:
Great Grimsby – AWS
Cynon Valley – AWS
Swansea East – AWS
Ashton under Lyne – AWS
These selections (all in Labour-held seats) will take place over the coming months
But the 2nd one is straightforward. There is only usually a relatively small turnover in MPs at each election. So even if half seats are AWS then it does not have a big impact.
Take the example of a party with 300 MPs of which 50 are female - so 1 in 6.
At the election 50 MPs stand down, including 10 women. Half seats are AWS so lets say 30 women get selected.
If the seats don't change then the new numbers will be 300 MPs of which 70 are female - not much better.
You do get a big lift where a party makes gains as it can impose lots of AWS in seats it is targeting compared to seats it holds. That is why 97 provided such a big lead.
And if Labour win the next election then it will get another big leap - and probably be close to 40%. At that point you may be right to argue it should be withdrawn or scaled back.
Interesting article by Sunny Hundal - illustrates Labour's dichotomy.
As an example: Michael Hintze.
Is he an "capitalist pig-dog" or a generous philanthropist. Or both?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Hintze
Particularly if UKIP find another Diane James type figure, a woman that can point out to the Labour lady that she got there on merit and not through an AWS.
Edit: Even better would be to have Euan Blair parachuted in !
Losing in 2015 will cost Moribund his job, but would also cost any new leader considerable authority, limiting their ability to reshape the party as desired. Any replacement leader would be better off letting Moribund own the defeat. You then take over and start from scratch - as an undefeated leader - after he has done so. 2015 will anyway be Moribund's failure; why take the blame for his ineptness? Given his innate oily treacherousness he will anyway insist to the end of time that he would have won.
** Caveat to this, I remember very little of politics from before the Major years, so this may have been going on for some time already...
The death toll at Cannae might have been high as individual battles go, but the industrial revolution also made wars possible on an industrial scale, day after day after day.
Tell me, why were the Punnic wars fought?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2641055/Is-hospital-miracle-cure-NHS-It-Michelin-chef-happy-patients-run-doctors-nurses-And-shock-horror-operated-profit-private-firm.html
"Circle took over the failing hospital in 2012 and slashed the numbers in middle management"
I had thought the NHS unreformable unless it went to the French system but this has cheered me up.