Found this last paragraph particularly interesting.
"More than half of the UK requests to have information removed have to date come from convicted criminals, with an ex-MP seeking re-election also among the applicants to Google’s new service."
There can't be that many Ex-MPs seeking re-election next year. I wonder which one is embarrassed about their past and trying to cover it up? I am damn sure it is not our Nick as he has always been pretty open about all his activities so I wonder if we can work out which one it is?
That would make a very interesting thread. My wild stab in the dark is Helen Clark nee Brinton
A quick google search shows lots of news sites starting articles with the phrase
"A former MP seeking re-election and a convicted paedophile have already applied to Google to have details of their past removed from search"
If the name does come out it will look very bad for whoever it is being put in the same bracket as convicted paedophiles and other assorted criminals.
Richard, a few weeks ago in The Sunday Times, the ex MP in question is trying to cover up the stories about their expenses.
Are we allowed to mention who it is? Or would that draw the flaming Eye of Sauron towards the site?
If the media aren't going to mention that ex MP's name, then I don't think we should either.
I've always thought the Lib-Dems would receive some swingback and would ultimately poll around 15% at the general election - Perhaps losing half of their seats, but no worse than that.
However, I am starting to wonder whether they really could be heading 10% or lower and may be facing near oblivion?
The local elections weren't quite as bad as most recent local elections, so that does kind of back up the idea that the GE might not be quite as bad as expected, but then again the European elections and subsequent blood-letting has been very, very bad.
The LD local election results were slightly worse than average.
Before the elections, LD voice said:
"Mark Pack has pointed out in his latest Newswire that the Lib Dems have lost an average of 40% of seats in previous rounds of local elections during the Coalition. On that basis, the benchmark this time round is that the party will retain around 437 of the seats it’s defending and lose 291"
On Google censorship - I thought the point was about this 'revenge porn' stuff. People posting explicit stuff of their ex's online. Surely you can deal with that kind of stuff pretty easily without having to censor the whole thing?
Found this last paragraph particularly interesting.
"More than half of the UK requests to have information removed have to date come from convicted criminals, with an ex-MP seeking re-election also among the applicants to Google’s new service."
There can't be that many Ex-MPs seeking re-election next year. I wonder which one is embarrassed about their past and trying to cover it up? I am damn sure it is not our Nick as he has always been pretty open about all his activities so I wonder if we can work out which one it is?
Presumably somebody will build a site in a non-EU jurisdiction allowing you to put in somebody's name and find out exactly what information they've had disappeared from Google.
PS Is this case now over and definitive, or is it something that can be appealed somewhere else or reversed by legislation?
If google were clever they would make a list themselves of everyone who had made a successful request for information to be removed and then host it outside the EU. It strikes me as a very easy way to undermine the ruling whilst remaining inside the letter of the law. How many people would want to be on such a list and have it publicly known that they had something to hide?
Found this last paragraph particularly interesting.
"More than half of the UK requests to have information removed have to date come from convicted criminals, with an ex-MP seeking re-election also among the applicants to Google’s new service."
There can't be that many Ex-MPs seeking re-election next year. I wonder which one is embarrassed about their past and trying to cover it up? I am damn sure it is not our Nick as he has always been pretty open about all his activities so I wonder if we can work out which one it is?
That would make a very interesting thread. My wild stab in the dark is Helen Clark nee Brinton
A quick google search shows lots of news sites starting articles with the phrase
"A former MP seeking re-election and a convicted paedophile have already applied to Google to have details of their past removed from search"
If the name does come out it will look very bad for whoever it is being put in the same bracket as convicted paedophiles and other assorted criminals.
Richard, a few weeks ago in The Sunday Times, the ex MP in question is trying to cover up the stories about their expenses.
Are we allowed to mention who it is? Or would that draw the flaming Eye of Sauron towards the site?
If the media aren't going to mention that ex MP's name, then I don't think we should either.
Understood :-)
Huff Post also mentions it is to do with expenses
Google 'Delete' Decision: Expenses Scandal MP And Paedophile Among First To Demand Link Removal
It's certainly true that UKIP's rise at least allows the Conservatives to triangulate and it helps their detoxification with centrist voters.
The comments are a good insight into the mindset of many coalition opponents. Fascinating that so many assume that David Cameron is thick in defiance of all available evidence.
Pretty much what I was saying on here a couple of weeks back. If the Tories are clever the rise of UKIP is a huge opportunity for them. They can pass the "nasty party" tag over to UKIP and tag towards the centre, where most voters sit. One thing is certain: trying to out-UKIP UKIP is impossible.
That said, I am not sure that I would categorise anyone writing anonymous comments on newspaper message boards (or political ones like this!) as being representative of anything much.
Tagging towards the 'centre' is what got them into this mess in the first place. Your strategy is a triumph of hope over experience. Whenever the 'centre' is used in this argument, it actually means the minority views of the metropolitan elite: more immigration, more EU, more tap on the wrists for criminals. Actually, UKIP have been winning votes from both right and left because things like moving back to a trading relationship with Europe, tougher criminal justice and heavily restricted immigration ARE the centre. They are supported by majorities of the British public. Those commenting on the need for the Tories to move to the centre would do well to actually check in on what the views of the median voter are.
On Google censorship - I thought the point was about this 'revenge porn' stuff. People posting explicit stuff of their ex's online. Surely you can deal with that kind of stuff pretty easily without having to censor the whole thing?
This is another classic case of the interpretation of the law by the ECJ going far beyond what was originally intended. The case that sparked this was a man using the 'right to be forgotten' law to get a notice about the 1998 auction of his re-possessed home removed from the website of a newspaper. Whatever the original intent (and if it was revenge porn then I agree with you it is a reasonable request) it has gone far beyond that now.
Forget Westminster, their problem is at the local level. Yes they lost 41% of seats held in this years local elections, and that's a catastrophe. But last year it was a similar picture. And the year before that. And the year before that. Indeed they have lost at least 20+% of seats held in every round of local elections since joining the government and next year they have a whopping 1038 up for reelection - so they'll lose 250 to 420 of them.
These seats will have already faced their 40% loss in 2011. The LDs local election NEV results do suggest a further loss, but surely less than 40%. 2011: 16% 2012: 15% 2013: 13% 2014: 11%
Useful to see the trend in NEV Dave. There maybe some hope in that in 97 and 2010 the party that lost national power gained cllr seats in that year of local elections. Maybe voters vented their anger at the governing party in locals pre a GE and then are more rational in the locals that year? But does it only apply to the main party and not the Lib Dems? We shall see.
Wasn't that because their position had improved somewhat from a nadir. If the Lib Dems don't improve from NEV this year and get 11% in locals next they will probably lose seats.
You maybe right but we should expect the LDs to have a higher NEV in 2015 than this year. That said I agree with the David Herdson article that the likely LD MP total is now in the low 30s. To have 27 losses we have in play 9 retirements, fighting to hold 18 seats agst Lab (only 1 a retirement), and 5 agst SNP/UKIP (2 are retirements). Plus the LD vs C marginals.
It's certainly true that UKIP's rise at least allows the Conservatives to triangulate and it helps their detoxification with centrist voters.
The comments are a good insight into the mindset of many coalition opponents. Fascinating that so many assume that David Cameron is thick in defiance of all available evidence.
Pretty much what I was saying on here a couple of weeks back. If the Tories are clever the rise of UKIP is a huge opportunity for them. They can pass the "nasty party" tag over to UKIP and tag towards the centre, where most voters sit. One thing is certain: trying to out-UKIP UKIP is impossible.
That said, I am not sure that I would categorise anyone writing anonymous comments on newspaper message boards (or political ones like this!) as being representative of anything much.
Tagging towards the 'centre' is what got them into this mess in the first place. Your strategy is a triumph of hope over experience. Whenever the 'centre' is used in this argument, it actually means the minority views of the metropolitan elite: more immigration, more EU, more tap on the wrists for criminals. Actually, UKIP have been winning votes from both right and left because things like moving back to a trading relationship with Europe, tougher criminal justice and heavily restricted immigration ARE the centre. They are supported by majorities of the British public. Those commenting on the need for the Tories to move to the centre would do well to actually check in on what the views of the median voter are.
I think it's a stretch to say that UKIP is even close to having the support of a majority in the UK. In a GE people will vote on a package, not an issue. We'll see where UKIP is after that.
Does the Google thing apply to the .com site? I'm not sure how that would work as censorship of that kind surely runs entirely contrary to US law.
The .com site already provides different results depending on your location. They'd just wipe those from EU computes connecting. You can use an add-on so it pretends you're in the US though.
It's certainly true that UKIP's rise at least allows the Conservatives to triangulate and it helps their detoxification with centrist voters.
The comments are a good insight into the mindset of many coalition opponents. Fascinating that so many assume that David Cameron is thick in defiance of all available evidence.
Pretty much what I was saying on here a couple of weeks back. If the Tories are clever the rise of UKIP is a huge opportunity for them. They can pass the "nasty party" tag over to UKIP and tag towards the centre, where most voters sit. One thing is certain: trying to out-UKIP UKIP is impossible.
That said, I am not sure that I would categorise anyone writing anonymous comments on newspaper message boards (or political ones like this!) as being representative of anything much.
Tagging towards the 'centre' is what got them into this mess in the first place. Your strategy is a triumph of hope over experience. Whenever the 'centre' is used in this argument, it actually means the minority views of the metropolitan elite: more immigration, more EU, more tap on the wrists for criminals. Actually, UKIP have been winning votes from both right and left because things like moving back to a trading relationship with Europe, tougher criminal justice and heavily restricted immigration ARE the centre. They are supported by majorities of the British public. Those commenting on the need for the Tories to move to the centre would do well to actually check in on what the views of the median voter are.
I think it's a stretch to say that UKIP is even close to having the support of a majority in the UK. In a GE people will vote on a package, not an issue. We'll see where UKIP is after that.
Obviously not, and clearly UKIP don't have a full agenda for government as well as other issues. But it's a pretty stupid argument that the Tories need to move towards the 'centre' by moving away from majority views towards minority views. It's doubly stupid when doing exactly this has actually seen them fall in the polls. On both logic and evidence, this has clearly been a bad idea, but some people keep recommending it. It's a clear example of epistemic closure.
Maybe things aren't as bad as they looked int he immediate aftermath of Oakeshott's polls but if drastic action were required the only thing they could do would be to say no more deals with the Tories. They made a decision in 2010 in the national interest but 5 years alongside Cameron, Osborne, Gove and Duncan Smith had convinced them 'never again.'
It's certainly true that UKIP's rise at least allows the Conservatives to triangulate and it helps their detoxification with centrist voters.
The comments are a good insight into the mindset of many coalition opponents. Fascinating that so many assume that David Cameron is thick in defiance of all available evidence.
Pretty much what I was saying on here a couple of weeks back. If the Tories are clever the rise of UKIP is a huge opportunity for them. They can pass the "nasty party" tag over to UKIP and tag towards the centre, where most voters sit. One thing is certain: trying to out-UKIP UKIP is impossible.
That said, I am not sure that I would categorise anyone writing anonymous comments on newspaper message boards (or political ones like this!) as being representative of anything much.
Tagging towards the 'centre' is what got them into this mess in the first place. Your strategy is a triumph of hope over experience. Whenever the 'centre' is used in this argument, it actually means the minority views of the metropolitan elite: more immigration, more EU, more tap on the wrists for criminals. Actually, UKIP have been winning votes from both right and left because things like moving back to a trading relationship with Europe, tougher criminal justice and heavily restricted immigration ARE the centre. They are supported by majorities of the British public. Those commenting on the need for the Tories to move to the centre would do well to actually check in on what the views of the median voter are.
I think it's a stretch to say that UKIP is even close to having the support of a majority in the UK. In a GE people will vote on a package, not an issue. We'll see where UKIP is after that.
Obviously not, and clearly UKIP don't have a full agenda for government as well as other issues. But it's a pretty stupid argument that the Tories need to move towards the 'centre' by moving away from majority views towards minority views. It's doubly stupid when doing exactly this has actually seen them fall in the polls. On both logic and evidence, this has clearly been a bad idea, but some people keep recommending it. It's a clear example of epistemic closure.
According to the latest YouGov 45% of voters support Labour and the LDs, 16% support UKIP. Logic suggests that the biggest pool of untapped voters lies to the left of the Tories, not to the right.
The Lib Dems unpopular policy on unconditional membership of the EU will have had some negative effect on their vote in the local elections and will do the same at the general election if not changed.
In fact, Lib Dem policies are in favour of EU reform, such as to the Common Agricultural Policy. The sooner they start to shout this from the rooftops the sooner they will stop haemorrhaging support.
Maybe things aren't as bad as they looked int he immediate aftermath of Oakeshott's polls but if drastic action were required the only thing they could do would be to say no more deals with the Tories. They made a decision in 2010 in the national interest but 5 years alongside Cameron, Osborne, Gove and Duncan Smith had convinced them 'never again.'
I do wonder what the General Election campaign media coverage will sound like.
The EU Parliament election was four weeks of 'UKIP are awful people'.
It looks like we can expect six weeks of LDs saying: 'Conservatives are awful people' Labour saying: 'Conservatives are awful people' Conservatives saying: 'UKIP are awful people' UKIP saying: 'Lib-Lab-Con are awful people'.
Barnabasfund are very good at supporting oppressed Christians around the world. They have been active in Sudan for some years; may I commend them to any PBer who wants to provide practical support. They are helping 500 women and 100 children in the area.
Good morning. The debate on the L/dems in this thread is pretty mundane and now getting on boring, despite the Herds excellent background analysis. I mean the L'/Dems, come on........
Let me add a little fire and sparkle by going off thread.
Cammo and Co call the goings on barbaric. When oh when will somebody besides Kippers get the gumption to tell the truth and shout out loud that Sudan is itself barbaric. That many countries with a muslim majority, especially around the Horn of Africa, are barbaric in their laws and customs, and their level of civil discourse is the rock and the stone, when they haven't got an AK47 to hand.
Maybe things aren't as bad as they looked int he immediate aftermath of Oakeshott's polls but if drastic action were required the only thing they could do would be to say no more deals with the Tories. They made a decision in 2010 in the national interest but 5 years alongside Cameron, Osborne, Gove and Duncan Smith had convinced them 'never again.'
The trouble then is they'd have a job distinguishing themselves from Labour. The Lib Dems problem isn't the decision they made in 2010 to enter the coalition. It was the decisions they made earlier to tack too far over into anti-Tory left of Labour territory. By doing so when they had to work on the basis of numbers they were always going to annoy the support they'd built up as an anti-Tory alternative to New Labour the fact that Labour is careering back into that zone is fatal.
According to the latest YouGov 45% of voters support Labour and the LDs, 16% support UKIP. Logic suggests that the biggest pool of untapped voters lies to the left of the Tories, not to the right.
Nope. I have always considered this a complete logic fail as an argument. The 'centre' as it is laughably referred to, is a moveable area between the Tories, Labour and the Lib Dems. All three parties are trying to gain voters from that very limited portion of the electorate so it is that much harder for any one of the three parties to make any serious inroads, particularly given how similar they all are in terms of policy.
The 16% of UKIP support ( along with the much larger proportion of voters who refuse to vote for any of the three established parties) is available to the Tories as it sits naturally on one side of their policy spectrum. Most of the 45% Labour/Lib Dem support you mention does not even come onto the Tory policy spectrum and never will no matter how far to the left extreme of their spectrum the Tories move.
What doesn't seem to have been understood is that we are experiencing a paradigm shift following the application of the shock doctrine by Osborne,which is the way the ruling class has responded to maintain and increase its' power after the financial shocks of 2007/8. The result of this is to create a series of unknown unknowns.Predictions are therefore all built on sand.Perhaps in these circumstances it is best to expect the unpredictable.
I think it's a very good rebuttal of a rebuttal. Some of Giles' criticisms are completely debunked, but Piketty also admits some of his explanations were insufficient in the original work. For me the only one of Giles' criticisms that actually stands was using an arithmetic mean for the three European nations, and Piketty seems to accept this, while noting it does not change the conclusions. It does seem that Giles' piece was inappropriately framed, and it looks badly on the FT that they gave the academic only one day to respond before publishing, and they now look a bit silly in that they're claims that the conclusions changed are entirely based on the fact they didn't know the wealth data as well as Piketty.
One last observation before I head off cycling for the morning. While I was doing some research for the thread, I was looking at the last time the Lib Dems / Liberals polled in single figures per constituency contested. I don't think they ever have.
The 1950s are rightly regarded as the low point for the Yellows and in national terms, they didn't feature - very frequently quite literally. In 1951, they contested only 109 seats; in 1955, just one more. Even by 1970, they were standing in only half of the constituencies. True, those they did stand in were likely to be those they were strongest in and when the level to retain your deposit was 12.5%, that was a serious consideration.
Even so, while the Liberals' lowest ever share of the vote was about 2.5% in 1951, that's seriously distorts their popularity because of the small number of constituencies they stood in. To get an exact average vote share, you'd have to go through each result but as a rough figure, multiplying up by the ratio of seats existing to those contested, they averaged about 15% where they stood: not too bad.
On that basis, their lowest ever vote per constituency was 12% in 1950 and the next worst 14% in 1970.
At present the LibDems are wounded and Labour has moved a long way to the left of New Labour. There are votes to be had in the middle ground particularly in the marginal seats.
Gaining purple votes in Surrey would be useless if it is at the expense of light blue votes in Loughborough.
But I think that after the next election the LDs will recover that centre ground while Tories and kippers indulge in fratricidal feuds over navel gazing on Europe.
According to the latest YouGov 45% of voters support Labour and the LDs, 16% support UKIP. Logic suggests that the biggest pool of untapped voters lies to the left of the Tories, not to the right.
Nope. I have always considered this a complete logic fail as an argument. The 'centre' as it is laughably referred to, is a moveable area between the Tories, Labour and the Lib Dems. All three parties are trying to gain voters from that very limited portion of the electorate so it is that much harder for any one of the three parties to make any serious inroads, particularly given how similar they all are in terms of policy.
The 16% of UKIP support ( along with the much larger proportion of voters who refuse to vote for any of the three established parties) is available to the Tories as it sits naturally on one side of their policy spectrum. Most of the 45% Labour/Lib Dem support you mention does not even come onto the Tory policy spectrum and never will no matter how far to the left extreme of their spectrum the Tories move.
It's certainly true that UKIP's rise at least allows the Conservatives to triangulate and it helps their detoxification with centrist voters.
The comments are a good insight into the mindset of many coalition opponents. Fascinating that so many assume that David Cameron is thick in defiance of all available evidence.
Pretty much what I was saying on here a couple of weeks back. If the Tories are clever the rise of UKIP is a huge opportunity for them. They can pass the "nasty party" tag over to UKIP and tag towards the centre, where most voters sit. One thing is certain: trying to out-UKIP UKIP is impossible.
That said, I am not sure that I would categorise anyone writing anonymous comments on newspaper message boards (or political ones like this!) as being representative of anything much.
The Conservatives can be good cop to UKIP's bad cop, rather as the UUP and DUP used to operate.
...On topic, of more concern to the Lib Dems than the voters who've switched to Labour is the number who voted for them last time now saying don't know. .... A bigger point is that despite Clegg moving his party closer to the Tories he has completely failed to win over Tory switchers (more have gone the other way).
An expected outcome of LD tactics. Clegg has not moved closer as he has chosen to emphasise difference through attacks. The Lib Dems have spent more media time on attacking their partners in Govt than on attacking Labour. The Conservatives (in Govt) have spent very little time attacking their partners. Hence we should expect the Cons to attract more LDs than vice versa.
Obviously not, and clearly UKIP don't have a full agenda for government as well as other issues. But it's a pretty stupid argument that the Tories need to move towards the 'centre' by moving away from majority views towards minority views. It's doubly stupid when doing exactly this has actually seen them fall in the polls. On both logic and evidence, this has clearly been a bad idea, but some people keep recommending it. It's a clear example of epistemic closure.
According to the latest YouGov 45% of voters support Labour and the LDs, 16% support UKIP. Logic suggests that the biggest pool of untapped voters lies to the left of the Tories, not to the right.
Only if you subscribe to the absurd view that there is a single political spectrum along which all voters fall. If you had engaged with my criticism rather than simply made your own simplistic point, this would have been clear. How else would UKIP, party understood to be to the right of the Conservatives in your analysis, be winning votes from the Labour party? The reality is that there are a range of policy issues about which different sets of voters have different combinations of views. They do not think "I am moderately centre left so I will vote for the party I think is closest to the moderate centre left". They instead look at the range positions being touted by each party and think "I agree with more of the points that Party A is making than I do with the other parties." In this aspect, the voters are actually more sophisticated than the otherwise more knowledgeable partisans who comment on political blogs.
The Lib Dems unpopular policy on unconditional membership of the EU will have had some negative effect on their vote in the local elections and will do the same at the general election if not changed.
In fact, Lib Dem policies are in favour of EU reform, such as to the Common Agricultural Policy. The sooner they start to shout this from the rooftops the sooner they will stop haemorrhaging support.
In the EC their MEPs spent more time expanding the EC role rather than curbing/reforming it. So their removal was a just reward. Clegg was asked to explain his vision for the EC in one of the debates and said words along the lines as "much the same". The LDs do not have in their real priorities reform of the EC. It is not a top priority.
@Socrates The Financial Times has an agenda like any other paper. The one that gets me is. "The housing boom is over". Usually penned by an estate agent. Piketty at least put all his data up, and asked for scrutiny, saying that it was incomplete and could be improved.
Maybe things aren't as bad as they looked int he immediate aftermath of Oakeshott's polls but if drastic action were required the only thing they could do would be to say no more deals with the Tories. They made a decision in 2010 in the national interest but 5 years alongside Cameron, Osborne, Gove and Duncan Smith had convinced them 'never again.'
The trouble then is they'd have a job distinguishing themselves from Labour. The Lib Dems problem isn't the decision they made in 2010 to enter the coalition. It was the decisions they made earlier to tack too far over into anti-Tory left of Labour territory. By doing so when they had to work on the basis of numbers they were always going to annoy the support they'd built up as an anti-Tory alternative to New Labour the fact that Labour is careering back into that zone is fatal.
To be fair, allowance should be made for the fact that people don't approach politics purely like a boardgame where you adopt whatever policies seem likely to help you win. If, for instance, I could ensure victory by supporting EU withdrawal, I wouldn't, because I think it'd be a terrible idea and securing victory on that basis would be horrible - I'd rather not stand at all. If I could secure victory by promising to work for more or fewer traffic lights, however, I expect I would, as I don't really care either way.
LibDem members (not necessarily voters) DID generally see themselves as being on the anti-Tory left. Posing as Tory-leaning centrists wasn't an option for them because they weren't. The numbers after the election made it hard to avoid the Coalition, but if they wanted to avoid the current situation they needed to have a deal that would produce some important left-of-centre policies for members to cling to ("well, at least we got the ..."), and they didn't really make that work. They now either need to recruit new members who positively like the current alliance, or extricate themselves from it clearly, and probably the latter can only be done effectively after an election.
Maybe things aren't as bad as they looked int he immediate aftermath of Oakeshott's polls but if drastic action were required the only thing they could do would be to say no more deals with the Tories. They made a decision in 2010 in the national interest but 5 years alongside Cameron, Osborne, Gove and Duncan Smith had convinced them 'never again.'
The trouble then is they'd have a job distinguishing themselves from Labour. The Lib Dems problem isn't the decision they made in 2010 to enter the coalition. It was the decisions they made earlier to tack too far over into anti-Tory left of Labour territory. By doing so when they had to work on the basis of numbers they were always going to annoy the support they'd built up as an anti-Tory alternative to New Labour the fact that Labour is careering back into that zone is fatal.
To be fair, allowance should be made for the fact that people don't approach politics purely like a boardgame where you adopt whatever policies seem likely to help you win. If, for instance, I could ensure victory by supporting EU withdrawal, I wouldn't, because I think it'd be a terrible idea and securing victory on that basis would be horrible - I'd rather not stand at all. If I could secure victory by promising to work for more or fewer traffic lights, however, I expect I would, as I don't really care either way.
LibDem members (not necessarily voters) DID generally see themselves as being on the anti-Tory left. Posing as Tory-leaning centrists wasn't an option for them because they weren't. The numbers after the election made it hard to avoid the Coalition, but if they wanted to avoid the current situation they needed to have a deal that would produce some important left-of-centre policies for members to cling to ("well, at least we got the ..."), and they didn't really make that work. They now either need to recruit new members who positively like the current alliance, or extricate themselves from it clearly, and probably the latter can only be done effectively after an election.
I know that the Lib Dems were never going to be Tory-lite but the by getting ever more left and anti-Tory they added to the pain they were going to get from being in govt with the Tories.
It's interesting that the Chamber of Commerce, a now very right wing group, released its numbers slamming Obama's regulations of power plants as costing the outrageous amount of $50bn a year:
Seeing as current GDP is about $16,000bn a year, 0.3% of GDP seems like a pretty good price to eliminate 42% of US carbon emissions. Even if you think the scientists are dramatically overegging things, and global warming and ocean acification has only a 50-50 chance of happening, this seems like a very cheap preventative cost to avoid taking the risk.
Out of interest, why do Europhiles think that leaving the EU is not just a bad idea, but this god awful terrible idea that we shouldn't dare to consider? The arguments europhiles tend to favour are that the single market is an amazing achievement and all the waste, lack of democracy, mass immigration etc is worth the cost to get that. But even the most pro-EU studies seem to suggest it's only worth a percent of so GDP benefit, and that is assuming we don't get any trade deal at all to replace it. There's sometimes something vague about having more standing in the world from being a part of it, but I don't see independent countries like Canada having less influence than EU countries like Italy.
Will Michael Meadowcroft tow the wrecked hull back to the good ship rump Liberal? Will Vince refound the SDP? Will Alistair Carmichael remember which party he represents if he is the last yellow standing?
Obviously not, and clearly UKIP don't have a full agenda for government as well as other issues. But it's a pretty stupid argument that the Tories need to move towards the 'centre' by moving away from majority views towards minority views. It's doubly stupid when doing exactly this has actually seen them fall in the polls. On both logic and evidence, this has clearly been a bad idea, but some people keep recommending it. It's a clear example of epistemic closure.
According to the latest YouGov 45% of voters support Labour and the LDs, 16% support UKIP. Logic suggests that the biggest pool of untapped voters lies to the left of the Tories, not to the right.
Only if you subscribe to the absurd view that there is a single political spectrum along which all voters fall. If you had engaged with my criticism rather than simply made your own simplistic point, this would have been clear. How else would UKIP, party understood to be to the right of the Conservatives in your analysis, be winning votes from the Labour party? The reality is that there are a range of policy issues about which different sets of voters have different combinations of views. They do not think "I am moderately centre left so I will vote for the party I think is closest to the moderate centre left". They instead look at the range positions being touted by each party and think "I agree with more of the points that Party A is making than I do with the other parties." In this aspect, the voters are actually more sophisticated than the otherwise more knowledgeable partisans who comment on political blogs.
People vote for a package and within that they prioritise. I disagree that people do not categorise themselves as being broadly centre right, left or centrist. I think that's exactly what they do and that, by and large, they tend to vote accordingly at GEs. UKIP has won some votes from Labour in recent, relatively unimportant elections because its anti-immigration stance was very attractive and the elections offered a relatively risk free way to send a message. We'll see what happens in a GE. If UKIP retains similar vote percentages I'll hold my hands up and admit to being wrong.
@Sean_F All parties are wondering where to "plant their flag" to the best advantage. The Tories are more constrained than the others though with the meme of "There is no alternative" tying up major policy adjustment tightly, and leaving them with a move to the "right" as the only viable way.
While there is a combined 45% who support Labour and Lib Dems, most would never contemplate voting Conservative.
And, if the Conservative moved so far to the Left that they could win some support, they'd lose a lot of support to UKIP on the Right.
I don't see it's a matter of moving left or moving right. It's a matter of adopting a mix of policies that appeal to a broad range of people. So clearly supporting gay marriage is needed, given the increasing majority in favour of that, but equally you need to have genuine action on reducing immigration, which they've completely failed to do. To be honest, I think if the Tories got gross immigration down to 200k a year they'd eliminate UKIP as a threat.
Out of interest, why do Europhiles think that leaving the EU is not just a bad idea, but this god awful terrible idea that we shouldn't dare to consider? The arguments europhiles tend to favour are that the single market is an amazing achievement and all the waste, lack of democracy, mass immigration etc is worth the cost to get that. But even the most pro-EU studies seem to suggest it's only worth a percent of so GDP benefit, and that is assuming we don't get any trade deal at all to replace it. There's sometimes something vague about having more standing in the world from being a part of it, but I don't see independent countries like Canada having less influence than EU countries like Italy.
Strictly speaking, Canada isn't an independent country, it's a dominion. It's nice to remind them of that occasionally.
According to the latest YouGov 45% of voters support Labour and the LDs, 16% support UKIP. Logic suggests that the biggest pool of untapped voters lies to the left of the Tories, not to the right.
Nope. I have always considered this a complete logic fail as an argument. The 'centre' as it is laughably referred to, is a moveable area between the Tories, Labour and the Lib Dems. All three parties are trying to gain voters from that very limited portion of the electorate so it is that much harder for any one of the three parties to make any serious inroads, particularly given how similar they all are in terms of policy.
The 16% of UKIP support ( along with the much larger proportion of voters who refuse to vote for any of the three established parties) is available to the Tories as it sits naturally on one side of their policy spectrum. Most of the 45% Labour/Lib Dem support you mention does not even come onto the Tory policy spectrum and never will no matter how far to the left extreme of their spectrum the Tories move.
I disagree. I think perceived Tory toxicity has meant many voters have simply not engaged with the Tories. If that toxicity goes, a lot more will engage and may well be persuadable.
Out of interest, why do Europhiles think that leaving the EU is not just a bad idea, but this god awful terrible idea that we shouldn't dare to consider? The arguments europhiles tend to favour are that the single market is an amazing achievement and all the waste, lack of democracy, mass immigration etc is worth the cost to get that. But even the most pro-EU studies seem to suggest it's only worth a percent of so GDP benefit, and that is assuming we don't get any trade deal at all to replace it. There's sometimes something vague about having more standing in the world from being a part of it, but I don't see independent countries like Canada having less influence than EU countries like Italy.
Strictly speaking, Canada isn't an independent country, it's a dominion. It's nice to remind them of that occasionally.
It's interesting that the Chamber of Commerce, a now very right wing group, released its numbers slamming Obama's regulations of power plants as costing the outrageous amount of $50bn a year:
Seeing as current GDP is about $16,000bn a year, 0.3% of GDP seems like a pretty good price to eliminate 42% of US carbon emissions. Even if you think the scientists are dramatically overegging things, and global warming and ocean acification has only a 50-50 chance of happening, this seems like a very cheap preventative cost to avoid taking the risk.
Given I don't even think it is 50:50 I would have to disagree with you there. As far as I am concerned the comparison would be with spending 0.3% of your GDP to get rid of clean water emissions.
Spreading freedom, democracy, rule of law and good governance across countries that even a generation ago were oppressive tyrannies is a noble cause. Our contribution to that is much more than financial. The EU is popular in Eastern Europe for the freedom it brings.
Out of interest, why do Europhiles think that leaving the EU is not just a bad idea, but this god awful terrible idea that we shouldn't dare to consider? The arguments europhiles tend to favour are that the single market is an amazing achievement and all the waste, lack of democracy, mass immigration etc is worth the cost to get that. But even the most pro-EU studies seem to suggest it's only worth a percent of so GDP benefit, and that is assuming we don't get any trade deal at all to replace it. There's sometimes something vague about having more standing in the world from being a part of it, but I don't see independent countries like Canada having less influence than EU countries like Italy.
"But I think that after the next election the LDs will recover that centre ground ..."
On what basis? I am struggling to what the LIB Dems are actually for. Can they go back to being a home for people who like Conservative policies but don't like the Conservative party and at the same time a home for Labour inclined voters who don't like Labour? I don't think so. Mr Observer up-thread suggests they take on a completely new set of values and beliefs, as if that would ever be credible even if the remaining activists and members would stand for it.
You maybe correct that the Lib Dems will bounce back but I cannot see why they should.
According to the latest YouGov 45% of voters support Labour and the LDs, 16% support UKIP. Logic suggests that the biggest pool of untapped voters lies to the left of the Tories, not to the right.
Nope. I have always considered this a complete logic fail as an argument. The 'centre' as it is laughably referred to, is a moveable area between the Tories, Labour and the Lib Dems. All three parties are trying to gain voters from that very limited portion of the electorate so it is that much harder for any one of the three parties to make any serious inroads, particularly given how similar they all are in terms of policy.
The 16% of UKIP support ( along with the much larger proportion of voters who refuse to vote for any of the three established parties) is available to the Tories as it sits naturally on one side of their policy spectrum. Most of the 45% Labour/Lib Dem support you mention does not even come onto the Tory policy spectrum and never will no matter how far to the left extreme of their spectrum the Tories move.
I disagree. I think perceived Tory toxicity has meant many voters have simply not engaged with the Tories. If that toxicity goes, a lot more will engage and may well be persuadable.
I agree with this but the toxicity among most voters is that they are out to screw poor people, not because they are considered anti-immigrant. That's the reason why UKIP have been able to pick up so many 'left wing' voters with 'right wing' policies once they are separated from the Tory brand.
@Sean_F All parties are wondering where to "plant their flag" to the best advantage. The Tories are more constrained than the others though with the meme of "There is no alternative" tying up major policy adjustment tightly, and leaving them with a move to the "right" as the only viable way.
Whilst I argue within the terms that other people phrase the discussion about left and right I do think that overall it is a bit meaningless. To my mind for example I would like to see the Tories move more to the right economically and with regard to radically reducing the size of the Government and the State whilst moving even more to the left on social policy. It si one reason why I believe the left/right/centre labels no longer apply.
The fact that there is over 95% scientific consensus makes your odds seem just a little suspect. But then again, they do say fortune favours the brave.
Out of interest, why do Europhiles think that leaving the EU is not just a bad idea, but this god awful terrible idea that we shouldn't dare to consider? The arguments europhiles tend to favour are that the single market is an amazing achievement and all the waste, lack of democracy, mass immigration etc is worth the cost to get that. But even the most pro-EU studies seem to suggest it's only worth a percent of so GDP benefit, and that is assuming we don't get any trade deal at all to replace it. There's sometimes something vague about having more standing in the world from being a part of it, but I don't see independent countries like Canada having less influence than EU countries like Italy.
Strictly speaking, Canada isn't an independent country, it's a dominion. It's nice to remind them of that occasionally.
Canada stopped being a dominion in 1953.
Not officially. And nor is it clarified in the act of 1982 that gave Canada the ability to amend its own constitution (clearly it was technically if not actually a dominion at this point) So, it's nice to poke them now and again to make sure they really are happy on their own, or if they need a cuddle from Mum.
Spreading freedom, democracy, rule of law and good governance across countries that even a generation ago were oppressive tyrannies is a noble cause. Our contribution to that is much more than financial. The EU is popular in Eastern Europe for the freedom it brings.
Out of interest, why do Europhiles think that leaving the EU is not just a bad idea, but this god awful terrible idea that we shouldn't dare to consider? The arguments europhiles tend to favour are that the single market is an amazing achievement and all the waste, lack of democracy, mass immigration etc is worth the cost to get that. But even the most pro-EU studies seem to suggest it's only worth a percent of so GDP benefit, and that is assuming we don't get any trade deal at all to replace it. There's sometimes something vague about having more standing in the world from being a part of it, but I don't see independent countries like Canada having less influence than EU countries like Italy.
The EU is better than Communist tyranny. But, it really doesn't offer good government to longer-established democracies. Rather, the reverse.
Out of interest, why do Europhiles think that leaving the EU is not just a bad idea, but this god awful terrible idea that we shouldn't dare to consider? The arguments europhiles tend to favour are that the single market is an amazing achievement and all the waste, lack of democracy, mass immigration etc is worth the cost to get that. But even the most pro-EU studies seem to suggest it's only worth a percent of so GDP benefit, and that is assuming we don't get any trade deal at all to replace it. There's sometimes something vague about having more standing in the world from being a part of it, but I don't see independent countries like Canada having less influence than EU countries like Italy.
The world is dividing into regional trade blocs based on geographical proximity - NAFTA, Mercosur, ASEAN, and so on. We have the huge advantage that we are a native English-speaking country in what will remain one of the largest blocs, with excellent infrastructure, so we are the natural base for international companies seeking to trade in the area. In addition, many of the policies that affect us seem best decided at geographical region level - transport infrastructure, environmental regulations, standards, etc. In addition, arguably we have a lot in common with most Europeans (a difference of opinion on that is at the root of a lot of europhile/eurosceptic division, I think).
It therefore seems intuitively that it's eccentric to seek to withdraw from our geographical bloc and aim to do our own thing, akin to arguing for a London city-state or separating Nottingham from Leicester.
Would you accept the basic view of referenda that although they may start with being all about the issue, they can evolve to being about confidence in the current government or other factors, and that therefore IF an idea is thought to be truly god-awful, then it shouldn't be put on offer by a responsible government?
For the Tories to move to the "left" on social policy would leave them open to far to many awkward questions. There is always hope that pre-election "bribes" might work, but they can't be too blatant.
According to the latest YouGov 45% of voters support Labour and the LDs, 16% support UKIP. Logic suggests that the biggest pool of untapped voters lies to the left of the Tories, not to the right.
Nope. I have always considered this a complete logic fail as an argument. The 'centre' as it is laughably referred to, is a moveable area between the Tories, Labour and the Lib Dems. All three parties are trying to gain voters from that very limited portion of the electorate so it is that much harder for any one of the three parties to make any serious inroads, particularly given how similar they all are in terms of policy.
The 16% of UKIP support ( along with the much larger proportion of voters who refuse to vote for any of the three established parties) is available to the Tories as it sits naturally on one side of their policy spectrum. Most of the 45% Labour/Lib Dem support you mention does not even come onto the Tory policy spectrum and never will no matter how far to the left extreme of their spectrum the Tories move.
I disagree. I think perceived Tory toxicity has meant many voters have simply not engaged with the Tories. If that toxicity goes, a lot more will engage and may well be persuadable.
I couldn't see the combined centre-right vote share going above 50% or so. UKIP and the Conservatives have almost achieved that degree of support already.
Mr. Palmer, destroying England, which has existed for over a thousand years, is not comparable to leaving a political organisation we entered a few decades ago, and that on the basis of trade.
They will do so because both Labour and Tories will abandon the Centreground and UKIP are not interested in it. Politics like nature abhorrs a vacuum.
The LibDems will get a pasting next year, but will lick their wounds in opposition and rebuild. Labour did in the eighties, Conservatives did in the noughties.
There is a significant 15-20% centrist vote that is the battleground of British politics.
"But I think that after the next election the LDs will recover that centre ground ..."
On what basis? I am struggling to what the LIB Dems are actually for. Can they go back to being a home for people who like Conservative policies but don't like the Conservative party and at the same time a home for Labour inclined voters who don't like Labour? I don't think so. Mr Observer up-thread suggests they take on a completely new set of values and beliefs, as if that would ever be credible even if the remaining activists and members would stand for it.
You maybe correct that the Lib Dems will bounce back but I cannot see why they should.
Surely you mean destroying the UK? Which is not as ancient. or do you hope that "yes" will win the referendum and that Wales and Ireland can be ignored?
Out of interest, why do Europhiles think that leaving the EU is not just a bad idea, but this god awful terrible idea that we shouldn't dare to consider? The arguments europhiles tend to favour are that the single market is an amazing achievement and all the waste, lack of democracy, mass immigration etc is worth the cost to get that. But even the most pro-EU studies seem to suggest it's only worth a percent of so GDP benefit, and that is assuming we don't get any trade deal at all to replace it. There's sometimes something vague about having more standing in the world from being a part of it, but I don't see independent countries like Canada having less influence than EU countries like Italy.
The world is dividing into regional trade blocs based on geographical proximity - NAFTA, Mercosur, ASEAN, and so on. We have the huge advantage that we are a native English-speaking country in what will remain one of the largest blocs, with excellent infrastructure, so we are the natural base for international companies seeking to trade in the area. In addition, many of the policies that affect us seem best decided at geographical region level - transport infrastructure, environmental regulations, standards, etc. In addition, arguably we have a lot in common with most Europeans (a difference of opinion on that is at the root of a lot of europhile/eurosceptic division, I think).
It therefore seems intuitively that it's eccentric to seek to withdraw from our geographical bloc and aim to do our own thing, akin to arguing for a London city-state or separating Nottingham from Leicester.
Would you accept the basic view of referenda that although they may start with being all about the issue, they can evolve to being about confidence in the current government or other factors, and that therefore IF an idea is thought to be truly god-awful, then it shouldn't be put on offer by a responsible government?
Tish, tish, Dr Palmer, you offer a false alternative. Nobody is suggesting the UK should stop trading with Europe and nobody with half a brain would suggest that the EU countries would stop trading with us is we were to withdraw from EU membership.
As for NAFTA what would stop an independent UK joining it as well as having a free trade agreement with the EU and, for that matter, India, Australia, New Zealand and anyone else who wanted one?
The fact that there is over 95% scientific consensus makes your odds seem just a little suspect. But then again, they do say fortune favours the brave.
There is not 95% scientific consensus. And of course scientific consensus is in itself an oxymoron. Consensus is, almost by definition, not scientific.
Spreading freedom, democracy, rule of law and good governance across countries that even a generation ago were oppressive tyrannies is a noble cause. Our contribution to that is much more than financial. The EU is popular in Eastern Europe for the freedom it brings.
Out of interest, why do Europhiles think that leaving the EU is not just a bad idea, but this god awful terrible idea that we shouldn't dare to consider? The arguments europhiles tend to favour are that the single market is an amazing achievement and all the waste, lack of democracy, mass immigration etc is worth the cost to get that. But even the most pro-EU studies seem to suggest it's only worth a percent of so GDP benefit, and that is assuming we don't get any trade deal at all to replace it. There's sometimes something vague about having more standing in the world from being a part of it, but I don't see independent countries like Canada having less influence than EU countries like Italy.
The EU didn't and does not bring freedom - certainly not in Eastern Europe. Their freedom from the communist bloc had nothing to do with the EU and it is disingenuous of the EU and its supporters to claim that it did.
@Sean_Kemp The Twitter reports of Peter Kellner's Progress talk read like he's trying to cause a Jonestown-style mass suicide of Labour supporters.
@ProgressOnline: Peter Kellner: Two main reasons for concern are: voters think Ed M is not up to job of PM and they do not trust Labour on the economy #pac14
@ProgressOnline: Peter Kellner: Can Labour win? No, unless it makes some big changes in its strategy now #pac14
Surely you mean destroying the UK? Which is not as ancient. or do you hope that "yes" will win the referendum and that Wales and Ireland can be ignored?
Wales and Ireland clearly cannot be ignored but they can be offered an alternative future.
The longer standing democracies in Britain Scandanavia and the Netherlands are a very good influence on Europe. Spain, Portugal and Greece were dictatorships in the Seventies and Eastern Europe into the nineties.
Evolving these strong democracies took centuries, and a lot of violence, but the EU has taken only decades to embed democracy in Europe.
I would like the EU to become more democratic, with the balance of EU power shifting to the democratic legislature from the appointed executive. The president should be elected (best done by STV or French second round system). There should be a strong decentrilisation, which means a weak centre and national state governments having power over many issues.
Spreading freedom, democracy, rule of law and good governance across countries that even a generation ago were oppressive tyrannies is a noble cause. Our contribution to that is much more than financial. The EU is popular in Eastern Europe for the freedom it brings.
Out of interest, why do Europhiles think that leaving the EU is not just a bad idea, but this god awful terrible idea that we shouldn't dare to consider? The arguments europhiles tend to favour are that the single market is an amazing achievement and all the waste, lack of democracy, mass immigration etc is worth the cost to get that. But even the most pro-EU studies seem to suggest it's only worth a percent of so GDP benefit, and that is assuming we don't get any trade deal at all to replace it. There's sometimes something vague about having more standing in the world from being a part of it, but I don't see independent countries like Canada having less influence than EU countries like Italy.
The EU is better than Communist tyranny. But, it really doesn't offer good government to longer-established democracies. Rather, the reverse.
@NickPalmer If the EU is a trade bloc why does it need a Parliament? A High Representative for Foreign Affairs? A currency? A flag? An anthem? Multiple summits annually? Surely a fairly simple agreement with a basic dispute resolution mechanism and ad-hoc bilateral and multi-lateral engagement would more than suffice?
For the Tories to move to the "left" on social policy would leave them open to far to many awkward questions. There is always hope that pre-election "bribes" might work, but they can't be too blatant.
Depends I suppose on what we are each regarding as social policy. For me it is the same policy that spawned the Gay marriage moves - one of the unqualified god things that Cameron has done. I do not see why continuing that trend including removal of a lot of the statist measures that have been adopted by successive governments over the last few decades should be regarded as opportunist.
There is no reason to suppose we live in an "Einsteinian" universe, and indeed history says that we probably don't. But at the moment, it is the "consensus" of opinion, and the model appears to hold true for most uses.
There is no reason to suppose we live in an "Einsteinian" universe, and indeed history says that we probably don't. But at the moment, it is the "consensus" of opinion, and the model appears to hold true for most uses.
Except of course that when we come to climate change the models do not hold true. Again I refer you back to my favourite Feynman quote.
"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."
The collapse of communism was because of its internal contradictions; but democracy was embeddedby the EU and states wanting to join the EU. There is still some way to go in places like the Balkans, but the progress is significant.
Compare the non EU former USSR and Balkans with those in the EU; and ask the democratic influences in Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova, Bosnia and Serbia how contact with the EU has helped their cause.
If you speak to East Europeans you find out why they want to be in the EU, and it is not just so they can pick our asparagus!
Spreading freedom, democracy, rule of law and good governance across countries that even a generation ago were oppressive tyrannies is a noble cause. Our contribution to that is much more than financial. The EU is popular in Eastern Europe for the freedom it brings.
Out of interest, why do Europhiles think that leaving the EU is not just a bad idea, but this god awful terrible idea that we shouldn't dare to consider? The arguments europhiles tend to favour are that the single market is an amazing achievement and all the waste, lack of democracy, mass immigration etc is worth the cost to get that. But even the most pro-EU studies seem to suggest it's only worth a percent of so GDP benefit, and that is assuming we don't get any trade deal at all to replace it. There's sometimes something vague about having more standing in the world from being a part of it, but I don't see independent countries like Canada having less influence than EU countries like Italy.
The EU didn't and does not bring freedom - certainly not in Eastern Europe. Their freedom from the communist bloc had nothing to do with the EU and it is disingenuous of the EU and its supporters to claim that it did.
From an economic point of view that actually makes a lot more sense than either Brexit or Scottish independence. If the EU imposes a lot of financial regulation, which it probably will and should, it might be in the interests of Londoners to carve out a little independent statelet with low tax and light regulation, but still leave the rest of the place in the UK+EU. The obvious boundary would be the square mile of the City of London, since it already has its own traditions, laws and bizarre, slightly sinister little police force.
1. Their NEV in 1977/78 during the Lib/Lab pact was 7% (as calculated by Chris Prosser) 2. They scored 14% in the 1979 general election. 3. They outperformed UNS in 1979. 4. 14% with the top party on ~35% will deliver a lot more seats than when the top party is on 45% (1979).
"HurstLlama">"But I think that after the next election the LDs will recover that centre ground ..." and "will bounce back" "Labour and the Conservatives did"
But, in those places where all their councillors were lost , such as in whole areas in the South and places in the North, Labour and the Conservatives have not been able to recover from wipe outs. With the Lib Dem HQ being content to win in "strong holds" they think that they can build back from that. But the experience of Labour and the Conservatives shows that it is very hard and in part impossible. For Lib Dems their focus on strong holds makes recovery even more difficult.
@Richard_Tyndall It is based on a "new model", and as such is open to refinement, and also possible refutation. At this moment though, it is the best we have, until a new and better one comes along. and none of it's detractors have come up with a better one that has swayed opinion against it. You seem to be saying that because you and a few others don't like it, it can be safely ignored. Time may prove you right, and the world will have lost a little wealth. If on the other hand it proves to be correct...what exactly will we lose?
From an economic point of view that actually makes a lot more sense than either Brexit or Scottish independence. If the EU imposes a lot of financial regulation, which it probably will and should, it might be in the interests of Londoners to carve out a little independent statelet with low tax and light regulation, but still leave the rest of the place in the UK+EU. The obvious boundary would be the square mile of the City of London, since it already has its own traditions, laws and bizarre, slightly sinister little police force.
There is nothing sinister about the City of London Police. It is the finest force that money can buy and a damn sight better than the Met.
From an economic point of view that actually makes a lot more sense than either Brexit or Scottish independence. If the EU imposes a lot of financial regulation, which it probably will and should, it might be in the interests of Londoners to carve out a little independent statelet with low tax and light regulation, but still leave the rest of the place in the UK+EU. The obvious boundary would be the square mile of the City of London, since it already has its own traditions, laws and bizarre, slightly sinister little police force.
There is nothing sinister about the City of London Police. It is the finest force that money can buy and a damn sight better than the Met.
Fair enough, and think how good the City of London army would be.
It is ironic that Blair thinks this is a 'brutal and sickening distortion of faith'. The official theologian of his church argues:
'As for heretics their sin deserves banishment, not only from the church by excommunication, but also from this world by death. To corrupt the faith, whereby the soul lives, is much graver to counterfeit money, which supports temporal life. Since forgers and other malefactors are summarily condemned to death by the civil authorities, with much more reason may heretics as soon as they are convicted of heresy be not only excommunicated, but also justly be put to death... [A]n apostate is good for nothing.' [T. Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, [Blackfriars edit. 1975], vol. 32: Consequences of Faith, (trans. T. Gilby) pp. 89-99]
Why, Mr Blair, beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own?
No, and if it did, we would be using the miniscule amount of energy extracted to ameliorate the extra energy that "warming" is putting into the system. (there is an unproven theory that massive wind farms off the American coast could locally reduce the impact of tornadoes though)
The world is dividing into regional trade blocs based on geographical proximity - NAFTA, Mercosur, ASEAN, and so on. We have the huge advantage that we are a native English-speaking country in what will remain one of the largest blocs, with excellent infrastructure, so we are the natural base for international companies seeking to trade in the area. In addition, many of the policies that affect us seem best decided at geographical region level - transport infrastructure, environmental regulations, standards, etc. In addition, arguably we have a lot in common with most Europeans (a difference of opinion on that is at the root of a lot of europhile/eurosceptic division, I think).
It therefore seems intuitively that it's eccentric to seek to withdraw from our geographical bloc and aim to do our own thing, akin to arguing for a London city-state or separating Nottingham from Leicester.
But the world isn't "dividing" into trading blocs outside the EU. Being part of NAFTA doesn't mean you have to raise trade barriers on everyone else. If your motive is to follow the trend of everyone else, then the EEA is what you should advocate for. Nobody else hands over legal primacy etc. Your transport point makes no sense at all for an island state - the channel tunnel and a couple of roads in Ireland would be the only ones that matter. Environmental regulations and standards generally need to be set globally, not regionally.
I accept you may have different opinions to me on these matters, but none of them seem the super important elements that make leaving the EU a disaster. I can understand the position that you would moderately oppose it, but the apocalyptic terms don't seem to be justified with negotiating power in trade or easier planning for international railways.
Would you accept the basic view of referenda that although they may start with being all about the issue, they can evolve to being about confidence in the current government or other factors, and that therefore IF an idea is thought to be truly god-awful, then it shouldn't be put on offer by a responsible government?
Depends on whether it's a normal political issue or a matter of constitutional concern. I think it would be fairly disastrous if, say, the southeast of England went independent, but if a large majority thought they should have a say on it, then it's a matter of democracy to put it to the vote.
The collapse of communism was because of its internal contradictions; but democracy was embeddedby the EU and states wanting to join the EU. There is still some way to go in places like the Balkans, but the progress is significant.
Compare the non EU former USSR and Balkans with those in the EU; and ask the democratic influences in Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova, Bosnia and Serbia how contact with the EU has helped their cause.
If you speak to East Europeans you find out why they want to be in the EU, and it is not just so they can pick our asparagus!
Spreading freedom, democracy, rule of law and good governance across countries that even a generation ago were oppressive tyrannies is a noble cause. Our contribution to that is much more than financial. The EU is popular in Eastern Europe for the freedom it brings.
Out of interest, why do Europhiles think that leaving the EU is not just a bad idea, but this god awful terrible idea that we shouldn't dare to consider? The arguments europhiles tend to favour are that the single market is an amazing achievement and all the waste, lack of democracy, mass immigration etc is worth the cost to get that. But even the most pro-EU studies seem to suggest it's only worth a percent of so GDP benefit, and that is assuming we don't get any trade deal at all to replace it. There's sometimes something vague about having more standing in the world from being a part of it, but I don't see independent countries like Canada having less influence than EU countries like Italy.
The EU didn't and does not bring freedom - certainly not in Eastern Europe. Their freedom from the communist bloc had nothing to do with the EU and it is disingenuous of the EU and its supporters to claim that it did.
They want access to our markets. Nothing more. It is the same reason Turkey wants to be in. Those in power in Turkey do not see their political system as any less legitimate as any in the EU - even though looking from the outside we might disagree. They don't want to join the EU so they can be told they have to reform every aspect of their political system to conform with EU 'standards'. They want to be able to sell us stuff and move freely within the EU. The same applies to Hungary which is why they are getting so upset about their democratically elected government being attacked by the rest of the EU.
It's interesting that the Chamber of Commerce, a now very right wing group, released its numbers slamming Obama's regulations of power plants as costing the outrageous amount of $50bn a year:
Seeing as current GDP is about $16,000bn a year, 0.3% of GDP seems like a pretty good price to eliminate 42% of US carbon emissions. Even if you think the scientists are dramatically overegging things, and global warming and ocean acification has only a 50-50 chance of happening, this seems like a very cheap preventative cost to avoid taking the risk.
Given I don't even think it is 50:50 I would have to disagree with you there. As far as I am concerned the comparison would be with spending 0.3% of your GDP to get rid of clean water emissions.
If you had to estimate, what do you think is the chance that current levels of carbon emissions are significantly damaging to the environment?
From an economic point of view that actually makes a lot more sense than either Brexit or Scottish independence. If the EU imposes a lot of financial regulation, which it probably will and should, it might be in the interests of Londoners to carve out a little independent statelet with low tax and light regulation, but still leave the rest of the place in the UK+EU. The obvious boundary would be the square mile of the City of London, since it already has its own traditions, laws and bizarre, slightly sinister little police force.
There is nothing sinister about the City of London Police. It is the finest force that money can buy and a damn sight better than the Met.
Fair enough, and think how good the City of London army would be.
My only involvement with City of London police was the Abnormal Loads officer. A very helpful chap imo.
They want access to our markets. Nothing more. It is the same reason Turkey wants to be in. Those in power in Turkey do not see their political system as any less legitimate as any in the EU - even though looking from the outside we might disagree. They don't want to join the EU so they can be told they have to reform every aspect of their political system to conform with EU 'standards'. They want to be able to sell us stuff and move freely within the EU. The same applies to Hungary which is why they are getting so upset about their democratically elected government being attacked by the rest of the EU.
I don't think it's just markets. They want to be in a position where they would be protected from Russian aggression. Clearly Russia wouldn't get away with what it is doing in Ukraine if they tried it in, say, Latvia. That's actually more to do with NATO than the EU, but these smaller countries want to make it clear they are fully in the Western alliance rather than half a half.
From an economic point of view that actually makes a lot more sense than either Brexit or Scottish independence. If the EU imposes a lot of financial regulation, which it probably will and should, it might be in the interests of Londoners to carve out a little independent statelet with low tax and light regulation, but still leave the rest of the place in the UK+EU. The obvious boundary would be the square mile of the City of London, since it already has its own traditions, laws and bizarre, slightly sinister little police force.
There is nothing sinister about the City of London Police. It is the finest force that money can buy and a damn sight better than the Met.
Fair enough, and think how good the City of London army would be.
Ah, you are talking about the Honourable Artillery Company, one of the finest, most professional units in the British Army despite being a TA only unit.
It's interesting that the Chamber of Commerce, a now very right wing group, released its numbers slamming Obama's regulations of power plants as costing the outrageous amount of $50bn a year:
Seeing as current GDP is about $16,000bn a year, 0.3% of GDP seems like a pretty good price to eliminate 42% of US carbon emissions. Even if you think the scientists are dramatically overegging things, and global warming and ocean acification has only a 50-50 chance of happening, this seems like a very cheap preventative cost to avoid taking the risk.
Given I don't even think it is 50:50 I would have to disagree with you there. As far as I am concerned the comparison would be with spending 0.3% of your GDP to get rid of clean water emissions.
If you had to estimate, what do you think is the chance that current levels of carbon emissions are significantly damaging to the environment?
Judging by the geological record? - zero. There are many ways in which man is seriously damaging the environment and many of them are on a global scale and linked to industrialisation. But CO2 emissions are not one of them.
Quick edit - as I hope I make clear in the answer I am referring to CO2, not 'carbon' as you asked. Carbon in another form - as Black Carbon - is hugely damaging our environment.
@Richard_Tyndall There were many who advanced the opinion that ozone depletion was not man made, and that even if it was, nothing could be done about it. Were you one of them?
They want access to our markets. Nothing more. It is the same reason Turkey wants to be in. Those in power in Turkey do not see their political system as any less legitimate as any in the EU - even though looking from the outside we might disagree. They don't want to join the EU so they can be told they have to reform every aspect of their political system to conform with EU 'standards'. They want to be able to sell us stuff and move freely within the EU. The same applies to Hungary which is why they are getting so upset about their democratically elected government being attacked by the rest of the EU.
I don't think it's just markets. They want to be in a position where they would be protected from Russian aggression. Clearly Russia wouldn't get away with what it is doing in Ukraine if they tried it in, say, Latvia. That's actually more to do with NATO than the EU, but these smaller countries want to make it clear they are fully in the Western alliance rather than half a half.
You hit the nail on the head there with one part of your answer. It is NATO. Membership of NATO gives countries far more protection and reassurance than membership of the EU. Again Turkey is a good example of this.
From an economic point of view that actually makes a lot more sense than either Brexit or Scottish independence. If the EU imposes a lot of financial regulation, which it probably will and should, it might be in the interests of Londoners to carve out a little independent statelet with low tax and light regulation, but still leave the rest of the place in the UK+EU. The obvious boundary would be the square mile of the City of London, since it already has its own traditions, laws and bizarre, slightly sinister little police force.
There is nothing sinister about the City of London Police. It is the finest force that money can buy and a damn sight better than the Met.
Fair enough, and think how good the City of London army would be.
Ah, you are talking about the Honourable Artillery Company, one of the finest, most professional units in the British Army despite being a TA only unit.
Blimey, do they have an army already? It sounds like they're pretty much all set. Declaration of independence, popular vote (one corporation per vote, or however it is they traditionally do it) and it's done. They might want to declare independence with effect 6 months away just to give any banks that still want to be in the UK/EU time to move their official headquarters down the road.
I am not one to comment much on the AGW debate as it is well out of any sphere of competence I might possess.
I saw this statement on twitter and wondered if any of PB's resident climate change experts could comment on its validity:
"Taking energy from winds and tides irreversibly enervates the weather system and slows the rotation of the earth".
Are our days about to get longer? Will time now start reversing?
:-) No Avery. The whole argument about taking energy from the system is bunkum.
Our days are getting longer (but time is not reversing) - however this is being caused by the Moon affecting the movement of water, resulting in the tidal friction slowing down the earth.
I am not one to comment much on the AGW debate as it is well out of any sphere of competence I might possess.
I saw this statement on twitter and wondered if any of PB's resident climate change experts could comment on its validity:
"Taking energy from winds and tides irreversibly enervates the weather system and slows the rotation of the earth".
Are our days about to get longer? Will time now start reversing?
Our days have been getting longer for ever, in the Devonian period it was about 22 hours and so there would have been more days in the year around 440. When the moon was formed about 4.4bn years ago through the near catastrophic impact with Theia the earth probably rotated at a rate equivalent to an 8h day but over time tidal friction has slowed the spin rate to the point where it is now 24h give or take. In the far future though it could lengthen further. I don't think sticking a few thousand windmills or a couple of tidal barrages is going to make any difference as the scalar factors from a hundred metre windmill to the gravitational forces involved in tides and weather pattern formation are vast. Whoever wrote that quote is a pillock imho.
@Richard_Tyndall There were many who advanced the opinion that ozone depletion was not man made, and that even if it was, nothing could be done about it. Were you one of them?
Ozone depletion was clear from both the science and the modelling (which matched the experimental data). The same is not true of AGW. The need to ignore certain parts of our climate history to validate the AGW theory fatally flaws it on basic scientific principles.
Oh and since you ask I did not and do not dispute the ozone depletion theories, nor do I deny that smoking is bad for you.
Not got me at all Avery. In knew the source of the quote and it doesn't change the fact it was bunkum. Just as the UKIP bloke who said floods are caused by gays was bunkum.
Not quite sure what point you were trying to make there?
Comments
Before the elections, LD voice said:
"Mark Pack has pointed out in his latest Newswire that the Lib Dems have lost an average of 40% of seats in previous rounds of local elections during the Coalition. On that basis, the benchmark this time round is that the party will retain around 437 of the seats it’s defending and lose 291"
http://www.libdemvoice.org/local-elections-2014-your-quickandeasy-guide-to-the-lib-dem-numbers-that-matter-39564.html
They lost 310 seats. And their local election NEV vote share (11%) was their lowest this parliament.
Google 'Delete' Decision: Expenses Scandal MP And Paedophile Among First To Demand Link Removal
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/05/16/google-forgotten-mp-delete_n_5335529.html?1400225450&ncid=tweetlnkushpmg00000067
@LabourList: Labour must hide Ed in the chorus to win the election, reckons @RJ_Macpherson http://ow.ly/xt0Fc
Their closest historical local election results are:
1979: 14%
1980: 13%.
(UK Election Statistics, p.41 of the PDF)
http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/RP12-43/uk-election-statistics-19182012
1974 (Oct) General election returned 13 Liberal MPs
1979 General election returned 11 Liberal MPs
1983 General election returned 23 Liberal-SDP MPs
With all parties nibbling away at these majorities, unless the LDs improve markedly, they could have less than 20 seats in 2015.
They have to make radical changes to their policies this October (after the Scottish referendum) to counter this potential slide.
Although these things don't tend to turn out well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect
In fact, Lib Dem policies are in favour of EU reform, such as to the Common Agricultural Policy. The sooner they start to shout this from the rooftops the sooner they will stop haemorrhaging support.
The EU Parliament election was four weeks of 'UKIP are awful people'.
It looks like we can expect six weeks of LDs saying: 'Conservatives are awful people'
Labour saying: 'Conservatives are awful people'
Conservatives saying: 'UKIP are awful people'
UKIP saying: 'Lib-Lab-Con are awful people'.
yum.
http://www.barnabasfund.org/UK/News/Latest-emergencies/Help-Christian-women-jailed-under-harsh-sharia-law-in-Sudan.html
The 16% of UKIP support ( along with the much larger proportion of voters who refuse to vote for any of the three established parties) is available to the Tories as it sits naturally on one side of their policy spectrum. Most of the 45% Labour/Lib Dem support you mention does not even come onto the Tory policy spectrum and never will no matter how far to the left extreme of their spectrum the Tories move.
The result of this is to create a series of unknown unknowns.Predictions are therefore all built on sand.Perhaps in these circumstances it is best to expect the unpredictable.
http://www.voxeu.org/article/factual-response-ft-s-fact-checking
I think it's a very good rebuttal of a rebuttal. Some of Giles' criticisms are completely debunked, but Piketty also admits some of his explanations were insufficient in the original work. For me the only one of Giles' criticisms that actually stands was using an arithmetic mean for the three European nations, and Piketty seems to accept this, while noting it does not change the conclusions. It does seem that Giles' piece was inappropriately framed, and it looks badly on the FT that they gave the academic only one day to respond before publishing, and they now look a bit silly in that they're claims that the conclusions changed are entirely based on the fact they didn't know the wealth data as well as Piketty.
Gaining purple votes in Surrey would be useless if it is at the expense of light blue votes in Loughborough.
But I think that after the next election the LDs will recover that centre ground while Tories and kippers indulge in fratricidal feuds over navel gazing on Europe.
Clegg was asked to explain his vision for the EC in one of the debates and said words along the lines as "much the same". The LDs do not have in their real priorities reform of the EC. It is not a top priority.
The Financial Times has an agenda like any other paper.
The one that gets me is. "The housing boom is over". Usually penned by an estate agent.
Piketty at least put all his data up, and asked for scrutiny, saying that it was incomplete and could be improved.
LibDem members (not necessarily voters) DID generally see themselves as being on the anti-Tory left. Posing as Tory-leaning centrists wasn't an option for them because they weren't. The numbers after the election made it hard to avoid the Coalition, but if they wanted to avoid the current situation they needed to have a deal that would produce some important left-of-centre policies for members to cling to ("well, at least we got the ..."), and they didn't really make that work. They now either need to recruit new members who positively like the current alliance, or extricate themselves from it clearly, and probably the latter can only be done effectively after an election.
https://www.uschamber.com/press-release/energy-institute-report-finds-potential-new-epa-carbon-regulations-will-damage-us
Seeing as current GDP is about $16,000bn a year, 0.3% of GDP seems like a pretty good price to eliminate 42% of US carbon emissions. Even if you think the scientists are dramatically overegging things, and global warming and ocean acification has only a 50-50 chance of happening, this seems like a very cheap preventative cost to avoid taking the risk.
And, if the Conservative moved so far to the Left that they could win some support, they'd lose a lot of support to UKIP on the Right.
Out of interest, why do Europhiles think that leaving the EU is not just a bad idea, but this god awful terrible idea that we shouldn't dare to consider? The arguments europhiles tend to favour are that the single market is an amazing achievement and all the waste, lack of democracy, mass immigration etc is worth the cost to get that. But even the most pro-EU studies seem to suggest it's only worth a percent of so GDP benefit, and that is assuming we don't get any trade deal at all to replace it. There's sometimes something vague about having more standing in the world from being a part of it, but I don't see independent countries like Canada having less influence than EU countries like Italy.
Will Vince refound the SDP?
Will Alistair Carmichael remember which party he represents if he is the last yellow standing?
All this, and more, on next weeks Liberal Shore
All parties are wondering where to "plant their flag" to the best advantage.
The Tories are more constrained than the others though with the meme of "There is no alternative" tying up major policy adjustment tightly, and leaving them with a move to the "right" as the only viable way.
It's nice to remind them of that occasionally.
On what basis? I am struggling to what the LIB Dems are actually for. Can they go back to being a home for people who like Conservative policies but don't like the Conservative party and at the same time a home for Labour inclined voters who don't like Labour? I don't think so. Mr Observer up-thread suggests they take on a completely new set of values and beliefs, as if that would ever be credible even if the remaining activists and members would stand for it.
You maybe correct that the Lib Dems will bounce back but I cannot see why they should.
The fact that there is over 95% scientific consensus makes your odds seem just a little suspect. But then again, they do say fortune favours the brave.
So, it's nice to poke them now and again to make sure they really are happy on their own, or if they need a cuddle from Mum.
It therefore seems intuitively that it's eccentric to seek to withdraw from our geographical bloc and aim to do our own thing, akin to arguing for a London city-state or separating Nottingham from Leicester.
Would you accept the basic view of referenda that although they may start with being all about the issue, they can evolve to being about confidence in the current government or other factors, and that therefore IF an idea is thought to be truly god-awful, then it shouldn't be put on offer by a responsible government?
For the Tories to move to the "left" on social policy would leave them open to far to many awkward questions. There is always hope that pre-election "bribes" might work, but they can't be too blatant.
The LibDems will get a pasting next year, but will lick their wounds in opposition and rebuild. Labour did in the eighties, Conservatives did in the noughties.
There is a significant 15-20% centrist vote that is the battleground of British politics.
"destroying England"
Surely you mean destroying the UK? Which is not as ancient. or do you hope that "yes" will win the referendum and that Wales and Ireland can be ignored?
As for NAFTA what would stop an independent UK joining it as well as having a free trade agreement with the EU and, for that matter, India, Australia, New Zealand and anyone else who wanted one?
@ProgressOnline: Peter Kellner: Two main reasons for concern are: voters think Ed M is not up to job of PM and they do not trust Labour on the economy #pac14
@ProgressOnline: Peter Kellner: Can Labour win? No, unless it makes some big changes in its strategy now #pac14
Evolving these strong democracies took centuries, and a lot of violence, but the EU has taken only decades to embed democracy in Europe.
I would like the EU to become more democratic, with the balance of EU power shifting to the democratic legislature from the appointed executive. The president should be elected (best done by STV or French second round system). There should be a strong decentrilisation, which means a weak centre and national state governments having power over many issues.
If the EU is a trade bloc why does it need a Parliament? A High Representative for Foreign Affairs? A currency? A flag? An anthem? Multiple summits annually? Surely a fairly simple agreement with a basic dispute resolution mechanism and ad-hoc bilateral and multi-lateral engagement would more than suffice?
There is no reason to suppose we live in an "Einsteinian" universe, and indeed history says that we probably don't.
But at the moment, it is the "consensus" of opinion, and the model appears to hold true for most uses.
"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."
"There is no reason to suppose we live in an "Einsteinian" universe, and indeed history says that we probably don't."
I wonder. Is this the same history that says there is a limit on mankind's ingenuity?
Compare the non EU former USSR and Balkans with those in the EU; and ask the democratic influences in Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova, Bosnia and Serbia how contact with the EU has helped their cause.
If you speak to East Europeans you find out why they want to be in the EU, and it is not just so they can pick our asparagus!
1. Their NEV in 1977/78 during the Lib/Lab pact was 7% (as calculated by Chris Prosser)
2. They scored 14% in the 1979 general election.
3. They outperformed UNS in 1979.
4. 14% with the top party on ~35% will deliver a lot more seats than when the top party is on 45% (1979).
I saw this statement on twitter and wondered if any of PB's resident climate change experts could comment on its validity:
"Taking energy from winds and tides irreversibly enervates the weather system and slows the rotation of the earth".
Are our days about to get longer? Will time now start reversing?
But, in those places where all their councillors were lost , such as in whole areas in the South and places in the North, Labour and the Conservatives have not been able to recover from wipe outs. With the Lib Dem HQ being content to win in "strong holds" they think that they can build back from that. But the experience of Labour and the Conservatives shows that it is very hard and in part impossible. For Lib Dems their focus on strong holds makes recovery even more difficult.
It is based on a "new model", and as such is open to refinement, and also possible refutation.
At this moment though, it is the best we have, until a new and better one comes along. and none of it's detractors have come up with a better one that has swayed opinion against it.
You seem to be saying that because you and a few others don't like it, it can be safely ignored. Time may prove you right, and the world will have lost a little wealth.
If on the other hand it proves to be correct...what exactly will we lose?
No, and if it did, we would be using the miniscule amount of energy extracted to ameliorate the extra energy that "warming" is putting into the system.
(there is an unproven theory that massive wind farms off the American coast could locally reduce the impact of tornadoes though)
I accept you may have different opinions to me on these matters, but none of them seem the super important elements that make leaving the EU a disaster. I can understand the position that you would moderately oppose it, but the apocalyptic terms don't seem to be justified with negotiating power in trade or easier planning for international railways. Depends on whether it's a normal political issue or a matter of constitutional concern. I think it would be fairly disastrous if, say, the southeast of England went independent, but if a large majority thought they should have a say on it, then it's a matter of democracy to put it to the vote.
A very helpful chap imo.
Quick edit - as I hope I make clear in the answer I am referring to CO2, not 'carbon' as you asked. Carbon in another form - as Black Carbon - is hugely damaging our environment.
There were many who advanced the opinion that ozone depletion was not man made, and that even if it was, nothing could be done about it.
Were you one of them?
[Avery does a Morris Dance]
Here is the twitter link: http://bit.ly/1nOP7gI
Oh and since you ask I did not and do not dispute the ozone depletion theories, nor do I deny that smoking is bad for you.
Not quite sure what point you were trying to make there?