Dennis Bache @DennisBache1 1h1 hour ago UKIP welcomes all defectors. Tory's and Labour. LibDems must have brain transplant first, and relinquish equity card...
The one thing all the party leaders agreed about in their respective conference speech was that "the next election is the most important in a generation...." Hyperbole aside - is Labour prepared to lose that election because of a leader foisted on the MPs and members by the Unions?
If Labour was ever to take a leaf out the Tories' book and axe a loser, now is a pretty damned good time to do it.....
An issue that Labour folk have been remarkably quiet about. But since the Union fixers provide 80% of the campaign funding and a lot of ground/telephone troops for marginal seats, removing your "oligarch's" chosen man has other consequences.
Len McCluskey, the head of the largest donor, was not party to that election fix, however Red Ed's the closest political soul mate he could hope to be in place, the main alternatives are more right wing.
Mcluskey wants an eu referendum
But McCluskey wants a Labour Govt more. However at 63 he may only have a few more years at the top. Woodley retired at 63, Simpson at 66.
Ed Offering one might get him both
No chance. The top issues in voters minds are Economy, Immigration and NHS. The referendum is not. Farage has almost guaranteed that EdM would be forced to change.....
Farage has some form on badly forecasting labour policy change. In 2007 said that Gordon Brown would have "misery" inside his party due to divisions over a referendum on Lisbon. (interview with Steve Richards 2007) Farage was very wrong on that.
PaulMidBeds But homosexual couples can now have children, whether through adoption, surrogate mothers or sperm donors
Occasionally they do but only one and rarely two, same goes for most English heterosexual couples.
If you want to see families with four to six children you need to go to a Mosque, mainly African Pentecostal church or Catholic church.
A priest, now many years dead said something very pertinent to me, several years before Blair and co ramped up immigration "Cultures which practice contraception and abortion will inevitably be overrun by cultures that don't."
Oh and my wife, who is African, voted UKIP in the Euro elections.
Too much doom and gloom here about the global economy. Yes we are approaching a difficult period (again). China is slowing (though not necessarily crashing), Europe is stagnant (but it has been for five years, plus ca change), the Middle East is in flames (deja vu?).
Etc.
And yet the IMF is still predicting global growth of... 3.3%. Not brilliant, but hardly apocalyptic - it's actually bang on the average annual global growth, for the last 30 years.
if there is one thing that is guaranteed to boost economic output - it is new sources of cheap energy. It was, after all, the harnessing of steam that drove the Industrial Revolution.
As it happens, we are entering an era of cheap and abundant energy.
Cheer up.
It's amazing how volatile your emotions are, SeanT; only a few days ago you were in the pit of doom.
He only comes on to practice his rhetoric. 'Ad utramque partem' as they knew it in the Renaissance.
As it happens, we are entering an era of cheap and abundant energy.
Which we won;t be able to tap into because of green policies and commitments to get the 'right kind of energy' at ludicrous prices.
Were these the brainchild of REd when he was minister of climate change or some such mumbo jumbo?
He then offers to freeze the prices he did so much to increase. The pliant media, in their metropolitan smugness all being signed up to the pseudo-science, did not bother bringing him up on it.
Dennis Bache @DennisBache1 1h1 hour ago UKIP welcomes all defectors. Tory's and Labour. LibDems must have brain transplant first, and relinquish equity card...
Also, MPs who go Indy rather than swap rosettes get terribly squeezed in a GE. There's only a tiny number who manage to keep their seats over a longer period as they've no Party Machine.
Plato Surbiton Brussels. Mann is MP for Bassetlaw in Notts, where UKIP won 3.6% in 2010, slightly above national average and more than they won in Heywood
Yes, Sean and yet much of PBTories pooh-poohed Renewables.
Maybe, the subsidy was worth it, after all. Surprisingly, PBTories and right wingers in general have no problem subsidising nuclear energy.
Chinas climate is more amenable to solar than ours. However both Solar and Wind have the problem that they are intermittent. Solar has an advantage though that it comes online daytime when demand is higher.
We should have provided generous research grants to electricity storage means while sticking with coal and nuclear in the meanwhile.
When a method of cheap electrical storage is realised then solar and wind will be viable. Similarly when you can buy solar rooftiles etc. then the installation will be more practical.
We've rushed into a technology that is at the same stage of development as Stephensons rocket and will pay the price.
Quite a cold morning here in the SW today. And still. Those wind turbines aren't making a single contribution to all the heating that has been turned up a notch or two today.
Tidal power. That is the way to go. Not wind or solar (with its built in 50% obsolescence...)
ZenPagan Surely with the internet you can now buy goods from anywhere
To a certain extent that is true for some items however I can't order my daily items such as groceries from anywhere. Even for those items that you can buy abroad using the internet they usually have geolocation in place. Amazon being a prime example.
Even if you manage to buy from abroad you suddenly find you have a load of import duty to pay due to eu protectionist tariffs. The EU and its protectionism adds a good percentage to our food bills, our clothes bills etc.
While I know enough to get around geolocation many don't.
PaulMidBeds Those with the highest birth rates tend to be those on child benefit or wealthy families willing to pay for larger families. Yet the most developed countries in the world from Japan to Germany, all have a relatively lower birth rate. Countries in the developing world with higher birth rates have more poverty and more pressure on resources. If immigration is controlled no need to be overrun
I see that another health care worker has tested positive for Ebola in Texas after treating a patient there. How is this happening given the enormous safety procedures involved?
I do admire their selflessness. Wouldn't get me anywhere near one unless they were my best friend/spouse.
I think @SeanT is being somewhat optimistic and that things will be worse for the world economy, and specifically for the European economy including us, next year than it has been this.
But if he is right about us entering a period of cheap and plentiful oil the strike price for the new nuclear plant at Hinkley Point is going to be a serious burden for UK manufacturing. At approximately twice the current rate the investment only makes sense if there is a significant increase in energy costs by the time it comes into operation.
I see that another health care worker has tested positive for Ebola in Texas after treating a patient there. How is this happening given the enormous safety procedures involved?
I do admire their selflessness. Wouldn't get me anywhere near one unless they were my best friend/spouse.
For this to happen twice in such a small number of incidents suggests this version of Ebola is somewhat more easily transmitted than some have been saying. The casualty rate amongst medical staff in Africa has been severe but that is more easily explained by the conditions they are operating under (and yes, I totally agree they are genuinely heroic).
Wind will also come down and so will Wave. The future is green !
Unlikely. But the point is that HMG policy is to increase the price of energy not reduce it. Wind/nuclear producers have been guaranteed above market prices. UK electricity suppliers are legally obliged to buy expensive energy, rather than source cheap energy.
The defector would have to be someone who fancied his chances in a by-election as a kipper in a labour seat.
Cruddas ? You know nothing about the Labour Party.
I do know quite a lot about it actually, I've never voted for anyone else in a GE
I wasn't suggesting Cruddas would defect, just that I'd like I'm to do so
Look before you leap
Cruddas is actually more left wing than Ed. As Ed joked in the hustings when asked who their mother, Marion Kozac, would vote for, David or Ed, he said "John Cruddas". This was before the final nomination papers were filed.
Kate is welcome to go. She is not Labour at all at heart.
A labour defection is just a UKIP wet dream.
The fact remains the conservatives are down an MP and labour aren't. UKIP are anxious about that fact.
While I don't quite believe that UKIP will gain 128 MPs and it would be good to have a Labour MP cross to UKIP I don't think they are 'anxious' after the last couple of weeks.
I think @SeanT is being somewhat optimistic and that things will be worse for the world economy, and specifically for the European economy including us, next year than it has been this.
But if he is right about us entering a period of cheap and plentiful oil the strike price for the new nuclear plant at Hinkley Point is going to be a serious burden for UK manufacturing. At approximately twice the current rate the investment only makes sense if there is a significant increase in energy costs by the time it comes into operation.
Two thoughts: firstly, the effect of the Climate Change Act will be to continue to make energy more and more expensive, so that strike price might well come to be seen as good value, or at any rate not excessive.
Secondly there is a reverse auction going on shortly for companies to provide back up power units for when the wind isn't blowing. These mainly gas powered plants are to be subsidised (that's the reverse auction).
So we are subsidising wind and are going to be subsidising the gas plants needed to back up the wind farms. On some world in some universe that makes sense.
Wouldn't global warming cause more solar energy and then increase the benefits of solar power?
As a Scientist [ though a bio chemist , if I remember correctly ], you should not have said that. THe sun's energy that streams down to us is more or less constant. Over the next 4.5 billion years, it will gradually go down until just before it explodes.
But we are talking about now and the next millenia. The good news is , we are now able to capture about 30% of the sun's energy through solar panels. But this rising very quickly. So, are the new generation of batteries.
For the time being , at least, the sky is the limit ! Only a little bit of the Sahara can light up Europe. Except we need super conductive cables so that energy loss is minimised.
Wind will also come down and so will Wave. The future is green !
I struggle to see wave power ever being competitive. The maintenance costs are just well to high. Strangely, having stuff smashed about by the ocean means you have to pay a lot to repair damage.
As it happens, we are entering an era of cheap and abundant energy.
Which we won;t be able to tap into because of green policies and commitments to get the 'right kind of energy' at ludicrous prices.
I suspect we will be forced to frack, even if lefties hate it, because otherwise our manufacturing will become relatively uncompetitive.
That said, even if we don't frack, and we still impose silly green taxes, we will still benefit from falling global energy prices (especially oil). All boats float on a rising tide.
That depends on the type of manufacturing. The energy-intensive stuff we've already lost, and the stuff that remains only has a small share of costs going to energy anyway.
I feel that the paucity of the *pro-immigration* arguments is particularly striking.
There is an argument to be made, but who will make it?
1) We have an influx because our economy is doing well, the eurozone is doing badly. It won't always be that way round. Do we want to stop our builders from being able to say "Auf Wiedersehn Pet" if Britain struggles, while the continent thrives?
2) Do we want to reduce retirement to the sun as an aspiration/possibility?
3) UKIP's pro Commowealth, anti EU position is a vulnerability. We haven't imported terrorism from Poland.
UKIP isn't pro-"Commonwealth immigration". It is pro-limited and skilled immigration. If we were only letting 50k a year come here than we could easily pick and choose the moderate, pro-British and skilled ones.
@SeanT " What would iScotland's deficit look like, with oil at $50 a barrel? " That's a fair point, but Scotland is well positioned to use "renewables", but it takes intelligent thinking to use it to advantage. (intelligent thought is something that most politicians neglect)
PaulMidBeds Those with the highest birth rates tend to be those on child benefit or wealthy families willing to pay for larger families. Yet the most developed countries in the world from Japan to Germany, all have a relatively lower birth rate. Countries in the developing world with higher birth rates have more poverty and more pressure on resources. If immigration is controlled no need to be overrun
Immigration cannot be "controlled" because the indigenous population in the UK is not having enough children to maintain the population (primarily due to contraception and abortion being widely available since the '60s). Therefore we need immigrants to fufil jobs vital to the economy. Overwhelmingly, they are from socially conservative countries and many of them have more children than indigenous UK citizens.
Liberalism cannot reproduce itself. "We" won't be overrun, Liberalism will be.
The problem with Liberals is that they think we are rational beings who work by logic. We're not. We're animals. In some matters we temper instinct with logic, but in the most fundamental matters (such as choosing a mate and even who to vote for to some extent) we run primarily on instinct like all other animals.
I feel that the paucity of the *pro-immigration* arguments is particularly striking.
There is an argument to be made, but who will make it?
1) We have an influx because our economy is doing well, the eurozone is doing badly. It won't always be that way round. Do we want to stop our builders from being able to say "Auf Wiedersehn Pet" if Britain struggles, while the continent thrives?
2) Do we want to reduce retirement to the sun as an aspiration/possibility?
3) UKIP's pro Commowealth, anti EU position is a vulnerability. We haven't imported terrorism from Poland.
UKIP isn't pro-"Commonwealth immigration". It is pro-limited and skilled immigration. If we were only letting 50k a year come here than we could easily pick and choose the moderate, pro-British and skilled ones.
And we come back to the same question I asked you a few days ago: how can you tell the other day: how can you tell if someone is 'moderate' or 'pro-British' ?
Your previous answer was rather poor, to say the least.
ZenPagan true, though certainly much more open than used to be
The point remains that corporations and their political stooges seem to want to have their cake and eat it
Globalisation should work both for labour and prices or work for neither. Personally I favour the former then over time we will find prices and wages converging on a truly world wide scale at which point the where you live and work part of the equation becomes truly a matter of choice.
Another thing that a british government could do to raise quality of life here if not living standards is to encourage companies to allow home working where possible. If you allowed staff to work from home even two days a week it would have a huge impact on things such as congestion on the roads and rail network, relieve the need to rush around on saturday to try and get all the shopping done, reduce the cost of working by not having to make that commute every day.
For example it costs me 10£ a day to get to work, allow me to work from home 2 days a week and it adds 2 hours to my weekly leisure time, means I don't have to take time off work if I have a delivery arriving or an electrician coming in and puts that 20£ back in my pocket
I feel that the paucity of the *pro-immigration* arguments is particularly striking.
There is an argument to be made, but who will make it?
1) We have an influx because our economy is doing well, the eurozone is doing badly. It won't always be that way round. Do we want to stop our builders from being able to say "Auf Wiedersehn Pet" if Britain struggles, while the continent thrives?
2) Do we want to reduce retirement to the sun as an aspiration/possibility?
3) UKIP's pro Commowealth, anti EU position is a vulnerability. We haven't imported terrorism from Poland.
UKIP isn't pro-"Commonwealth immigration". It is pro-limited and skilled immigration. If we were only letting 50k a year come here than we could easily pick and choose the moderate, pro-British and skilled ones.
And we come back to the same question I asked you a few days ago: how can you tell the other day: how can you tell if someone is 'moderate' or 'pro-British' ?
Your previous answer was rather poor, to say the least.
I voted for UKIP in 2010 specifically because they were the only party supporting a rational energy policy. The current energy policy is completely bonkers - any country that has to rely on the STOR system, for example, to keep the lights on is essentially a third-world country in terms of energy supply.
I actually think our fragile energy situation could be the 'elephant in the room' ahead of the GE - if we have a cold winter we will almost certainly have blackouts and this could have a major impact on people's thinking; we live in a completely different world to the 3-day week of 1974, one that is far more dependent on electricity than then.
18 months ago after a long winter, we came down to just 6 hours of gas left in store on the Friday before Good Friday but the weather just turned in time and we avoided outages. 18 months on we have even less dependable power available and coupled with the problems in Russia, and elsewhere on the continent like in Belgium, a Europe-wide cold winter could be disastrous.
(thank God we have such hot sunny mid-winter weather and all those wonderful solar panels can keep us going!)
"Immigration cannot be "controlled" because the indigenous population in the UK is not having enough children to maintain the population"
Do we need in excess of 200,000 people a year to maintain our population? I don't think so and therefore immigration not only can but should be controlled.
ZenPagan true, though certainly much more open than used to be
The point remains that corporations and their political stooges seem to want to have their cake and eat it
Globalisation should work both for labour and prices or work for neither. Personally I favour the former then over time we will find prices and wages converging on a truly world wide scale at which point the where you live and work part of the equation becomes truly a matter of choice.
Another thing that a british government could do to raise quality of life here if not living standards is to encourage companies to allow home working where possible. If you allowed staff to work from home even two days a week it would have a huge impact on things such as congestion on the roads and rail network, relieve the need to rush around on saturday to try and get all the shopping done, reduce the cost of working by not having to make that commute every day.
For example it costs me 10£ a day to get to work, allow me to work from home 2 days a week and it adds 2 hours to my weekly leisure time, means I don't have to take time off work if I have a delivery arriving or an electrician coming in and puts that 20£ back in my pocket
That's actually a sensible idea (about home working), but won't your firm allow you to do that if you ask them, and it's practical to do so? Have you tried?
Immigration cannot be "controlled" because the indigenous population in the UK is not having enough children to maintain the population.
This is factually incorrect. The birth rate of British mothers is above the replacement rate.
Even if your problem was demographics, then you need a horrendous level of immigration to make up the difference. Free childcare for working parents would do far more for improving the age pyramid of our population.
A priest, now many years dead said something very pertinent to me, several years before Blair and co ramped up immigration "Cultures which practice contraception and abortion will inevitably be overrun by cultures that don't."
Oh and my wife, who is African, voted UKIP in the Euro elections.
If you want these thoughts put formally, I recommend the works of demographer Eric Kaufmann.
For a consistently Catholic point of view, see the ' Demography is Destiny' series on Mercator.net.
PaulMidBeds Though there are some developed countries, France, Sweden, the US, Australia and the UK to a lesser extent which have higher birth rates than the likes of Spain, Germany, Italy and Japan.
I feel that the paucity of the *pro-immigration* arguments is particularly striking.
There is an argument to be made, but who will make it?
1) We have an influx because our economy is doing well, the eurozone is doing badly. It won't always be that way round. Do we want to stop our builders from being able to say "Auf Wiedersehn Pet" if Britain struggles, while the continent thrives?
2) Do we want to reduce retirement to the sun as an aspiration/possibility?
3) UKIP's pro Commowealth, anti EU position is a vulnerability. We haven't imported terrorism from Poland.
UKIP isn't pro-"Commonwealth immigration". It is pro-limited and skilled immigration. If we were only letting 50k a year come here than we could easily pick and choose the moderate, pro-British and skilled ones.
And we come back to the same question I asked you a few days ago: how can you tell the other day: how can you tell if someone is 'moderate' or 'pro-British' ?
Your previous answer was rather poor, to say the least.
For a start, people who have already learned English.
@SeanT Tidal power is fairly stable (large scale test in the Pentland Firth ) We do well with hydro, and we have pumped storage at the Cruachan dam, and it should be possible elsewhere. The basics are there it just means thinking smarter.
I feel that the paucity of the *pro-immigration* arguments is particularly striking.
There is an argument to be made, but who will make it?
1) We have an influx because our economy is doing well, the eurozone is doing badly. It won't always be that way round. Do we want to stop our builders from being able to say "Auf Wiedersehn Pet" if Britain struggles, while the continent thrives?
2) Do we want to reduce retirement to the sun as an aspiration/possibility?
3) UKIP's pro Commowealth, anti EU position is a vulnerability. We haven't imported terrorism from Poland.
UKIP isn't pro-"Commonwealth immigration". It is pro-limited and skilled immigration. If we were only letting 50k a year come here than we could easily pick and choose the moderate, pro-British and skilled ones.
And we come back to the same question I asked you a few days ago: how can you tell the other day: how can you tell if someone is 'moderate' or 'pro-British' ?
Your previous answer was rather poor, to say the least.
Pro-British? Obviously that's only UKIP voters.
The rest of us must hate our country.
Plenty of kippers seem to hate this country too. Witness the venom on display over the Olympics opening ceremony.
Unless you mean anything other than an Enid Blighton/Boys own vision of Britain that is!
" The Labour leader is now half as popular, as a potential premier, as Gordon Brown, his predecessor, was when the same question was asked in 2009. "
It seems likely that EdM will underperform Brown and maybe even Foot. Labour will be closer to 25% than 35% in the GE unless they find a way of ridding themselves of the dud.
You think LAB will poll onder 30% at GE2015?
How much money would you care to invest in that little theory?
What we have seen recently a palpable lack of enthusiasm of Labour voters to turnout this year in Euro elections, Newark, Indyref, H and M or Clacton.
A low poll for Labour is quite possible even if most are not going kipper. Foot got 27% in 83 as I recall, when the unions were a lot stronger.
I pointed this out a couple of weeks ago after I had been out canvassing several times and seen canvas returns.
There is no enthusiasm for labour.
Nick Palmer pooh-poohed this idea, but quite frankly, thats just him talking his own book.
ZenPagan true, though certainly much more open than used to be
The point remains that corporations and their political stooges seem to want to have their cake and eat it
Globalisation should work both for labour and prices or work for neither. Personally I favour the former then over time we will find prices and wages converging on a truly world wide scale at which point the where you live and work part of the equation becomes truly a matter of choice.
Another thing that a british government could do to raise quality of life here if not living standards is to encourage companies to allow home working where possible. If you allowed staff to work from home even two days a week it would have a huge impact on things such as congestion on the roads and rail network, relieve the need to rush around on saturday to try and get all the shopping done, reduce the cost of working by not having to make that commute every day.
For example it costs me 10£ a day to get to work, allow me to work from home 2 days a week and it adds 2 hours to my weekly leisure time, means I don't have to take time off work if I have a delivery arriving or an electrician coming in and puts that 20£ back in my pocket
That's actually a sensible idea (about home working), but won't your firm allow you to do that if you ask them, and it's practical to do so? Have you tried?
My experience so far over my last 5 companies is that its no, one allowed it for special times only such as deliveries etc. There is absolutely no need for me to trek the 20 miles there and back each day. My output is measurable, my resources at home for working are actually better than in my office.
It will take government inducements to get most firms to consider it I fear.
Two other plus points would be if you reduce the need for office space by hotdesking then that would free up brownfield land which could be used for homes and people would not be so tied to needing to live in the south east but could telecommute from farther afield revitalising the economy of those parts of the country.
I suspect a 1% tax break offered would more than pay for itself in terms of reduction of strain on infrastructure
I feel that the paucity of the *pro-immigration* arguments is particularly striking.
There is an argument to be made, but who will make it?
1) We have an influx because our economy is doing well, the eurozone is doing badly. It won't always be that way round. Do we want to stop our builders from being able to say "Auf Wiedersehn Pet" if Britain struggles, while the continent thrives?
2) Do we want to reduce retirement to the sun as an aspiration/possibility?
3) UKIP's pro Commowealth, anti EU position is a vulnerability. We haven't imported terrorism from Poland.
UKIP isn't pro-"Commonwealth immigration". It is pro-limited and skilled immigration. If we were only letting 50k a year come here than we could easily pick and choose the moderate, pro-British and skilled ones.
And we come back to the same question I asked you a few days ago: how can you tell the other day: how can you tell if someone is 'moderate' or 'pro-British' ?
Your previous answer was rather poor, to say the least.
For a start, people who have already learned English.
When will UKIP break cover and say they are in favour of stopping all Muslim immigration. There would be wails from the metropolitan elite but would this necessarily be a vote loser for them?
PaulMidBeds But homosexual couples can now have children, whether through adoption, surrogate mothers or sperm donors
More accurately, other people's children.
Strange that the purchase of children from their mothers has such support from so-called liberals.
As an aside, it is an expensive process from which the poor are excluded.
And probably UKIP voters too. Given they can´t foster in Rotherham, it is unlikely they´d be able to adopt.
Also, Black Pentecostalists in Derby were prevented from fostering.
There are a lot of people out there with a genuine grievance against the 'liberal' elite.
There are a lot of people out there with a genuine grievance against religious bigots.
Ah, yes, vulgar abuse.
How will I ever cope with such a vigorous intellectual challenge?
Incidentally, considering the number of people who wanted the Holy Father prosecuted for crimes against humanity because of clerical child abuse, there seems to be a remarkable silence about prosecuting Ed Miliband for Rotherham.
I feel that the paucity of the *pro-immigration* arguments is particularly striking.
There is an argument to be made, but who will make it?
1) We have an influx because our economy is doing well, the eurozone is doing badly. It won't always be that way round. Do we want to stop our builders from being able to say "Auf Wiedersehn Pet" if Britain struggles, while the continent thrives?
2) Do we want to reduce retirement to the sun as an aspiration/possibility?
3) UKIP's pro Commowealth, anti EU position is a vulnerability. We haven't imported terrorism from Poland.
UKIP isn't pro-"Commonwealth immigration". It is pro-limited and skilled immigration. If we were only letting 50k a year come here than we could easily pick and choose the moderate, pro-British and skilled ones.
And we come back to the same question I asked you a few days ago: how can you tell the other day: how can you tell if someone is 'moderate' or 'pro-British' ?
Your previous answer was rather poor, to say the least.
For a start, people who have already learned English.
That's a good criteria to start with if you want to test for their potential to be useful new members of society.
It would also have the side-effect (if applied equally) of stopping many Brits from going to live in Spain.
But it has nothing to do with telling if someone is 'moderate' or 'pro-British' You can know the language and not be moderate or pro-British.
I would have thought Kate more likely to defect to the DUP.
An alliance between the DUP and UKIP is not I think unthinkable.
Kate is welcome to go. She is not Labour at all at heart.
Kate is very much the party of common sense. Not sure what Labour at at heart means nowadays or whether it is relevant to the 21st century any more. If it is that espoused by TB, GB or EdM then it certainly not relevant to today or the future.
I feel that the paucity of the *pro-immigration* arguments is particularly striking.
There is an argument to be made, but who will make it?
1) We have an influx because our economy is doing well, the eurozone is doing badly. It won't always be that way round. Do we want to stop our builders from being able to say "Auf Wiedersehn Pet" if Britain struggles, while the continent thrives?
2) Do we want to reduce retirement to the sun as an aspiration/possibility?
3) UKIP's pro Commowealth, anti EU position is a vulnerability. We haven't imported terrorism from Poland.
UKIP isn't pro-"Commonwealth immigration". It is pro-limited and skilled immigration. If we were only letting 50k a year come here than we could easily pick and choose the moderate, pro-British and skilled ones.
And we come back to the same question I asked you a few days ago: how can you tell the other day: how can you tell if someone is 'moderate' or 'pro-British' ?
Your previous answer was rather poor, to say the least.
For a start, people who have already learned English.
When will UKIP break cover and say they are in favour of stopping all Muslim immigration. There would be wails from the metropolitan elite but would this necessarily be a vote loser for them?
You can't stop immigration on the basis of personal conscience, that would be ridiculous. Would we ban the Aga Kahn? Immigration on the basis of a points system will accomplish all that needs to be accomplished.
@SeanT Tidal power is fairly stable (large scale test in the Pentland Firth ) We do well with hydro, and we have pumped storage at the Cruachan dam, and it should be possible elsewhere. The basics are there it just means thinking smarter.
Tidal power has big problems that need to be overcome. We may get it working in a reliable and cost-effective manner, but I would not bet the house on it. It's worth throwing some money at to see if we can get it working, but the history of tidal power is littered with failed schemes and prototypes.
The number of sites available for pump-storage are very limited compared to the need.
I feel that the paucity of the *pro-immigration* arguments is particularly striking.
There is an argument to be made, but who will make it?
1) We have an influx because our economy is doing well, the eurozone is doing badly. It won't always be that way round. Do we want to stop our builders from being able to say "Auf Wiedersehn Pet" if Britain struggles, while the continent thrives?
2) Do we want to reduce retirement to the sun as an aspiration/possibility?
3) UKIP's pro Commowealth, anti EU position is a vulnerability. We haven't imported terrorism from Poland.
UKIP isn't pro-"Commonwealth immigration". It is pro-limited and skilled immigration. If we were only letting 50k a year come here than we could easily pick and choose the moderate, pro-British and skilled ones.
And we come back to the same question I asked you a few days ago: how can you tell the other day: how can you tell if someone is 'moderate' or 'pro-British' ?
Your previous answer was rather poor, to say the least.
For a start, people who have already learned English.
When will UKIP break cover and say they are in favour of stopping all Muslim immigration. There would be wails from the metropolitan elite but would this necessarily be a vote loser for them?
???????????????
As I understand it UKIP are in favour of stopping open door immigration, and having a points based system for skilled immigrants like the one used in Australia.
ZenPagan true, though certainly much more open than used to be
The point remains that corporations and their political stooges seem to want to have their cake and eat it
Globalisation should work both for labour and prices or work for neither. Personally I favour the former then over time we will find prices and wages converging on a truly world wide scale at which point the where you live and work part of the equation becomes truly a matter of choice.
Another thing that a british government could do to raise quality of life here if not living standards is to encourage companies to allow home working where possible. If you allowed staff to work from home even two days a week it would have a huge impact on things such as congestion on the roads and rail network, relieve the need to rush around on saturday to try and get all the shopping done, reduce the cost of working by not having to make that commute every day.
For example it costs me 10£ a day to get to work, allow me to work from home 2 days a week and it adds 2 hours to my weekly leisure time, means I don't have to take time off work if I have a delivery arriving or an electrician coming in and puts that 20£ back in my pocket
That's actually a sensible idea (about home working), but won't your firm allow you to do that if you ask them, and it's practical to do so? Have you tried?
My experience so far over my last 5 companies is that its no, one allowed it for special times only such as deliveries etc. There is absolutely no need for me to trek the 20 miles there and back each day. My output is measurable, my resources at home for working are actually better than in my office.
It will take government inducements to get most firms to consider it I fear.
Two other plus points would be if you reduce the need for office space by hotdesking then that would free up brownfield land which could be used for homes and people would not be so tied to needing to live in the south east but could telecommute from farther afield revitalising the economy of those parts of the country.
I suspect a 1% tax break offered would more than pay for itself in terms of reduction of strain on infrastructure
Maybe one (or more) of the parties can add it to their manifesto. Seems like a good idea.
As it happens, we are entering an era of cheap and abundant energy.
Which we won;t be able to tap into because of green policies and commitments to get the 'right kind of energy' at ludicrous prices.
I suspect we will be forced to frack, even if lefties hate it, because otherwise our manufacturing will become relatively uncompetitive.
That said, even if we don't frack, and we still impose silly green taxes, we will still benefit from falling global energy prices (especially oil). All boats float on a rising tide.
That depends on the type of manufacturing. The energy-intensive stuff we've already lost, and the stuff that remains only has a small share of costs going to energy anyway.
Energy costs are very near to closing the Uk's steel plants at Redcar, Scunthorpe and Port Talbot. About 2000 - 3000 jobs per plant with another 10,000 jobs dependent on them - all in Labour areas. Do we wish to be at the mercy of overseas steel suppliers as well as energy, chemicals etc etc.
I do like engineering, and follow many aspects of it outside my shuffling-electrons remit. Unfortunately pumped storage requires a head of water, which means a great height between upper and lower ponds. The number of sites suitable to make reservoirs with enough altitude difference are low, despite the hilly nature of some parts of the UK. And then you get the environmental problems of creating high-level reservoirs.
As for your link: it is £51 million for four prototype turbines. Good. Let's hope they work. But as I've said, the past record is patchy to the say the least. One to watch, but not to bet the house on.
I feel that the paucity of the *pro-immigration* arguments is particularly striking.
There is an argument to be made, but who will make it?
1) We have an influx because our economy is doing well, the eurozone is doing badly. It won't always be that way round. Do we want to stop our builders from being able to say "Auf Wiedersehn Pet" if Britain struggles, while the continent thrives?
2) Do we want to reduce retirement to the sun as an aspiration/possibility?
3) UKIP's pro Commowealth, anti EU position is a vulnerability. We haven't imported terrorism from Poland.
UKIP isn't pro-"Commonwealth immigration". It is pro-limited and skilled immigration. If we were only letting 50k a year come here than we could easily pick and choose the moderate, pro-British and skilled ones.
And we come back to the same question I asked you a few days ago: how can you tell the other day: how can you tell if someone is 'moderate' or 'pro-British' ?
Your previous answer was rather poor, to say the least.
For a start, people who have already learned English.
When will UKIP break cover and say they are in favour of stopping all Muslim immigration. There would be wails from the metropolitan elite but would this necessarily be a vote loser for them?
???????????????
As I understand it UKIP are in favour of stopping open door immigration, and having a points based system for skilled immigrants like the one used in Australia.
PaulMidBeds But homosexual couples can now have children, whether through adoption, surrogate mothers or sperm donors
More accurately, other people's children.
Strange that the purchase of children from their mothers has such support from so-called liberals.
As an aside, it is an expensive process from which the poor are excluded.
And probably UKIP voters too. Given they can´t foster in Rotherham, it is unlikely they´d be able to adopt.
Also, Black Pentecostalists in Derby were prevented from fostering.
There are a lot of people out there with a genuine grievance against the 'liberal' elite.
There are a lot of people out there with a genuine grievance against religious bigots.
Ah, yes, vulgar abuse.
How will I ever cope with such a vigorous intellectual challenge?
Incidentally, considering the number of people who wanted the Holy Father prosecuted for crimes against humanity because of clerical child abuse, there seems to be a remarkable silence about prosecuting Ed Miliband for Rotherham.
No vulgar abuse. Just facts. Or are you saying that no-one has any genuine grievance against religious bigots?
The tombstone of the Conservative Party will read:
LISBON REFERENDUM GAY MARRIAGE
Eh? How do you work that out?
I disagree with Paul's hyperbole but the fundamental point is right: gay marriage did a lot of damage to the Tory Party's support.
I have to say, I was shocked, saddened and surprised by that outcome, which was way beyond what I'd expected. The way I, and most people I knew, saw it, gay marriage was so similar to civil partnerships as to be simply a tidying-up exercise needed for equality. However, clearly a lot of people object to that equality in the first place; far more than I'd have estimated before the event.
That was the prompt that shifted a lot of support and even if it's no longer the driver, the break has been made and there are other drivers reinforcing it.
The reaction is surprising in that marriage is a declining trend so coopting a group enthusiastically in favour is more likely to see its continuation. That's a very Conservative worldview and the principle behind that accounts for the Conservatives continued relevance. ...
I agree. I supported the change partly because the equality is a good thing in its own right and partly because, as you say, abolishing the distinction between civil partnerships and marriage strengthen the institution and the role of the family unit, which most conservatives would believe is the most essential building block of society.
Homosexual 'relationships' are the antithesis of what marriage is about as the courageous Jan Moir explained.
Please keep you ill-informed and bigoted views about homosexuality to yourself. You keep spreading your hatred - and it is not welcome or appropriate.
Freedom of speech?
You have just showed exactly what is meant by liberal bigotry
Homophobia has no place in modern society and I will continue to call out people who express it.
You may well think that homophobia has no place in modern society but you should do so by mocking its proponents and not by curtailing free speech.
By curtailing free speech you simply show yourself to be another type of ill informed bigot.
That'll please the Turks. I wonder if our troops will meet any Israeli instructors helping the Kurds?
O what a tangled web we weave.............
I would rather support the Kurds than the Turks. The Kurds are the only ones apart from Assad that are putting up a fight against ISIS, standing up for a secular state and giving the Assyrian Christian and Yazudi minorities refuge.
Turkeys attitude to ISIS is very dangerous, and could cause modern Turkey to disintegrate with a renewed Kurdish rebellion internally, a ISIS ruled hinterland, and a Europe leaning West all fighting it out over the bones.
As I've said passim, until recently Turkey's been doing a very good job in dealing with the refugee crisis in Syria and, latterly, Iraq. This involves not just camps, but billeting refugees around the country. It has cost them billions of dollars. The Erdogan government needs congratulating for that.
But (and it is one heck of a 'but'): the Turkish government is not just paralysed wrt the conflict as it currently stands; it is internally conflicted. Once the government decides which side it is backing, and gets the rest of the civil service and military to stick with that decision, it will be able to do something worthwhile militarily. Erdogan has sole responsibility for Turkey's inaction, with his purge of the military being a major factor.
Erdogan's a survivor, and he will survive what is happening. I doubt Turkey will split, although there is a small chance that a Kurdish autonomous region will fall out the other end.
As for backing the Kurds: you may want to look into the history of the PKK before saying that so lightly ...
I have just come back from Turkey. I was told that the local state hospital was full of Syrians - most Turks use private hospitals apparently.
Comments
UKIP welcomes all defectors.
Tory's and Labour.
LibDems must have brain transplant first, and relinquish equity card...
Brain surgeons wanted!
Farage has some form on badly forecasting labour policy change. In 2007 said that Gordon Brown would have "misery" inside his party due to divisions over a referendum on Lisbon. (interview with Steve Richards 2007) Farage was very wrong on that.
If you want to see families with four to six children you need to go to a Mosque, mainly African Pentecostal church or Catholic church.
A priest, now many years dead said something very pertinent to me, several years before Blair and co ramped up immigration "Cultures which practice contraception and abortion will inevitably be overrun by cultures that don't."
Oh and my wife, who is African, voted UKIP in the Euro elections.
And probably UKIP voters too.
Given they can´t foster in Rotherham, it is unlikely they´d be able to adopt.
Zac sits for the “Goldsmith” party.
Yes, Sean and yet much of PBTories pooh-poohed Renewables.
Maybe, the subsidy was worth it, after all. Surprisingly, PBTories and right wingers in general have no problem subsidising nuclear energy.
Were these the brainchild of REd when he was minister of climate change or some such mumbo jumbo?
He then offers to freeze the prices he did so much to increase. The pliant media, in their metropolitan smugness all being signed up to the pseudo-science, did not bother bringing him up on it.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9141142/why-has-britain-signed-up-for-the-worlds-most-expensive-power-station/
An alliance between the DUP and UKIP is not I think unthinkable.
Also, MPs who go Indy rather than swap rosettes get terribly squeezed in a GE. There's only a tiny number who manage to keep their seats over a longer period as they've no Party Machine.
A shame perhaps, but just the way things are.
We should have provided generous research grants to electricity storage means while sticking with coal and nuclear in the meanwhile.
When a method of cheap electrical storage is realised then solar and wind will be viable. Similarly when you can buy solar rooftiles etc. then the installation will be more practical.
We've rushed into a technology that is at the same stage of development as Stephensons rocket and will pay the price.
Tidal power. That is the way to go. Not wind or solar (with its built in 50% obsolescence...)
Even if you manage to buy from abroad you suddenly find you have a load of import duty to pay due to eu protectionist tariffs. The EU and its protectionism adds a good percentage to our food bills, our clothes bills etc.
While I know enough to get around geolocation many don't.
I do admire their selflessness. Wouldn't get me anywhere near one unless they were my best friend/spouse.
But if he is right about us entering a period of cheap and plentiful oil the strike price for the new nuclear plant at Hinkley Point is going to be a serious burden for UK manufacturing. At approximately twice the current rate the investment only makes sense if there is a significant increase in energy costs by the time it comes into operation.
A labour defection is just a UKIP wet dream.
The fact remains the conservatives are down an MP and labour aren't. UKIP are anxious about that fact.
At a guess, laughing their heads off.
Secondly there is a reverse auction going on shortly for companies to provide back up power units for when the wind isn't blowing. These mainly gas powered plants are to be subsidised (that's the reverse auction).
So we are subsidising wind and are going to be subsidising the gas plants needed to back up the wind farms. On some world in some universe that makes sense.
But we are talking about now and the next millenia. The good news is , we are now able to capture about 30% of the sun's energy through solar panels. But this rising very quickly. So, are the new generation of batteries.
For the time being , at least, the sky is the limit ! Only a little bit of the Sahara can light up Europe. Except we need super conductive cables so that energy loss is minimised.
The future is indeed Green !!!!
" What would iScotland's deficit look like, with oil at $50 a barrel? "
That's a fair point, but Scotland is well positioned to use "renewables", but it takes intelligent thinking to use it to advantage.
(intelligent thought is something that most politicians neglect)
If you're convinced he's not going anywhere I'm only asking 100-1.
http://www.betfair.com/exchange/politics/market?id=1.102043780
http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/politics/human-rights-act-why-the-conservatives-are-wrong
Liberalism cannot reproduce itself. "We" won't be overrun, Liberalism will be.
The problem with Liberals is that they think we are rational beings who work by logic. We're not. We're animals. In some matters we temper instinct with logic, but in the most fundamental matters (such as choosing a mate and even who to vote for to some extent) we run primarily on instinct like all other animals.
There are a lot of people out there with a genuine grievance against the 'liberal' elite.
Your previous answer was rather poor, to say the least.
Globalisation should work both for labour and prices or work for neither. Personally I favour the former then over time we will find prices and wages converging on a truly world wide scale at which point the where you live and work part of the equation becomes truly a matter of choice.
Another thing that a british government could do to raise quality of life here if not living standards is to encourage companies to allow home working where possible. If you allowed staff to work from home even two days a week it would have a huge impact on things such as congestion on the roads and rail network, relieve the need to rush around on saturday to try and get all the shopping done, reduce the cost of working by not having to make that commute every day.
For example it costs me 10£ a day to get to work, allow me to work from home 2 days a week and it adds 2 hours to my weekly leisure time, means I don't have to take time off work if I have a delivery arriving or an electrician coming in and puts that 20£ back in my pocket
Pro-British? Obviously that's only UKIP voters.
The rest of us must hate our country.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/11155812/Agree-English-home-rule-within-weeks-or-vote-against-the-plans-in-the-Commons-William-Hague-tells-Ed-Miliband.html
I actually think our fragile energy situation could be the 'elephant in the room' ahead of the GE - if we have a cold winter we will almost certainly have blackouts and this could have a major impact on people's thinking; we live in a completely different world to the 3-day week of 1974, one that is far more dependent on electricity than then.
18 months ago after a long winter, we came down to just 6 hours of gas left in store on the Friday before Good Friday but the weather just turned in time and we avoided outages. 18 months on we have even less dependable power available and coupled with the problems in Russia, and elsewhere on the continent like in Belgium, a Europe-wide cold winter could be disastrous.
(thank God we have such hot sunny mid-winter weather and all those wonderful solar panels can keep us going!)
Do we need in excess of 200,000 people a year to maintain our population? I don't think so and therefore immigration not only can but should be controlled.
Even if your problem was demographics, then you need a horrendous level of immigration to make up the difference. Free childcare for working parents would do far more for improving the age pyramid of our population.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/palestinian-statehood-ed-miliband-demands-whipped-vote-but-backs-down-to-avoid-resignations-9789290.html
In next week's news, Ed solves the Palestine problem and moves on to sort out Iraq and Syria.
For a consistently Catholic point of view, see the ' Demography is Destiny' series on Mercator.net.
Tidal power is fairly stable (large scale test in the Pentland Firth ) We do well with hydro, and we have pumped storage at the Cruachan dam, and it should be possible elsewhere.
The basics are there it just means thinking smarter.
Unless you mean anything other than an Enid Blighton/Boys own vision of Britain that is!
There is no enthusiasm for labour.
Nick Palmer pooh-poohed this idea, but quite frankly, thats just him talking his own book.
It will take government inducements to get most firms to consider it I fear.
Two other plus points would be if you reduce the need for office space by hotdesking then that would free up brownfield land which could be used for homes and people would not be so tied to needing to live in the south east but could telecommute from farther afield revitalising the economy of those parts of the country.
I suspect a 1% tax break offered would more than pay for itself in terms of reduction of strain on infrastructure
Business needs a cash incentive to be rational? How very quaint.
How will I ever cope with such a vigorous intellectual challenge?
Incidentally, considering the number of people who wanted the Holy Father prosecuted for crimes against humanity because of clerical child abuse, there seems to be a remarkable silence about prosecuting Ed Miliband for Rotherham.
It would also have the side-effect (if applied equally) of stopping many Brits from going to live in Spain.
But it has nothing to do with telling if someone is 'moderate' or 'pro-British' You can know the language and not be moderate or pro-British.
Try again.
The number of sites available for pump-storage are very limited compared to the need.
As I understand it UKIP are in favour of stopping open door immigration, and having a points based system for skilled immigrants like the one used in Australia.
http://www.ukip.org/steven_woolfe_ukip_s_ethical_migration_policy
https://www.immi.gov.au/skilled/general-skilled-migration/points-test.htm
Maybe one (or more) of the parties can add it to their manifesto. Seems like a good idea.
We will soon find out if tidal can make an impact, as for pumped storage?
There is a lack of sites? I thought you liked engineering?
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/51m-funding-starts-construction-of-massive-tidal-power-scheme-in-pentland-firth.1408689300
As for your link: it is £51 million for four prototype turbines. Good. Let's hope they work. But as I've said, the past record is patchy to the say the least. One to watch, but not to bet the house on.
In 2013 there were 990 553 new legal permanent migrations to the USA, so fairly similar to our figures on a per capita basis.
Canada's immigration has been over a quarter of a million per year for the last 25 years, the highest per capita in the OECD.
The idea that a points system is an easy way to control immigration is delusional.
But religious bigots have killed far more people through history than anti-religious ones.
By curtailing free speech you simply show yourself to be another type of ill informed bigot.
And I am openly mocking you as such.