Making the case for another coalition, Mr Clegg said a vote for his party would stop the Tories or Labour governing on their own, arguing the Lib Dems would "add a heart to a Conservative government and add a brain to a Labour one
Does that make Nick, Oz the Great and Powerful, The Cowardly Lion or Dorothy?
I'd rather see Salmond pulling Miliband's strings than Clegg.
Gov't by Lib Dems is boring as ****.
I appreciate 99% of the population prefers boring over chaos.
Brilliant Manifesto launch by UKIP this morning. Hoping it will make a big impact, though the MSM are already attacking it as too detailed.
I ask you, the present political class and their hacks cannot make enough attacks and smears, so they will be forced to increase the the lies and smears, till even the most naive will see them for what they are: complete frauds.
Mike, why do you think your MPs weren't at the launch?
Why would they be?
The leader of the party and the people who wrote it were there presenting it. What would Carswell and Reckless have done? Served the drinks?
EDIT Having two ex Conservatives as the focal point would have probably made UKIP look like Tories on holiday as well maybe to the Red Kippers
UKIP's decision to cut money for scotland is interesting.
Taking the UK out of UKIP?
Scotland is one of the wealthiest parts of the UK. It is only reasonable that some of the money gets taken from the Barnett block grant and provided to more struggling areas, like Wales, the North East and Cornwall. I have to say UKIP's manifesto looks like a hard one to argue against: the NATO defence target, a well-funded NHS, controlled immigration. Is immigration even in the Conservative manifesto?
Full fiscal Autonomy with the risks and rewards of North Sea oil balanced against the 'challenges' of the West of Scotland/Glasgow would be the best thing ever for Scotland and the UK and to my mind is one thing that could save the Union.
Sharing the fiscal burden is part of being one country. If you happen to be a richer part of the country, you help out the poorer parts. If Scotland gets fiscal autonomy, it's only a matter of time before London gets it too, and so on down the line. The end result is that the areas facing economic troubles just get worse and worse and end up like Detroit.
The Westminster government has guaranteed the level of Spending in Scotland.
Removal of that, cutting it by a single penny (beyond the Barnett consequentials of Westminster cuts to English budgets) will result in an immediate Referendum and a Yes landslide.
Scotland is not part of a country. It is a country in its own right, in political union with another country (England and Wales).
No parliament can bind its successor. If the Scots are the progressive nation that so many Scottish nationalists insist, they would be very happy to help subsidize poorer parts of the UK, particularly their Celtic cousins.
It is the responsibility of no country to subsidise a colony or a region of another country. England needs to deal with it's own problems without further subsidies for Scotland.
Regardless of the semantics of the argument, however, I can guarantee you it would lead to a substantial Yes landslide within months of implementation.
Brilliant Manifesto launch by UKIP this morning. Hoping it will make a big impact, though the MSM are already attacking it as too detailed.
I ask you, the present political class and their hacks cannot make enough attacks and smears, so they will be forced to increase the the lies and smears, till even the most naive will see them for what they are: complete frauds.
Mike, why do you think your MPs weren't at the launch?
Busy working their constituencies, presumably. MPs don't usually all turn up to things like this, do they?
Not all of them. But you'd see most of the Cabinet / Shadow Cabinet at the Tory/Labour ones.
Mostly have safe seats, I'd imagine. Carswell is probably safe, but there's not enough precedent to take it for granted.
"Once the UK leaves the EU, we, as a country, regain our ability to take back our vacant seat at the WTO and represent ourselves, negotiating our own trade agreements and advancing our own national trade interests. A first step would be to broker a bespoke UK-EU trade agreement, which we believe is desirable. This is what we will seek and without doubt achieve, possibly within a very short period of time.
The UK has been a leader in international trade for centuries, long before the European Union. We will continue to trade internationally after Brexit, enjoying the rights inherent in the WTO’s ‘Most Favoured Nation’ principle.
We will regain full autonomy at the World Customs Organisation, the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe, and several of the UN’s constituent bodies - all of which have seen a steady erosion of our voting powers, as the EU has assumed primacy. With over 100 other international organisations counting the UK as a full member, we will be in a very strong negotiating position when we leave the EU.
Suggestions that the EU would refuse to negotiate a trade deal with Britain if we left the Union are nothing more than scaremongering. Britain is the Eurozone’s biggest export market worldwide, the Eurozone’s biggest supplier worldwide, and the country with which the Eurozone has the biggest trade surplus worldwide. The truth is, the EU cannot afford to snub us: the EU actually needs us far more than we need the EU.
It is time to free Britain from the shackles of the EU. We have a choice between a dying Europe and a vibrant, growing world; a choice between staying buried in the bureaucratic nightmare of Brussels, and resuming our proper place in the rest of the world. The common sense answer is to leave."
Good theory but to export you need to be price and technology competitive and in too many areas we are not.
What effective power would the UK have on its own in WTO negotiations. Would it at best make any difference? No it would not. How would we negotiate anything different from being in the EU with Canada or the USA? We would not. How would the UK trade with the EU - through the EEA. Again no difference from now. There is an argument for being just in the EEA but to pretend that it would make any difference to free movement of Labour is just a lie. What we can do whilst in is negotiate to change the existing rules. What we can do under a tory govt is have a referendum afterwards.
Revealing my ignorance now but if billion dollar cities can be built in Las Vegas and Dubai, is there a possibility that in 20 years or so there will be Europeans/Americans doing the same in Central Africa?
The most expensive hotels in Las Vegas cost more than $1bn to build, as did a single Dubai building.
Africa's problems are: (1) education, (2) poor government, and (3) over-dependence on commodity exports.
They won't be rapidly solved. However, the cost of labour is rising rapidly in China (15% annual wage hikes are rapidly eroding competitiveness), and Chinese companies are scouring the world to find the places with the lowest wage rates to build their next factories in. Right now, it's Cambodia, Bangladesh and Vietnam, but as those places become too expensive in turn, there can be no doubt they'll look at parts of Africa.
Is there a reason why Africa can't become the solar power centre of the world? It must have been thought of and must be a reason why not but I don't know, so am asking!
It has been thought of, and there are a number of North Africa plans that have been proposed. The issues are: (1) cost, as it's still not (quite) economic enough (although solar costs continue to fall and therefore that will be less of an issue in five years time), (2) the difficulty of building an HVDC line under the Mediterranean, and the issue that the electricity wouldn't be near where the demand was, and (3) a concern that - just with large oil projects - the local government changed the rules after the billions have been spent.
If solar continues to get cheaper at a rate of 5-7% per year, then the possibility of large scale African solar becomes real.
I'm sure I read somewhere (I know i know...) that with solar efficiency at ~13-14%, the combined effect of the 87% heat and the decrease in albedo provided by dark solar panels on light sand/rock could well actually cause a net increase in global warming even if the solar electricity replaced a coal fired power station.
Put black panels in the desert and much less heat gets reflected back to space basically.
Anyone have any facts to back up or contradict me!? Highly possible I am talking rubbish :-)
Are these people really acting surprised that MPs running for re-election in an election campaign would be too busy to stand in as room meat at somebody else's PR event?
It would be only an hour or so from eithers constituency, for one of the most high profile of UKIP's events. Unless you think it was just a PR stunt for Farage to hold the limelight.
Making the case for another coalition, Mr Clegg said a vote for his party would stop the Tories or Labour governing on their own, arguing the Lib Dems would "add a heart to a Conservative government and add a brain to a Labour one
Does that make Nick, Oz the Great and Powerful, The Cowardly Lion or Dorothy?
I'd rather see Salmond pulling Miliband's strings than Clegg.
Gov't by Lib Dems is boring as ****.
I appreciate 99% of the population prefers boring over chaos.
More importantly I've read the smoke signals from Miliband and Clegg that they may be able to tolerate each other.
Like Velma and Roxie, they stop feuding with each other when they both realise that there's more advantage in putting on a show together.
Didn't the Lib Dems demand Brown's resignation as part of any Lib/Lab deal?
No.
Brown resigned to enable the negotiations. Also the drama on Channel 4 about the events seems to suggest that's hat happened.
Don't confuse a drama with reality even if the reality was a drama.
Brown did not resign to accommodate the negotiations as they were dead in the water and that led him to resign.
Well the Maths made the negotiations pretty pointless, I'd agree on that. But from my understanding Brown had lost sight of that and was doing everything he could to keep the Tories out. What other reason would he have announced his resignation for?
It's important to recall the dynamics of those days.
Both the Conservatives and the LibDems were well prepared for the negotiations and they took place in a hard nosed but cordial and respectful fashion. The personal chemistry also seem to work.
In contrast the mood music within much of the PLP was hostile. Mandy was doing his level best to smooth LibDem ruffled feathers but he was undermined by some senior Labour figures including Balls who looked upon the LibDems as some troublesome add on to the Labour party who were to be tolerated at best. Labour were also completely unprepared for the talks and seem to be undertaking an ad hoc, back of the fag packet approach.
Within that context and the dawning reality of the numbers game against him Brown made the correct decision to resign and leave Cameron to take up the baton and run with it.
She's a tit. Her article about Miliband's kitchens summed up everything that's wrong for me about Lynton Crosby's campaign/The Daily Fail.
I can't stand that sort of crap.
No? but you are content to throw even more scurrilous smears and rubbish at Farage and UKIP.
What UKIP smears ?!
Yours and Labour smears on UKIP.
The last really negative thing I remember posting UKIP related was pointing out that Coburn had been an utter idiot for calling Humza Yousuf 'Abu Hamza' - Something which he quite rightly apologised for.
Mr. Pulpstar, beg to differ. Full fiscal autonomy is practically independence. But with a currency union.
And it would be good for Scotland and good for the UK.
Good for Scotland, it's de facto independence, but they retain the pound and have the bank of england as a lender of last resort for their banking system. Pretty much everything "Yes" wanted last year but were told they couldn't have.
Not quite sure why it's good for the UK. What happens when Scotland doesn't pony up the cash for it's share of the military and other shared costs?
Yep as usual the patriarchal English mentality falls back to "what happens when the most resource rich and export heavy part of the country doesn't pay its way".
Rochester to Thurrock is less than half an hour by car, Clacton just over an hour. It's hard to believe that neither UKIP MP could spare a few hours to attend their manifesto launch.
Are things so desperate in their respective constituencies?
Revealing my ignorance now but if billion dollar cities can be built in Las Vegas and Dubai, is there a possibility that in 20 years or so there will be Europeans/Americans doing the same in Central Africa?
The most expensive hotels in Las Vegas cost more than $1bn to build, as did a single Dubai building.
Africa's problems are: (1) education, (2) poor government, and (3) over-dependence on commodity exports.
They won't be rapidly solved. However, the cost of labour is rising rapidly in China (15% annual wage hikes are rapidly eroding competitiveness), and Chinese companies are scouring the world to find the places with the lowest wage rates to build their next factories in. Right now, it's Cambodia, Bangladesh and Vietnam, but as those places become too expensive in turn, there can be no doubt they'll look at parts of Africa.
Is there a reason why Africa can't become the solar power centre of the world? It must have been thought of and must be a reason why not but I don't know, so am asking!
It has been thought of, and there are a number of North Africa plans that have been proposed. The issues are: (1) cost, as it's still not (quite) economic enough (although solar costs continue to fall and therefore that will be less of an issue in five years time), (2) the difficulty of building an HVDC line under the Mediterranean, and the issue that the electricity wouldn't be near where the demand was, and (3) a concern that - just with large oil projects - the local government changed the rules after the billions have been spent.
If solar continues to get cheaper at a rate of 5-7% per year, then the possibility of large scale African solar becomes real.
I'm sure I read somewhere (I know i know...) that with solar efficiency at ~13-14%, the combined effect of the 87% heat and the decrease in albedo provided by dark solar panels on light sand/rock could well actually cause a net increase in global warming even if the solar electricity replaced a coal fired power station.
Put black panels in the desert and much less heat gets reflected back to space basically.
Anyone have any facts to back up or contradict me!? Highly possible I am talking rubbish :-)
I can't imagine that is the case. The heat is not being collected and stored it is being converted into another form of energy. My assumption has always been that this means it is no longer available for heating the atmosphere. As I say I don't know for sure but this seems to me to be in the same category of mistake as the idea that wind turbines will make us run out of wind.
" No SNP activity visible on my ground game app up in the far north of Scotland, tonnes around the west of Glasgow. "
Paul Monaghan the SNP candidate was at a meeting in our village last night, very impressive. He is covering lots of small places in this huge constituency. Lord Thurso will not do hustings.
"Once the UK leaves the EU, we, as a country, regain our ability to take back our vacant seat at the WTO and represent ourselves, negotiating our own trade agreements and advancing our own national trade interests. A first step would be to broker a bespoke UK-EU trade agreement, which we believe is desirable. This is what we will seek and without doubt achieve, possibly within a very short period of time.
The UK has been a leader in international trade for centuries, long before the European Union. We will continue to trade internationally after Brexit, enjoying the rights inherent in the WTO’s ‘Most Favoured Nation’ principle.
We will regain full autonomy at the World Customs Organisation, the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe, and several of the UN’s constituent bodies - all of which have seen a steady erosion of our voting powers, as the EU has assumed primacy. With over 100 other international organisations counting the UK as a full member, we will be in a very strong negotiating position when we leave the EU.
Suggestions that the EU would refuse to negotiate a trade deal with Britain if we left the Union are nothing more than scaremongering. Britain is the Eurozone’s biggest export market worldwide, the Eurozone’s biggest supplier worldwide, and the country with which the Eurozone has the biggest trade surplus worldwide. The truth is, the EU cannot afford to snub us: the EU actually needs us far more than we need the EU.
It is time to free Britain from the shackles of the EU. We have a choice between a dying Europe and a vibrant, growing world; a choice between staying buried in the bureaucratic nightmare of Brussels, and resuming our proper place in the rest of the world. The common sense answer is to leave."
Good theory but to export you need to be price and technology competitive and in too many areas we are not.
What effective power would the UK have on its own in WTO negotiations. Would it at best make any difference? No it would not. How would we negotiate anything different from being in the EU with Canada or the USA? We would not. How would the UK trade with the EU - through the EEA. Again no difference from now. There is an argument for being just in the EEA but to pretend that it would make any difference to free movement of Labour is just a lie. What we can do whilst in is negotiate to change the existing rules. What we can do under a tory govt is have a referendum afterwards.
Wrong in every instance. That is some going Flightpath even for you.
UKIP's decision to cut money for scotland is interesting.
Taking the UK out of UKIP?
Scotland is one of the wealthiest parts of the UK. It is only reasonable that some of the money gets taken from the Barnett block grant and provided to more struggling areas, like Wales, the North East and Cornwall. I have to say UKIP's manifesto looks like a hard one to argue against: the NATO defence target, a well-funded NHS, controlled immigration. Is immigration even in the Conservative manifesto?
Full fiscal Autonomy with the risks and rewards of North Sea oil balanced against the 'challenges' of the West of Scotland/Glasgow would be the best thing ever for Scotland and the UK and to my mind is one thing that could save the Union.
Sharing the fiscal burden is part of being one country. If you happen to be a richer part of the country, you help out the poorer parts. If Scotland gets fiscal autonomy, it's only a matter of time before London gets it too, and so on down the line. The end result is that the areas facing economic troubles just get worse and worse and end up like Detroit.
The Westminster government has guaranteed the level of Spending in Scotland.
Removal of that, cutting it by a single penny (beyond the Barnett consequentials of Westminster cuts to English budgets) will result in an immediate Referendum and a Yes landslide.
Scotland is not part of a country. It is a country in its own right, in political union with another country (England and Wales).
No parliament can bind its successor. If the Scots are the progressive nation that so many Scottish nationalists insist, they would be very happy to help subsidize poorer parts of the UK, particularly their Celtic cousins.
It is the responsibility of no country to subsidise a colony or a region of another country. England needs to deal with it's own problems without further subsidies for Scotland.
Regardless of the semantics of the argument, however, I can guarantee you it would lead to a substantial Yes landslide within months of implementation.
I think that most Scots feel that richer parts of the UK subsidizing poorer parts of the UK is a progressive and right thing. You do not. We'll have to agree to disagree.
Interesting chat just now at lunch. Some people shyly in favour of some UKIP policy directions at least, and a general murmur of agreement that the EU is on balance bad for us.
But none are going to vote UKIP. Nobody wants to be associated with what are perceived as a bunch of loons with 1950s attitudes to race and sexuality etc.
Farage et al have set back the cause of the UK possibly leaving Europe by associating reasonable doubts about Juncker et al and their aims with "fruitcakes" etc.
Brilliant Manifesto launch by UKIP this morning. Hoping it will make a big impact, though the MSM are already attacking it as too detailed.
I ask you, the present political class and their hacks cannot make enough attacks and smears, so they will be forced to increase the the lies and smears, till even the most naive will see them for what they are: complete frauds.
UKIP are part of the "present political class".
Time and time again manifestos and politicians' promises are slagged off as being undetailed and vacuous. UKIP's manifesto - love it or hate it - is thorough and policy rich, and is being attacked for being too detailed...
Rather that discuss the details, the MSM would rather try to infer a non-existent split in UKIP ("where's Reckless?" Err, maybe campaigning in Rochester?) and ask vacuous, embarrassing questions about why there is "only one black face" in the manifesto.
Brilliant Manifesto launch by UKIP this morning. Hoping it will make a big impact, though the MSM are already attacking it as too detailed.
I ask you, the present political class and their hacks cannot make enough attacks and smears, so they will be forced to increase the the lies and smears, till even the most naive will see them for what they are: complete frauds.
This is bad for the Liberal Democrats. The National Union of Students has launched a poster campaign labelling the party "liars" for breaking their tuition fees pledge following the last election. President Toni Pearce said:
Quote It’s payback time. I’d like to say directly to Nick Clegg that your apology won’t cover any of the £40,000 debt that students will graduate with for the first time this summer.
They pledged to scrap tuition fees – they lied. We won’t let them trade lies for power again. We represent seven million students and are urging every single one across the country to vote against broken pledges.
Mr. Pulpstar, beg to differ. Full fiscal autonomy is practically independence. But with a currency union.
And it would be good for Scotland and good for the UK.
Good for Scotland, it's de facto independence, but they retain the pound and have the bank of england as a lender of last resort for their banking system. Pretty much everything "Yes" wanted last year but were told they couldn't have.
Not quite sure why it's good for the UK. What happens when Scotland doesn't pony up the cash for it's share of the military and other shared costs?
Yep as usual the patriarchal English mentality falls back to "what happens when the most resource rich and export heavy part of the country doesn't pay its way".
More importantly I've read the smoke signals from Miliband and Clegg that they may be able to tolerate each other.
Like Velma and Roxie, they stop feuding with each other when they both realise that there's more advantage in putting on a show together.
Didn't the Lib Dems demand Brown's resignation as part of any Lib/Lab deal?
No.
Brown resigned to enable the negotiations. Also the drama on Channel 4 about the events seems to suggest that's hat happened.
Don't confuse a drama with reality even if the reality was a drama.
Brown did not resign to accommodate the negotiations as they were dead in the water and that led him to resign.
Well the Maths made the negotiations pretty pointless, I'd agree on that. But from my understanding Brown had lost sight of that and was doing everything he could to keep the Tories out. What other reason would he have announced his resignation for?
It's important to recall the dynamics of those days.
Both the Conservatives and the LibDems were well prepared for the negotiations and they took place in a hard nosed but cordial and respectful fashion. The personal chemistry also seem to work.
In contrast the mood music within much of the PLP was hostile. Mandy was doing his level best to smooth LibDem ruffled feathers but he was undermined by some senior Labour figures including Balls who looked upon the LibDems as some troublesome add on to the Labour party who were to be tolerated at best. Labour were also completely unprepared for the talks and seem to be undertaking an ad hoc, back of the fag packet approach.
Within that context and the dawning reality of the numbers game against him Brown made the correct decision to resign and leave Cameron to take up the baton and run with it.
David Laws' book 22 days in May says that Brown's continued leadership and the timetable for that was an issue prior to negotiations breaking down and Brown resigning. Because the country had rejected him and there was a need for the next government to be seen as new.
Rochester to Thurrock is less than half an hour by car, Clacton just over an hour. It's hard to believe that neither UKIP MP could spare a few hours to attend their manifesto launch.
Are things so desperate in their respective constituencies?
After Farage issued his desperate "all hands" call to activists from other constituencies to come to Thanet and lend days to his campaign, I doubt Messers Carswell and Reckless will be providing much, if any support for the broader UKIP campaign.
More importantly I've read the smoke signals from Miliband and Clegg that they may be able to tolerate each other.
Like Velma and Roxie, they stop feuding with each other when they both realise that there's more advantage in putting on a show together.
Didn't the Lib Dems demand Brown's resignation as part of any Lib/Lab deal?
No.
Brown resigned to enable the negotiations. Also the drama on Channel 4 about the events seems to suggest that's hat happened.
Don't confuse a drama with reality even if the reality was a drama.
Brown did not resign to accommodate the negotiations as they were dead in the water and that led him to resign.
Well the Maths made the negotiations pretty pointless, I'd agree on that. But from my understanding Brown had lost sight of that and was doing everything he could to keep the Tories out. What other reason would he have announced his resignation for?
It's important to recall the dynamics of those days.
Both the Conservatives and the LibDems were well prepared for the negotiations and they took place in a hard nosed but cordial and respectful fashion. The personal chemistry also seem to work.
In contrast the mood music within much of the PLP was hostile. Mandy was doing his level best to smooth LibDem ruffled feathers but he was undermined by some senior Labour figures including Balls who looked upon the LibDems as some troublesome add on to the Labour party who were to be tolerated at best. Labour were also completely unprepared for the talks and seem to be undertaking an ad hoc, back of the fag packet approach.
Within that context and the dawning reality of the numbers game against him Brown made the correct decision to resign and leave Cameron to take up the baton and run with it.
David Laws' book 22 days in May says that Brown's continued leadership and the timetable for that was an issue prior to negotiations breaking down and Brown resigning. Because the country had rejected him and there was a need for the next government to be seen as new.
It read pretty convincingly and credibly to me.
Quite. Whoever had or not "won" the election it was pretty obvious that Labour in general and Brown in particular had lost it. In more ways than one!
"Once the UK leaves the EU, we, as a country, regain our ability to take back our vacant seat at the WTO and represent ourselves, negotiating our own trade agreements and advancing our own national trade interests. A first step would be to broker a bespoke UK-EU trade agreement, which we believe is desirable. This is what we will seek and without doubt achieve, possibly within a very short period of time.
The UK has been a leader in international trade for centuries, long before the European Union. We will continue to trade internationally after Brexit, enjoying the rights inherent in the WTO’s ‘Most Favoured Nation’ principle.
We will regain full autonomy at the World Customs Organisation, the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe, and several of the UN’s constituent bodies - all of which have seen a steady erosion of our voting powers, as the EU has assumed primacy. With over 100 other international organisations counting the UK as a full member, we will be in a very strong negotiating position when we leave the EU.
Suggestions that the EU would refuse to negotiate a trade deal with Britain if we left the Union are nothing more than scaremongering. Britain is the Eurozone’s biggest export market worldwide, the Eurozone’s biggest supplier worldwide, and the country with which the Eurozone has the biggest trade surplus worldwide. The truth is, the EU cannot afford to snub us: the EU actually needs us far more than we need the EU.
It is time to free Britain from the shackles of the EU. We have a choice between a dying Europe and a vibrant, growing world; a choice between staying buried in the bureaucratic nightmare of Brussels, and resuming our proper place in the rest of the world. The common sense answer is to leave."
Good theory but to export you need to be price and technology competitive and in too many areas we are not.
What effective power would the UK have on its own in WTO negotiations. Would it at best make any difference? No it would not. How would we negotiate anything different from being in the EU with Canada or the USA? We would not. How would the UK trade with the EU - through the EEA. Again no difference from now. There is an argument for being just in the EEA but to pretend that it would make any difference to free movement of Labour is just a lie. What we can do whilst in is negotiate to change the existing rules. What we can do under a tory govt is have a referendum afterwards.
It makes you wonder how Britain traded with anybody prior to joining the EU?
Aren't Kipper's pledges based on spending money we won't give to the EU? What if we vote to stay in?
I think it's terrible politics to boo the press. And asking why the only black face is on the Int Aid page is a perfectly reasonable question for a party with baggage.
Brilliant Manifesto launch by UKIP this morning. Hoping it will make a big impact, though the MSM are already attacking it as too detailed.
I ask you, the present political class and their hacks cannot make enough attacks and smears, so they will be forced to increase the the lies and smears, till even the most naive will see them for what they are: complete frauds.
UKIP are part of the "present political class".
Time and time again manifestos and politicians' promises are slagged off as being undetailed and vacuous. UKIP's manifesto - love it or hate it - is thorough and policy rich, and is being attacked for being too detailed...
Rather that discuss the details, the MSM would rather try to infer a non-existent split in UKIP ("where's Reckless?" Err, maybe campaigning in Rochester?) and ask vacuous, embarrassing questions about why there is "only one black face" in the manifesto.
Making the case for another coalition, Mr Clegg said a vote for his party would stop the Tories or Labour governing on their own, arguing the Lib Dems would "add a heart to a Conservative government and add a brain to a Labour one
Does that make Nick, Oz the Great and Powerful, The Cowardly Lion or Dorothy?
I'd rather see Salmond pulling Miliband's strings than Clegg.
Gov't by Lib Dems is boring as ****.
I appreciate 99% of the population prefers boring over chaos.
This is bad for the Liberal Democrats. The National Union of Students has launched a poster campaign labelling the party "liars" for breaking their tuition fees pledge following the last election. President Toni Pearce said:
Quote It’s payback time. I’d like to say directly to Nick Clegg that your apology won’t cover any of the £40,000 debt that students will graduate with for the first time this summer.
They pledged to scrap tuition fees – they lied. We won’t let them trade lies for power again. We represent seven million students and are urging every single one across the country to vote against broken pledges.
The NUS should do a massive voter registration drive if it wants to have an impact.
Interesting chat just now at lunch. Some people shyly in favour of some UKIP policy directions at least, and a general murmur of agreement that the EU is on balance bad for us.
But none are going to vote UKIP. Nobody wants to be associated with what are perceived as a bunch of loons with 1950s attitudes to race and sexuality etc.
Farage et al have set back the cause of the UK possibly leaving Europe by associating reasonable doubts about Juncker et al and their aims with "fruitcakes" etc.
Yes, I think that's my take from canvassing too. There are a lot of people out there who think UKIP's policy offering is better than the other parties, but the image of the party holds them back. Of course, the Conservatives and Labour have worked very hard to perpetuate this negative image, but I worry it's a very short term strategy. What happens as some of the UK old timers get phased out and younger people come in? We can not keep them out on image alone for the long term.
I want to see another Ashcroft for R&S and Clacton.
Is there any need? The consensus here seems to be that the Conservatives are strolling to victory in each seat.
That's not the consensus at all. The consensus is that the Tories may now be favourites in R&S (it having been 50-50 before). Everyone expects Douglas to retain Clacton, but a few people may be wondering whether 7/1 isn't actually that bad on the Tories.
The point is only 13% (or so) is being converted from heat to electricity.
The rest - 87% - is being absorbed far more efficiently than that same amount of energy shining down on a whitish surface.
So does 100% of sunshine shining on a whiter surface (but thus not being absorbed by the earth as much) PLUS the warming effect of the CO2 generated by not having the solar panel warm up the earth more or less than having 87% of sunshine absorbed to a much greater extent PLUS the associated emissions involved in making and installing the panels in the first place.
Not simple which was why I asked if anyone knew more about it than me. I am not an expert, but nor do I think that wind farms make us run out of wind...
Isnt Nick inviting the obvious response? That we'd rather anyone over him?
What an arrogant bloke Clegg is. It's making some assumption that following heavy losses at the election the LibDems would want him as leader anyway!
When would Cable/Farron make a move for the leadership?
Wednesday 6th May, on past form
Cable in particular simply looks evil. If the Russians had conquered Britain and installed a puppet government it would have been made up of people like Cable, Scargill and Benn. They are the kind of people you'd expect to be quislings.
Aren't Kipper's pledges based on spending money we won't give to the EU? What if we vote to stay in?
I think it's terrible politics to boo the press. And asking why the only black face is on the Int Aid page is a perfectly reasonable question for a party with baggage.
Brilliant Manifesto launch by UKIP this morning. Hoping it will make a big impact, though the MSM are already attacking it as too detailed.
I ask you, the present political class and their hacks cannot make enough attacks and smears, so they will be forced to increase the the lies and smears, till even the most naive will see them for what they are: complete frauds.
UKIP are part of the "present political class".
Time and time again manifestos and politicians' promises are slagged off as being undetailed and vacuous. UKIP's manifesto - love it or hate it - is thorough and policy rich, and is being attacked for being too detailed...
Rather that discuss the details, the MSM would rather try to infer a non-existent split in UKIP ("where's Reckless?" Err, maybe campaigning in Rochester?) and ask vacuous, embarrassing questions about why there is "only one black face" in the manifesto.
I don't think that anyone who tots up the number of people of each ethnic minority are in a manifesto would ever consider voting UKIP anyway. Of all the things to get offended about...
This is bad for the Liberal Democrats. The National Union of Students has launched a poster campaign labelling the party "liars" for breaking their tuition fees pledge following the last election. President Toni Pearce said:
Quote It’s payback time. I’d like to say directly to Nick Clegg that your apology won’t cover any of the £40,000 debt that students will graduate with for the first time this summer.
They pledged to scrap tuition fees – they lied. We won’t let them trade lies for power again. We represent seven million students and are urging every single one across the country to vote against broken pledges.
Will the NUS be doing a poster campaign against their former President who, while in office bullied and forced through a policy whereby the NUS dropped all opposition to tuition fees despite never voting for this policy at it's conference?
That former President is currently standing for re-election in East Renfrewshire. Surely the NUS should be all over that constituency.
Interesting chat just now at lunch. Some people shyly in favour of some UKIP policy directions at least, and a general murmur of agreement that the EU is on balance bad for us.
But none are going to vote UKIP. Nobody wants to be associated with what are perceived as a bunch of loons with 1950s attitudes to race and sexuality etc.
Farage et al have set back the cause of the UK possibly leaving Europe by associating reasonable doubts about Juncker et al and their aims with "fruitcakes" etc.
Yup, in my experience the big stigma around UKIP isn't really that they're racist. It's that they're seen as weird and old fogey-ish.
Rochester to Thurrock is less than half an hour by car, Clacton just over an hour. It's hard to believe that neither UKIP MP could spare a few hours to attend their manifesto launch.
Are things so desperate in their respective constituencies?
After Farage issued his desperate "all hands" call to activists from other constituencies to come to Thanet and lend days to his campaign, I doubt Messers Carswell and Reckless will be providing much, if any support for the broader UKIP campaign.
Thanet in the early hours of Friday 8th May is going to be like Chesterfield in 1983.
"Once the UK leaves the EU, we, as a country, regain our ability to take back our vacant seat at the WTO and represent ourselves, negotiating our own trade agreements and advancing our own national trade interests. A first step would be to broker a bespoke UK-EU trade agreement, which we believe is desirable. This is what we will seek and without doubt achieve, possibly within a very short period of time.
The UK has been a leader in international trade for centuries, long before the European Union. We will continue to trade internationally after Brexit, enjoying the rights inherent in the WTO’s ‘Most Favoured Nation’ principle.
We will regain full autonomy at the World Customs Organisation, the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe, and several of the UN’s constituent bodies - all of which have seen a steady erosion of our voting powers, as the EU has assumed primacy. With over 100 other international organisations counting the UK as a full member, we will be in a very strong negotiating position when we leave the EU.
Suggestions that the EU would refuse to negotiate a trade deal with Britain if we left the Union are nothing more than scaremongering. Britain is the Eurozone’s biggest export market worldwide, the Eurozone’s biggest supplier worldwide, and the country with which the Eurozone has the biggest trade surplus worldwide. The truth is, the EU cannot afford to snub us: the EU actually needs us far more than we need the EU.
It is time to free Britain from the shackles of the EU. We have a choice between a dying Europe and a vibrant, growing world; a choice between staying buried in the bureaucratic nightmare of Brussels, and resuming our proper place in the rest of the world. The common sense answer is to leave."
Good theory but to export you need to be price and technology competitive and in too many areas we are not.
What effective power would the UK have on its own in WTO negotiations. Would it at best make any difference? No it would not. How would we negotiate anything different from being in the EU with Canada or the USA? We would not. How would the UK trade with the EU - through the EEA. Again no difference from now. There is an argument for being just in the EEA but to pretend that it would make any difference to free movement of Labour is just a lie. What we can do whilst in is negotiate to change the existing rules. What we can do under a tory govt is have a referendum afterwards.
Wrong in every instance. That is some going Flightpath even for you.
Not really Richard, par for the course I would say.
Aren't Kipper's pledges based on spending money we won't give to the EU? What if we vote to stay in?
I think it's terrible politics to boo the press. And asking why the only black face is on the Int Aid page is a perfectly reasonable question for a party with baggage.
Brilliant Manifesto launch by UKIP this morning. Hoping it will make a big impact, though the MSM are already attacking it as too detailed.
I ask you, the present political class and their hacks cannot make enough attacks and smears, so they will be forced to increase the the lies and smears, till even the most naive will see them for what they are: complete frauds.
UKIP are part of the "present political class".
Time and time again manifestos and politicians' promises are slagged off as being undetailed and vacuous. UKIP's manifesto - love it or hate it - is thorough and policy rich, and is being attacked for being too detailed...
Rather that discuss the details, the MSM would rather try to infer a non-existent split in UKIP ("where's Reckless?" Err, maybe campaigning in Rochester?) and ask vacuous, embarrassing questions about why there is "only one black face" in the manifesto.
I didn't realise we lived in a country in which it was law to include token 'minority' faces in every publicity shoot. Is that a new one? By not doing so, are you implicitly racist?
The level of debate in this country is infantile in the extreme. Infantile.
It makes you wonder how Britain traded with anybody prior to joining the EU?
History says that in the post war period, basically, Britain didn't trade successfully with anyone.
It's trade deficit was enormous, no-one wanted to buy it's output and it was crippled economically for most of the period till subsidies from Scottish Oil bailed out the entire UK economy.
Are these people really acting surprised that MPs running for re-election in an election campaign would be too busy to stand in as room meat at somebody else's PR event?
It would be only an hour or so from eithers constituency, for one of the most high profile of UKIP's events. Unless you think it was just a PR stunt for Farage to hold the limelight.
There couldn't be a better venue to hold a launch event than a Thurrock hotel, slap bang on the route from one constituency to the other.
Offended? Nope, curious choice of imagery for a party that has baggage and has needlessly created a story - and then magnified it by booing the journo.
What possible good can come from that? None. It's handed everyone who wanted to beat Kippers with a stick - a stick. And pissed off the press pack. Whilst the Kippers feel unfairly treated by the MSM, booing them isn't going to make that any better.
Aren't Kipper's pledges based on spending money we won't give to the EU? What if we vote to stay in?
I think it's terrible politics to boo the press. And asking why the only black face is on the Int Aid page is a perfectly reasonable question for a party with baggage.
Brilliant Manifesto launch by UKIP this morning. Hoping it will make a big impact, though the MSM are already attacking it as too detailed.
I ask you, the present political class and their hacks cannot make enough attacks and smears, so they will be forced to increase the the lies and smears, till even the most naive will see them for what they are: complete frauds.
UKIP are part of the "present political class".
Time and time again manifestos and politicians' promises are slagged off as being undetailed and vacuous. UKIP's manifesto - love it or hate it - is thorough and policy rich, and is being attacked for being too detailed...
Rather that discuss the details, the MSM would rather try to infer a non-existent split in UKIP ("where's Reckless?" Err, maybe campaigning in Rochester?) and ask vacuous, embarrassing questions about why there is "only one black face" in the manifesto.
I don't think that anyone who tots up the number of people of each ethnic minority are in a manifesto would ever consider voting UKIP anyway. Of all the things to get offended about...
I'll be going through each of the parties in turn this week for the final run-up to the election.
Thanks Antifrank - very useful.
I've bet on South Swindon Lab win at 6/4 with Ladbrokes. Ashcroft shows a tie. My model shows a 2% Lab lead.
I've also bet on Halesowen Lab win at evens with Ladbrokes. Ashcroft shows a 2% Lab lead. My model shows a 4% Lab lead.
Ashfield is indeed a slam-dunk for Labour in the current circumstances (it probably was before).
BTW, Anna and I are likely to be on the ITV East Mids 6 o'clock news tonight - they're doing Broxtowe as their day's key seat coverage.
Look, Nick (4/9) is spending a few hours out of his very busy marginal campaign to talk to us on here! Carswell (1/9), by contrast, must be absolutely snowed under in Clacton...
Interesting chat just now at lunch. Some people shyly in favour of some UKIP policy directions at least, and a general murmur of agreement that the EU is on balance bad for us.
But none are going to vote UKIP. Nobody wants to be associated with what are perceived as a bunch of loons with 1950s attitudes to race and sexuality etc.
Farage et al have set back the cause of the UK possibly leaving Europe by associating reasonable doubts about Juncker et al and their aims with "fruitcakes" etc.
Yup, in my experience the big stigma around UKIP isn't really that they're racist. It's that they're seen as weird and old fogey-ish.
Cue berserk rage from the usual PB suspects, as the blazingly obvious problems with their party - "a bunch of loons with 1950s attitudes to race and sexuality", "weird and old fogey-ish" - are accurately identified.
UKIP without 1950s attitudes to race and sexuality would be like spaghetti bolognese without pasta. I genuinely cannot see how UKIP could get rid of these attitudes and have anything left. It would be like making tea without tea leaves. Can anyone else?
If solar continues to get cheaper at a rate of 5-7% per year, then the possibility of large scale African solar becomes real.
But...if solar really gets cheap (think giant of rolls of PV sheet you can just buy at B&Q and plug in to a standard unit in your junction box - plus a battery) then Africa becomes alot less necessary too.
I think the transformative technologies in energy are going to be: 1. Batteries. Alot of progress in getting closer to being able to store renewable generation and removing the problem of its intermittency. Greatly improved storage. Greatly improved recharge times. At scale - not just mobile phones! 2. Super cheap, easy and effective PV. Nearly every inch of roof space in the world is covered and feeds the batteries. Maybe road surfaces. It's everywhere. It's happening now - we're experiencing a sort of Moore's Law of PV cost effectiveness already. 3. Electric cars. This depends alot on 1 above, and 2 to some extent. But when we're there then truly capable and very quickly rechargeable cars will destroy the internal combustion engine business model. 4. Smart and local grids / generation. Your house has a battery that covers all your needs for days without needing a recharge. PV sheets on the roof (see 2 above) can pretty much top it up most of the time. The car in your garage acts as a sort of back-up. Buildings, houses, streets can connect to each other smartly and provide collective back-up. 5. Heat pumps. Almost every property in the UK could meet its hot water and heating needs with a heat pump. Expensive to install but no gas bills thereafter. 5 and 3 together can destroy the fossil fuel business model. 6. Small scale and non-pressurised water nuclear power. Could take alot of the cost and risk out of powergen. Fusion would be the Holy Grail and solve mankind's energy worries for millenia - but the way we do fission is pretty screwed up now and could be ALOT more cost effective, safer and lower risk.
It won't happen overnight but I believe we are the beginning of a journey towards a world of smart and cheap electricity that displaces a big chunk of fossil fuel energy.
I want to see another Ashcroft for R&S and Clacton.
Is there any need? The consensus here seems to be that the Conservatives are strolling to victory in each seat.
As it was before both by elections
The consensus on here will not tolerate anyone advising the Tories might not win., or are a bad value bet.
Richard Nabavi, a good guy that I have met and like, and I think, unusually for Tories on this site (Tissue price & Casino Royale excepted), knows his stuff betting wise, wrote a lengthy analysis on why the Tories would win Rochester by election, with the conclusion that they would win by between 3-10% I think. The praise lavished on him for this analysis was fulsome... he had said what they wanted to hear
I disagreed, said Reckless would win easily, and was ridiculed
Reckless won easily. People talked about something else
This is bad for the Liberal Democrats. The National Union of Students has launched a poster campaign labelling the party "liars" for breaking their tuition fees pledge following the last election. President Toni Pearce said:
Quote It’s payback time. I’d like to say directly to Nick Clegg that your apology won’t cover any of the £40,000 debt that students will graduate with for the first time this summer.
They pledged to scrap tuition fees – they lied. We won’t let them trade lies for power again. We represent seven million students and are urging every single one across the country to vote against broken pledges.
Will the NUS be doing a poster campaign against their former President who, while in office bullied and forced through a policy whereby the NUS dropped all opposition to tuition fees despite never voting for this policy at it's conference?
That former President is currently standing for re-election in East Renfrewshire. Surely the NUS should be all over that constituency.
Offended? Nope, curious choice of imagery for a party that has baggage and has needlessly created a story - and then magnified it by booing the journo.
What possible good can come from that? None. It's handed everyone who wanted to beat Kippers with a stick - a stick. And pissed off the press pack. Whilst the Kippers feel unfairly treated by the MSM, booing them isn't going to make that any better.
Aren't Kipper's pledges based on spending money we won't give to the EU? What if we vote to stay in?
I think it's terrible politics to boo the press. And asking why the only black face is on the Int Aid page is a perfectly reasonable question for a party with baggage.
Brilliant Manifesto launch by UKIP this morning. Hoping it will make a big impact, though the MSM are already attacking it as too detailed.
I ask you, the present political class and their hacks cannot make enough attacks and smears, so they will be forced to increase the the lies and smears, till even the most naive will see them for what they are: complete frauds.
UKIP are part of the "present political class".
Time and time again manifestos and politicians' promises are slagged off as being undetailed and vacuous. UKIP's manifesto - love it or hate it - is thorough and policy rich, and is being attacked for being too detailed...
Rather that discuss the details, the MSM would rather try to infer a non-existent split in UKIP ("where's Reckless?" Err, maybe campaigning in Rochester?) and ask vacuous, embarrassing questions about why there is "only one black face" in the manifesto.
I don't think that anyone who tots up the number of people of each ethnic minority are in a manifesto would ever consider voting UKIP anyway. Of all the things to get offended about...
Poor old journos, bless 'em. Someone give Hope some Vicks vaporub and a big German nurse.
Ask infantile questions in an attempt to slur, expect a bit of a go back.
More importantly I've read the smoke signals from Miliband and Clegg that they may be able to tolerate each other.
Like Velma and Roxie, they stop feuding with each other when they both realise that there's more advantage in putting on a show together.
Didn't the Lib Dems demand Brown's resignation as part of any Lib/Lab deal?
No.
Brown resigned to enable the negotiations. Also the drama on Channel 4 about the events seems to suggest that's hat happened.
Don't confuse a drama with reality even if the reality was a drama.
Brown did not resign to accommodate the negotiations as they were dead in the water and that led him to resign.
Well the Maths made the negotiations pretty pointless, I'd agree on that. But from my understanding Brown had lost sight of that and was doing everything he could to keep the Tories out. What other reason would he have announced his resignation for?
It's important to recall the dynamics of those days.
Both the Conservatives and the LibDems were well prepared for the negotiations and they took place in a hard nosed but cordial and respectful fashion. The personal chemistry also seem to work.
In contrast the mood music within much of the PLP was hostile. Mandy was doing his level best to smooth LibDem ruffled feathers.
Within that context and the dawning reality of the numbers game against him Brown made the correct decision to resign and leave Cameron to take up the baton and run with it.
David Laws' book 22 days in May says that Brown's continued leadership and the timetable for that was an issue prior to negotiations breaking down and Brown resigning. Because the country had rejected him and there was a need for the next government to be seen as new.
It read pretty convincingly and credibly to me.
Clearly the Brown leadership was an issue but the critical factors that undermined the Labour case were the poor numbers and the hostile attitude of too many Labour figures and their cack handed approach to the talks.
If the numbers had been better, probably another 25 seats or so and a more consensual approach achieved then the Brown leadership wouldn't have been nearly so troublesome. The prospect of power has an almighty healing quality with any seemingly insurmountable difficulties.
She's a tit. Her article about Miliband's kitchens summed up everything that's wrong for me about Lynton Crosby's campaign/The Daily Fail.
I can't stand that sort of crap.
No? but you are content to throw even more scurrilous smears and rubbish at Farage and UKIP.
What UKIP smears ?!
Yours and Labour smears on UKIP.
Er, Mike, last I remember Pulpstar was actively thinking of voting kipper. I'm sure you've now convinced him.....got to admire your canvassing technique
UKIP's decision to cut money for scotland is interesting.
Taking the UK out of UKIP?
Scotland is one of the wealthiest parts of the UK. It is only reasonable that some of the money gets taken from the Barnett block grant and provided to more struggling areas, like Wales, the North East and Cornwall. I have to say UKIP's manifesto looks like a hard one to argue against: the NATO defence target, a well-funded NHS, controlled immigration. Is immigration even in the Conservative manifesto?
Full fiscal Autonomy with the risks and rewards of North Sea oil balanced against the 'challenges' of the West of Scotland/Glasgow would be the best thing ever for Scotland and the UK and to my mind is one thing that could save the Union.
Sharing the fiscal burden is part of being one country. If you happen to be a richer part of the country, you help out the poorer parts. If Scotland gets fiscal autonomy, it's only a matter of time before London gets it too, and so on down the line. The end result is that the areas facing economic troubles just get worse and worse and end up like Detroit.
The Westminster government has guaranteed the level of Spending in Scotland.
Removal of that, cutting it by a single penny (beyond the Barnett consequentials of Westminster cuts to English budgets) will result in an immediate Referendum and a Yes landslide.
Scotland is not part of a country. It is a country in its own right, in political union with another country (England and Wales).
No, it wouldn't - you missed your once in a generation/lifetime chance. There are no constitutional obligations to maintain the current far too high level of spending in the Northern regions of GB. It would, however, result in some hilarious posts on PB and a even more provincial whinging on the 10pm news.
Once SNP control all the Westminster seats they are neutralised as a threat - it may be the most counter productive definition of electoral success ever seen...
It makes you wonder how Britain traded with anybody prior to joining the EU?
History says that in the post war period, basically, Britain didn't trade successfully with anyone.
It's trade deficit was enormous, no-one wanted to buy it's output and it was crippled economically for most of the period till subsidies from Scottish Oil bailed out the entire UK economy.
I want to see another Ashcroft for R&S and Clacton.
Is there any need? The consensus here seems to be that the Conservatives are strolling to victory in each seat.
As it was before both by elections
The consensus on here will not tolerate anyone advising the Tories might not win., or are a bad value bet.
Richard Nabavi, a good guy that I have met and like, and I think, unusually for Tories on this site (Tissue price & Casino Royale excepted), knows his stuff betting wise, wrote a lengthy analysis on why the Tories would win Rochester by election, with the conclusion that they would win by between 3-10% I think. The praise lavished on him for this analysis was fulsome... he had said what they wanted to hear
I disagreed, said Reckless would win easily, and was ridiculed
Reckless won easily. People talked about something else
I was about one and half points too optimistic (on the Tory side) on the Reckless winning margin.
I was a helluva lot closer than most of the Kippers.
My take on the Kipper vote at the General? Nine point something. At that level, Reckless loses. As do all but Carswell.
One Kipper MP was my pb.com GE projection. Seeing nothing to cause me to change that assessment.
This is bad for the Liberal Democrats. The National Union of Students has launched a poster campaign labelling the party "liars" for breaking their tuition fees pledge following the last election. President Toni Pearce said:
Quote It’s payback time. I’d like to say directly to Nick Clegg that your apology won’t cover any of the £40,000 debt that students will graduate with for the first time this summer.
They pledged to scrap tuition fees – they lied. We won’t let them trade lies for power again. We represent seven million students and are urging every single one across the country to vote against broken pledges.
Comments
I'd rather see Salmond pulling Miliband's strings than Clegg.
Gov't by Lib Dems is boring as ****.
I appreciate 99% of the population prefers boring over chaos.
The leader of the party and the people who wrote it were there presenting it. What would Carswell and Reckless have done? Served the drinks?
EDIT Having two ex Conservatives as the focal point would have probably made UKIP look like Tories on holiday as well maybe to the Red Kippers
Regardless of the semantics of the argument, however, I can guarantee you it would lead to a substantial Yes landslide within months of implementation.
No it would not.
How would we negotiate anything different from being in the EU with Canada or the USA? We would not.
How would the UK trade with the EU - through the EEA. Again no difference from now.
There is an argument for being just in the EEA but to pretend that it would make any difference to free movement of Labour is just a lie.
What we can do whilst in is negotiate to change the existing rules.
What we can do under a tory govt is have a referendum afterwards.
Put black panels in the desert and much less heat gets reflected back to space basically.
Anyone have any facts to back up or contradict me!? Highly possible I am talking rubbish :-)
Gov't by Lib Dems is boring as ****.
I appreciate 99% of the population prefers boring over chaos.
Chaos is a ladder.
Or perhaps they'd better hope they don't
Both the Conservatives and the LibDems were well prepared for the negotiations and they took place in a hard nosed but cordial and respectful fashion. The personal chemistry also seem to work.
In contrast the mood music within much of the PLP was hostile. Mandy was doing his level best to smooth LibDem ruffled feathers but he was undermined by some senior Labour figures including Balls who looked upon the LibDems as some troublesome add on to the Labour party who were to be tolerated at best. Labour were also completely unprepared for the talks and seem to be undertaking an ad hoc, back of the fag packet approach.
Within that context and the dawning reality of the numbers game against him Brown made the correct decision to resign and leave Cameron to take up the baton and run with it.
Are things so desperate in their respective constituencies?
When would Cable/Farron make a move for the leadership?
" No SNP activity visible on my ground game app up in the far north of Scotland, tonnes around the west of Glasgow. "
Paul Monaghan the SNP candidate was at a meeting in our village last night,
very impressive.
He is covering lots of small places in this huge constituency. Lord Thurso will not do hustings.
But none are going to vote UKIP. Nobody wants to be associated with what are perceived as a bunch of loons with 1950s attitudes to race and sexuality etc.
Farage et al have set back the cause of the UK possibly leaving Europe by associating reasonable doubts about Juncker et al and their aims with "fruitcakes" etc.
Rather that discuss the details, the MSM would rather try to infer a non-existent split in UKIP ("where's Reckless?" Err, maybe campaigning in Rochester?) and ask vacuous, embarrassing questions about why there is "only one black face" in the manifesto.
It read pretty convincingly and credibly to me.
I think it's terrible politics to boo the press. And asking why the only black face is on the Int Aid page is a perfectly reasonable question for a party with baggage.
Whomever chose the images dropped the ball here.
Rhythm is a dancer.
Starting yesterday.
The point is only 13% (or so) is being converted from heat to electricity.
The rest - 87% - is being absorbed far more efficiently than that same amount of energy shining down on a whitish surface.
So does 100% of sunshine shining on a whiter surface (but thus not being absorbed by the earth as much) PLUS the warming effect of the CO2 generated by not having the solar panel warm up the earth more or less than having 87% of sunshine absorbed to a much greater extent PLUS the associated emissions involved in making and installing the panels in the first place.
Not simple which was why I asked if anyone knew more about it than me. I am not an expert, but nor do I think that wind farms make us run out of wind...
What party leader is going to say, three week before a general election, I'm going to lose badly and then be replaced !!
That former President is currently standing for re-election in East Renfrewshire. Surely the NUS should be all over that constituency.
"Did you stay up for Farage?"
Tee hee.
BTW, Anna and I are likely to be on the ITV East Mids 6 o'clock news tonight - they're doing Broxtowe as their day's key seat coverage.
The level of debate in this country is infantile in the extreme. Infantile.
It's trade deficit was enormous, no-one wanted to buy it's output and it was crippled economically for most of the period till subsidies from Scottish Oil bailed out the entire UK economy.
What possible good can come from that? None. It's handed everyone who wanted to beat Kippers with a stick - a stick. And pissed off the press pack. Whilst the Kippers feel unfairly treated by the MSM, booing them isn't going to make that any better.
UKIP without 1950s attitudes to race and sexuality would be like spaghetti bolognese without pasta. I genuinely cannot see how UKIP could get rid of these attitudes and have anything left. It would be like making tea without tea leaves. Can anyone else?
But...if solar really gets cheap (think giant of rolls of PV sheet you can just buy at B&Q and plug in to a standard unit in your junction box - plus a battery) then Africa becomes alot less necessary too.
I think the transformative technologies in energy are going to be:
1. Batteries. Alot of progress in getting closer to being able to store renewable generation and removing the problem of its intermittency. Greatly improved storage. Greatly improved recharge times. At scale - not just mobile phones!
2. Super cheap, easy and effective PV. Nearly every inch of roof space in the world is covered and feeds the batteries. Maybe road surfaces. It's everywhere. It's happening now - we're experiencing a sort of Moore's Law of PV cost effectiveness already.
3. Electric cars. This depends alot on 1 above, and 2 to some extent. But when we're there then truly capable and very quickly rechargeable cars will destroy the internal combustion engine business model.
4. Smart and local grids / generation. Your house has a battery that covers all your needs for days without needing a recharge. PV sheets on the roof (see 2 above) can pretty much top it up most of the time. The car in your garage acts as a sort of back-up. Buildings, houses, streets can connect to each other smartly and provide collective back-up.
5. Heat pumps. Almost every property in the UK could meet its hot water and heating needs with a heat pump. Expensive to install but no gas bills thereafter. 5 and 3 together can destroy the fossil fuel business model.
6. Small scale and non-pressurised water nuclear power. Could take alot of the cost and risk out of powergen. Fusion would be the Holy Grail and solve mankind's energy worries for millenia - but the way we do fission is pretty screwed up now and could be ALOT more cost effective, safer and lower risk.
It won't happen overnight but I believe we are the beginning of a journey towards a world of smart and cheap electricity that displaces a big chunk of fossil fuel energy.
The consensus on here will not tolerate anyone advising the Tories might not win., or are a bad value bet.
Richard Nabavi, a good guy that I have met and like, and I think, unusually for Tories on this site (Tissue price & Casino Royale excepted), knows his stuff betting wise, wrote a lengthy analysis on why the Tories would win Rochester by election, with the conclusion that they would win by between 3-10% I think. The praise lavished on him for this analysis was fulsome... he had said what they wanted to hear
I disagreed, said Reckless would win easily, and was ridiculed
Reckless won easily. People talked about something else
Will anything the NUS say impact the LD vote? Will the NUS be doing a poster campaign against their former President who, while in office bullied and forced through a policy whereby the NUS dropped all opposition to tuition fees despite never voting for this policy at it's conference?
That former President is currently standing for re-election in East Renfrewshire. Surely the NUS should be all over that constituency.
Ask infantile questions in an attempt to slur, expect a bit of a go back.
And I write that as a journalist.
If the numbers had been better, probably another 25 seats or so and a more consensual approach achieved then the Brown leadership wouldn't have been nearly so troublesome. The prospect of power has an almighty healing quality with any seemingly insurmountable difficulties.
Once SNP control all the Westminster seats they are neutralised as a threat - it may be the most counter productive definition of electoral success ever seen...
I was a helluva lot closer than most of the Kippers.
My take on the Kipper vote at the General? Nine point something. At that level, Reckless loses. As do all but Carswell.
One Kipper MP was my pb.com GE projection. Seeing nothing to cause me to change that assessment.