I've spent a lot of time in Edinburgh, but I've never seen snow in the city centre. Plenty of ice, but never snow. Perhaps I've just been lucky, but an ex spent the entire winter of 1999 there and claims she never saw any either.
Is there some sort of coastal microclimate that makes it less likely?
Scotland is an eternal battle between the Arctic winds of the North Sea sweeping in over Edinburgh meeting the tropical warmth of the Gulf Stream that sweeps in over Glasgow.
Basically the east coast of Edinburgh is dry, it's the gulf stream that brings the moisture. Glasgow has almost twice the number of rain days than Edinburgh.
I pure love the Gulf Stream - if you don't love the gulf stream then take a peek at cities at a similar latitude to Glasgow or Manchester and look at what their temperature profiles look like and then you'll love the Gulf Stream too.
I remember my geography teacher in school saying that the warmest place in Britain in winter was the northwest coast of Scotland, thanks to the Gulf Stream. I would have guessed the Scilly Isles, but there we are. He also went on about warm wet winter westerlies - wind.
It's also bollocks. Warmest place in winter in UK (excluding the Channel Isles) would be a protected, riverside village in southern Cornwall or, as you say, the Scillies.
Somewhere like Flushing or Mylor would be a good bet, as they get less wind than the Scillies.
Gardener's Question Time were in Dartmouth recently and identified it as being particularly favoured for mild winters.
There's the famous satellite picture of the UK blanketed in snow in December 2010 which has one green spot - Weymouth, saved by the Fohn effect.
That southwest coast of Devon is exquisite. I went to Salcombe for the first time a few weeks ago. The sun shone, the seafood was great, it was like a friendlier version of the nicest part of Britttany.
My grandmother owned a three bedroom cottage overlooking Salcombe Estuary, where we had some wonderful holidays. She sold it in 1980 for £39,000. Its value now, particularly after the demolition of a gasometer which partly spoiled the view? About £2m.
The Coast Road from Salcombe to Dartmouth must be one of the most beautiful in the world.
One of my cousins lives on the hill above Dawlish - incomparable views
A substantial renegotiation by 2017 is impossible, so any purported renegotiation would be an exercise in dishonesty, not a genuine means of informing public opinion.
By the same reasoning so would any claims by the Out camp as to what we would negotiate if we left the EU (a negotiation which wouldn't even have started).
Life is full of uncertainties. Get used to it.
False equivalence. Why am I not surprised?
Cameron is claiming he will have a settled renegotiation by 2017. This is an outright lie. No Outer is making a claim that everything would be settled in our favour until - or even after - we had left.
Cameron is the one who has set an unachievable deadline. Anyone supporting that deadline is either stupid or dishonest.
" he will have a settled renegotiation by 2017" - why not? If the EU says no more concessions by then, we say negotiations finished/settled, now let us vote.
That is not a renegotiation. That is 'no negotiation'. Cameron is claiming he will have a settled renegotiation. Your playing with words doesn't change the basic idiocy of that claim.
The new Scottish Labour PEB is actually quite decent, it's almost certainly too late and won't have an effect but if it had been their campaign they might not be doing so badly.
The nonsense about the EU down thread once again shows the basic cowardice of the euro sceptics. They don't want people to have the choice because they fear Cameron will talk a majority into staying. They are right that this is something to fear.
If the UK has a referendum we don't need a treaty. What we need is a heads of agreement and that is quite doable. We need:
Protection from the EZ using QMV to override our interests.
The right to deny EU citizens the right to our benefits until they have paid into the pot.
Continuing limits on our membership fee.
If they are not willing to agree these matters we leave and take our chances in the big bad world. But I don't see these are insuperable hurdles unless the others see us as more trouble than we are worth. Given the size of our markets and our contributions I don't see that either.
What the Tories are promising is an end to that new Labour nonsense of being at the heart of Europe. We are not and we don't want to be. A part of the EU but not run by the EU. I for one will vote for out if we don't get this. But we will.
Another idiotic post from someone who doesn't understand the EU.
The nonsense about the EU down thread once again shows the basic cowardice of the euro sceptics. They don't want people to have the choice because they fear Cameron will talk a majority into staying. They are right that this is something to fear.
If the UK has a referendum we don't need a treaty. What we need is a heads of agreement and that is quite doable. We need:
Protection from the EZ using QMV to override our interests.
The right to deny EU citizens the right to our benefits until they have paid into the pot.
Continuing limits on our membership fee.
If they are not willing to agree these matters we leave and take our chances in the big bad world. But I don't see these are insuperable hurdles unless the others see us as more trouble than we are worth. Given the size of our markets and our contributions I don't see that either.
What the Tories are promising is an end to that new Labour nonsense of being at the heart of Europe. We are not and we don't want to be. A part of the EU but not run by the EU. I for one will vote for out if we don't get this. But we will.
Another idiotic post from someone who doesn't understand the EU.
A substantial renegotiation by 2017 is impossible, so any purported renegotiation would be an exercise in dishonesty, not a genuine means of informing public opinion.
By the same reasoning so would any claims by the Out camp as to what we would negotiate if we left the EU (a negotiation which wouldn't even have started).
Life is full of uncertainties. Get used to it.
False equivalence. Why am I not surprised?
Cameron is claiming he will have a settled renegotiation by 2017. This is an outright lie. No Outer is making a claim that everything would be settled in our favour until - or even after - we had left.
Cameron is the one who has set an unachievable deadline. Anyone supporting that deadline is either stupid or dishonest.
Our relationship with the rest of the EU is constantly evolving. An in/out vote at any point in time will never allow for discussing these nuances.
Which is why we have government by Westminster rather than endless referenda.
It is evolving in one direction - towards ever closer union.
And what you appear to be suggesting is that we should not bother asking the electorate about whether or not they wish to leave the EU and should just do it so long as their is a Parliamentary majority in favour.
Now whilst I might like the result, I am afraid I can't support such a major decision being made without reference to the electorate. I am kind of surprised you could?
I would be happy for Parliament to decide. It is what they are elected to do.
The nonsense about the EU down thread once again shows the basic cowardice of the euro sceptics. They don't want people to have the choice because they fear Cameron will talk a majority into staying. They are right that this is something to fear.
If the UK has a referendum we don't need a treaty. What we need is a heads of agreement and that is quite doable. We need:
Protection from the EZ using QMV to override our interests.
The right to deny EU citizens the right to our benefits until they have paid into the pot.
Continuing limits on our membership fee.
If they are not willing to agree these matters we leave and take our chances in the big bad world. But I don't see these are insuperable hurdles unless the others see us as more trouble than we are worth. Given the size of our markets and our contributions I don't see that either.
What the Tories are promising is an end to that new Labour nonsense of being at the heart of Europe. We are not and we don't want to be. A part of the EU but not run by the EU. I for one will vote for out if we don't get this. But we will.
Another idiotic post from someone who doesn't understand the EU.
How many exams in EU law have you passed Richard?
Your post made no reference to EU law at all. Straw man attack David which just highlights your ignorance.
Wind power NIMBYs are one of the few things that gets me genuinely angry. The utter stupidity from them goes beyond nonsense.
I'm open to hear a convincing case for wind turbines, on any basis, including one based on a firm conviction of AGW. I've not heard one yet.
At the most basic level, it's free power. The problem is the accounting convention where historic power generation was paid from the national accounts but is now being attributed to electricity bills giving an unfair impression of "green taxes".
Wind is cheaper, cleaner and has a better long term future.
It's not implemented property. For example, if every Lamp Post in the UK had a 1 Watt wind turbine on it, then those alone would supply 20% of UK power requirements.
The nonsense about the EU down thread once again shows the basic cowardice of the euro sceptics. They don't want people to have the choice because they fear Cameron will talk a majority into staying. They are right that this is something to fear.
If the UK has a referendum we don't need a treaty. What we need is a heads of agreement and that is quite doable. We need:
Protection from the EZ using QMV to override our interests.
The right to deny EU citizens the right to our benefits until they have paid into the pot.
Continuing limits on our membership fee.
There is no cowardice in pointing out that Cameron's proposed renegotiation is based on a set of dishonest premises. If this is all you want renegotiated, it must be assumed, for example, that you are comfortable with the assertion that it is your destiny that your fundamental status will be as an EU rather than national citizen, and that deprivation of British citizenship is now a question of European Union law (Grzelczyk v Centre Public [2002] 1 CMLR 19, at [31]; Rottmann v Freistaat Bayern [2010] QB 761). The cowardice of the Europhiles is that they are not prepared to argue for what EU membership in fact involves.
Milliband's proposals, insofar as anyone can make sense of them, would be execrable.
A few years Anthony Lester QC came up with some wording to cover the situation where someone wanted to shout racist insults at, say, Pakistanis, but used "Muslim" as a way of getting round the law. That would deal with a real mischief but do so in a way which did not prevent people criticising either the religion or those of that religion who did things which people wanted to comment on.
But a proposal to outlaw fear or to, in effect, prevent any sort of criticism or critique of Islam or Muslims in general other than on their terms is so wrong, on every level, that one can only hope he has been misreported. If he hasn't been, then it needs to be fought and utterly defeated.
Wind power NIMBYs are one of the few things that gets me genuinely angry. The utter stupidity from them goes beyond nonsense.
I'm open to hear a convincing case for wind turbines, on any basis, including one based on a firm conviction of AGW. I've not heard one yet.
At the most basic level, it's free power. The problem is the accounting convention where historic power generation was paid from the national accounts but is now being attributed to electricity bills giving an unfair impression of "green taxes".
Wind is cheaper, cleaner and has a better long term future.
Of course it isn't free power. I am not actually opposed to wind power (and really like the offshore ones as they don't tend to spoil sensitive countryside) nor to solar power but the idea it is free is just daft.
The big problem with wind power is it is unreliable and as such is being deployed badly, being used to replace conventional power stations rather than supplement them.
Wind power NIMBYs are one of the few things that gets me genuinely angry. The utter stupidity from them goes beyond nonsense.
I'm open to hear a convincing case for wind turbines, on any basis, including one based on a firm conviction of AGW. I've not heard one yet.
At the most basic level, it's free power. The problem is the accounting convention where historic power generation was paid from the national accounts but is now being attributed to electricity bills giving an unfair impression of "green taxes".
Wind is cheaper, cleaner and has a better long term future.
It's not free though is it. There are the costs (including in carbon) of manufacture, building, maintenance, the conventional power needed to keep the thing ticking over when it's not windy. What Nigel Farage is saying in that awful badly researched article is that he would be prepared to tolerate the blight on the landscape if the things made economic sense, but they don't. That seems fair enough to me.
The nonsense about the EU down thread once again shows the basic cowardice of the euro sceptics. They don't want people to have the choice because they fear Cameron will talk a majority into staying. They are right that this is something to fear.
If the UK has a referendum we don't need a treaty. What we need is a heads of agreement and that is quite doable. We need:
Protection from the EZ using QMV to override our interests.
The right to deny EU citizens the right to our benefits until they have paid into the pot.
Continuing limits on our membership fee.
If they are not willing to agree these matters we leave and take our chances in the big bad world. But I don't see these are insuperable hurdles unless the others see us as more trouble than we are worth. Given the size of our markets and our contributions I don't see that either.
What the Tories are promising is an end to that new Labour nonsense of being at the heart of Europe. We are not and we don't want to be. A part of the EU but not run by the EU. I for one will vote for out if we don't get this. But we will.
Another idiotic post from someone who doesn't understand the EU.
How many exams in EU law have you passed Richard?
Your post made no reference to EU law at all. Straw man attack David which just highlights your ignorance.
You accused me of being an idiot and not knowing how the EU works. I know a lot more about EU law than you. I get paid for that knowledge.
The rest, I agree, is politics and everyone is entitled to their opinion. That is the basis of Conservative policy on the matter.
A substantial renegotiation by 2017 is impossible, so any purported renegotiation would be an exercise in dishonesty, not a genuine means of informing public opinion.
By the same reasoning so would any claims by the Out camp as to what we would negotiate if we left the EU (a negotiation which wouldn't even have started).
Life is full of uncertainties. Get used to it.
False equivalence. Why am I not surprised?
Cameron is claiming he will have a settled renegotiation by 2017. This is an outright lie. No Outer is making a claim that everything would be settled in our favour until - or even after - we had left.
Cameron is the one who has set an unachievable deadline. Anyone supporting that deadline is either stupid or dishonest.
Our relationship with the rest of the EU is constantly evolving. An in/out vote at any point in time will never allow for discussing these nuances.
Which is why we have government by Westminster rather than endless referenda.
It is evolving in one direction - towards ever closer union.
And what you appear to be suggesting is that we should not bother asking the electorate about whether or not they wish to leave the EU and should just do it so long as their is a Parliamentary majority in favour.
Now whilst I might like the result, I am afraid I can't support such a major decision being made without reference to the electorate. I am kind of surprised you could?
I would be happy for Parliament to decide. It is what they are elected to do.
There we differ. Even though I am sure there would at some point be a majority in favour of withdrawal in Parliament, I still don't believe it is right to claim that simply because a Eurosceptic majority exists in Parliament, that you can claim it was elected for that reason.
We elect MPs for a whole host of diverse reasons and as OGH and others are always desperate to point out EU membership is not the first thing on people's minds when they elect an MP.
So would you be happy with a Government that had been elected on its very strong economic and social record deciding that that gave it the right to withdraw us from the EU without further reference to the public even if it hadn't been one of its manifesto pledges?
Wind power NIMBYs are one of the few things that gets me genuinely angry. The utter stupidity from them goes beyond nonsense.
I'm open to hear a convincing case for wind turbines, on any basis, including one based on a firm conviction of AGW. I've not heard one yet.
At the most basic level, it's free power. The problem is the accounting convention where historic power generation was paid from the national accounts but is now being attributed to electricity bills giving an unfair impression of "green taxes".
Wind is cheaper, cleaner and has a better long term future.
It's not implemented property. For example, if every Lamp Post in the UK had a 1 Watt wind turbine on it, then those alone would supply 20% of UK power requirements.
I like wind turbines, I'm sure you mean 1 kilowatt, but even so I'm pretty sure your statement is cobblers. Small wind turbines are much less efficient than large ones and most lamp posts are in urban areas where the wind is of poor quality for wind turbines due to the effects of buildings.
They won by 7% on 2010. If Con is ahead on national vote share (even if only very slightly) then they would be ahead in Cannock on UNS.
Not quite as crazy as it seems, MikeL. This is a very atypical seat in terms of its ethnic/social makeup. It's dominated by the white lower-middle-class who are usually pretty aspirational but sometimes rely on benefits when times are tight. It's also got quite a lot of big firms that don't treat its employees too well (Amazon) and has some issues around housing - the majority of its social housing is 3 bed, so the bedroom tax hit it quite hard.
As a result of BRown's ineptitude and bungling with benefits, coupled with an effective candidate, it swung overly Conservative last time. Partly through reversion to the mean, partly through these workplace issues (which Ed Miliband has at least claimed to address) partly through the loss of said candidate and the selection of a local Labour candidate and partly because of benefit reforms, it has been heavily trending Labour again. The NHS reorganisation has also been blamed - however, my own view is that its impact has been at best negligible (in the sense that some voters are pleased that actually, Chase Hospital is being upgraded and run from Wolverhampton, and are about equal in number to those who are angry about the running down of Stafford).
Long term, this seat and particularly Cannock and Rugeley will probably become affluent Birmingham commuter country a la Tamworth, which will make it a fairly safe Conservative seat. But that's 15 years off yet, unless it suddenly dawns on people that you can buy an excellent four-bedroom house next to a railway line with a regular service to Birmingham with stunning views for around £200,000 compared to rather more than double that in Sutton Coldfield.
OK, fair enough - just feel that if Con can't hold Cannock (or at least be very, very close) then Cameron is no longer PM for 100% certain.
Given he still has over a 40% chance of remaining PM (per Betfair) I feel he should be fighting Cannock hard.
I wouldn't worry about Cannock too much. As stated, it's an atypical seat. The Tories overperformed there in 2010 (14% swing) so the majority is misleading, and the MP hasn't been very successful. It would characterise itself as a Labour town, and the Labour candidate is quite well-known. Still, I'm sure the local Tories are working flat out, and it's the kind of seat that might swing back in the last fortnight as the national mood changes in Cameron's favour.
This is a fantastic 80s song whose video probably wouldn't be allowed these days since it features a lot of 16 year-old girls doing suggestive moves. Malcolm McLaren with Double Dutch, produced by wizard Trevor Horn:
The nonsense about the EU down thread once again shows the basic cowardice of the euro sceptics. They don't want people to have the choice because they fear Cameron will talk a majority into staying. They are right that this is something to fear.
If the UK has a referendum we don't need a treaty. What we need is a heads of agreement and that is quite doable. We need:
Protection from the EZ using QMV to override our interests.
The right to deny EU citizens the right to our benefits until they have paid into the pot.
Continuing limits on our membership fee.
If they are not willing to agree these matters we leave and take our chances in the big bad world. But I don't see these are insuperable hurdles unless the others see us as more trouble than we are worth. Given the size of our markets and our contributions I don't see that either.
What the Tories are promising is an end to that new Labour nonsense of being at the heart of Europe. We are not and we don't want to be. A part of the EU but not run by the EU. I for one will vote for out if we don't get this. But we will.
Another idiotic post from someone who doesn't understand the EU.
How many exams in EU law have you passed Richard?
Your post made no reference to EU law at all. Straw man attack David which just highlights your ignorance.
You accused me of being an idiot and not knowing how the EU works. I know a lot more about EU law than you. I get paid for that knowledge.
The rest, I agree, is politics and everyone is entitled to their opinion. That is the basis of Conservative policy on the matter.
In that case I can only assume you were suffering a brain freeze when you made your claims about what the EU can and cannot do given that you seem to be unaware of the ability of the ECJ to use its judgements to circumvent negotiated opt outs.
Or do you just choose to ignore the cases that don't agree with your particular view?
It will indeed go down as Black Monday should YouGov show the Tories having, say, a 2% lead over Labour later tonight. Somehow however I don't see that happening and confidently expect Labour to be 1% - 2% ahead as boringly usual.
Wind power NIMBYs are one of the few things that gets me genuinely angry. The utter stupidity from them goes beyond nonsense.
I'm open to hear a convincing case for wind turbines, on any basis, including one based on a firm conviction of AGW. I've not heard one yet.
At the most basic level, it's free power. The problem is the accounting convention where historic power generation was paid from the national accounts but is now being attributed to electricity bills giving an unfair impression of "green taxes".
Wind is cheaper, cleaner and has a better long term future.
Of course it isn't free power. I am not actually opposed to wind power (and really like the offshore ones as they don't tend to spoil sensitive countryside) nor to solar power but the idea it is free is just daft.
The big problem with wind power is it is unreliable and as such is being deployed badly, being used to replace conventional power stations rather than supplement them.
On/Off generation such as gas fills the gap. There's a lot of technology available that turns over-generation from wind into stored energy, some developed well like Pump/Storage, some needing investment like Hydrogen cracking (with huge benefits for car fueling) and some highly theoretical (like superconducting flywheels).
Investment is huge in some of these. But once you invest in the infrastructure, the marginal cost of power drops to near zero.
Ashcroft's Cannock has Con and Lab pretty much tied on Q1, but 30 people who don't know how they would vote in the election decide they will vote Labour in their constituency on Q2.
I recall seeing something oddly similar in Harrow East, if I remember correctly.
The nonsense about the EU down thread once again shows the basic cowardice of the euro sceptics. They don't want people to have the choice because they fear Cameron will talk a majority into staying. They are right that this is something to fear.
If the UK has a referendum we don't need a treaty. What we need is a heads of agreement and that is quite doable. We need:
Protection from the EZ using QMV to override our interests.
The right to deny EU citizens the right to our benefits until they have paid into the pot.
Continuing limits on our membership fee.
There is no cowardice in pointing out that Cameron's proposed renegotiation is based on a set of dishonest premises. If this is all you want renegotiated, it must be assumed, for example, that you are comfortable with the assertion that it is your destiny that your fundamental status will be as an EU rather than national citizen, and that deprivation of British citizenship is now a question of European Union law (Grzelczyk v Centre Public [2002] 1 CMLR 19, at [31]; Rottmann v Freistaat Bayern [2010] QB 761). The cowardice of the Europhiles is that they are not prepared to argue for what EU membership in fact involves.
Not so. We are members of a club. Is it in our interests to remain so? Well that kind of depends. But Cameron will let the people choose. I am 53 and have never had a vote on the matter. It is ridiculous. Whether I vote in or out is for me a commercial decision which in my view is finely balanced. I don't feel any of the emotions about it that I did about the referendum which was traumatic. This does not come close to defining my identity no matter what he ECJ thinks.
Wind power NIMBYs are one of the few things that gets me genuinely angry. The utter stupidity from them goes beyond nonsense.
I'm open to hear a convincing case for wind turbines, on any basis, including one based on a firm conviction of AGW. I've not heard one yet.
At the most basic level, it's free power. The problem is the accounting convention where historic power generation was paid from the national accounts but is now being attributed to electricity bills giving an unfair impression of "green taxes".
Wind is cheaper, cleaner and has a better long term future.
It's not free though is it. There are the costs (including in carbon) of manufacture, building, maintenance, the conventional power needed to keep the thing ticking over when it's not windy. What Nigel Farage is saying in that awful badly researched article is that he would be prepared to tolerate the blight on the landscape if the things made economic sense, but they don't. That seems fair enough to me.
The economic argument is hugely distorted by the way investment is accounted for TODAY compared to how it was accounted for historically. Those huge coal power stations were not paid for by a "coal tax" in your electricity bill. Central government built and paid for the infrastructure and the marginal cost was billed.
The cost of the EDF Nuclear Plant is ridiculous compared to the cost of Wind Turbines. And ironically the new Nuclear station is being paid for in part by direct public subsidy from general taxation and a guaranteed price which is 50% higher than current bills.
The nonsense about the EU down thread once again shows the basic cowardice of the euro sceptics. They don't want people to have the choice because they fear Cameron will talk a majority into staying. They are right that this is something to fear.
If the UK has a referendum we don't need a treaty. What we need is a heads of agreement and that is quite doable. We need:
Protection from the EZ using QMV to override our interests.
The right to deny EU citizens the right to our benefits until they have paid into the pot.
Continuing limits on our membership fee.
If they are not willing to agree these matters we leave and take our chances in the big bad world. But I don't see these are insuperable hurdles unless the others see us as more trouble than we are worth. Given the size of our markets and our contributions I don't see that either.
What the Tories are promising is an end to that new Labour nonsense of being at the heart of Europe. We are not and we don't want to be. A part of the EU but not run by the EU. I for one will vote for out if we don't get this. But we will.
Another idiotic post from someone who doesn't understand the EU.
How many exams in EU law have you passed Richard?
Your post made no reference to EU law at all. Straw man attack David which just highlights your ignorance.
You accused me of being an idiot and not knowing how the EU works. I know a lot more about EU law than you. I get paid for that knowledge.
The rest, I agree, is politics and everyone is entitled to their opinion. That is the basis of Conservative policy on the matter.
In that case I can only assume you were suffering a brain freeze when you made your claims about what the EU can and cannot do given that you seem to be unaware of the ability of the ECJ to use its judgements to circumvent negotiated opt outs.
Or do you just choose to ignore the cases that don't agree with your particular view?
I can remember which football teams I support. They both lost 3-0 this weekend. But with respect it is you that is missing the essential nature of the EU. It is a political club and the rules will be made to fit. Or we leave. Simples.
Spent the day down in Poole and there's a real buzz that Vikki Slade can hang on to Mid Dorset and North Poole for the Lib Dems. She's a fantastic candidate and the 3/1 that's available must be a decent bet. Interesting to see whether UKIP will take the edge off the Tory vote down there.
Wind power NIMBYs are one of the few things that gets me genuinely angry. The utter stupidity from them goes beyond nonsense.
I'm open to hear a convincing case for wind turbines, on any basis, including one based on a firm conviction of AGW. I've not heard one yet.
At the most basic level, it's free power. The problem is the accounting convention where historic power generation was paid from the national accounts but is now being attributed to electricity bills giving an unfair impression of "green taxes".
Wind is cheaper, cleaner and has a better long term future.
It's not implemented property. For example, if every Lamp Post in the UK had a 1 Watt wind turbine on it, then those alone would supply 20% of UK power requirements.
I like wind turbines, I'm sure you mean 1 kilowatt, but even so I'm pretty sure your statement is cobblers. Small wind turbines are much less efficient than large ones and most lamp posts are in urban areas where the wind is of poor quality for wind turbines due to the effects of buildings.
Due the the marginal cost of Wind the efficiency of small turbines is not hugely relevant. You're right I meant 1kW. You can buy 1kW domestic turbines for £300. At discount for bilk, I'd expect £100. That's £800m to put one on every lamp post. 20% of UK power consumption for £800m plus the cost of reciprocating the lighting circuits.
Yes there's more cost for some back up gas generators and some storage systems. But it's a tiny cost, especially when it's not highlighted by putting an artificial Tariff on people's bills so it looks bad.
Spent the day down in Poole and there's a real buzz that Vikki Slade can hang on to Mid Dorset and North Poole for the Lib Dems. She's a fantastic candidate and the 3/1 that's available must be a decent bet. Interesting to see whether UKIP will take the edge off the Tory vote down there.
Encouraging signs for Labour from the marginal polling and terrifying signs from the two phone polls
The Ashcroft poll has a sample of 558 and a MoE of 4.1%. So, either could be leading. Thanks to Barnesian for spotting that.
That's about the third time you've tried to rubbish a poll you scared s*****ss about. Just a teensy bit desperate. And you've still got 2 hours before the next YG.
Not so. We are members of a club. Is it in our interests to remain so? Well that kind of depends. But Cameron will let the people choose. I am 53 and have never had a vote on the matter. It is ridiculous. Whether I vote in or out is for me a commercial decision which in my view is finely balanced. I don't feel any of the emotions about it that I did about the referendum which was traumatic. This does not come close to defining my identity no matter what he ECJ thinks.
Even if there were strong economic arguments for remaining a member (which I do not accept for a moment), some things are more important than pure materialism. Despite the fact that the Treaties clearly make EU citizenship parasitic on national citizenship, the Court has in a series of imperialist judgments reversed this hierarchy. It is only doing what it has always done. The EU is and always has been a one way ratchet to integration. It is anachronistic to pretend otherwise. It is also becoming increasingly clear that it is impossible to retain the basic indicia of the nation state while remaining in the EU.
Who in any event would want to be part of a political union in which the right to establish subsidiary companies in foreign states is viewed as similarly fundamental to the right to a fair trial?
As a matter of interest, when has the ECJ struck down a portion of a treaty? Surely the EU is defined by the Treaties between its members (starting with the Treaty of Rome). Presumably they could say that Treaties conflicted, and therefore the earlier interpretation should apply, but even that could be worked around in a Treaty could it not?
Just interested.
ICR443 in 1997. It circumvented the opt out that Major had secured from the working time directive by reclassifying it as a Health and Safety Measure (which was therefore under the rules of the EU) rather than part of the Social Chapter.
Isn't that slightly different (although no less reprehensible), though?
The other member states pushed through a measure 11-1 under QMV rules that implemented something that we had opted out from, by putting it "in a different box", i.e. reclassifying it as a health & safety measure.
According to a post from EiT a few weeks ago, didn't we lose the case because the Treaty that we signed was broad enough to allow such a thing? In other words, we lost it because Major (and the government lawyers) didn't understand the limits of the opt-out they secured. I would be interested to hear, as always, LIAMT's interpretation of this.
It shows a large shift. 25% of 2010 LD voters have switched to Con compared with only 19% switching to Lab! This is 2010 LD voters we are talking about including all the red LDs.
However that is 22 voters to Con compared with 17 to Lab. Massive MOE.
Maybe, but it's a pattern that has been emerging over the last 6-12 months, as I've mentioned on here a few times. In today's Ashcroft National Poll the 2010 Lib Dems split by 24:19 in Labour's favour (though the net swing is smaller), which is still a tiny advantage compared to what you'd have seen earlier in the Parliament.
On Cannock Chase it's interesting that so many Labour 2010 voters say they don't know how they will vote, compared to 2010 Conservative voters. If there was a clear desire to turf Cameron out they would have no doubt. Ashcroft reallocates them to Miliband, but if they vote UKIP or Tory instead then Cannock Chase becomes a Conservative hold.
The UKIP seat polls are quite disappointing for them. I was expecting seats like Cannock Chase and Great Yarmouth to become genuine three-way marginals, but UKIP are 17 and 12 points behind, and they might even end up being third in Grimsby.
YouGov's Nowcast has Great Grimsby as a UKIP/Lab tie "too close to call"
Great Yarmouth a three way tie "leaning conservative"
Cannock Chase 'leaning Labour', with UKIP/Con tied in close 2nd.
Castle Point 'too close to call'. Con/UKIP tie.
That's based on their national polls
Apparently not.
"[YouGov Nowcast] ... It makes use of over 150,000 interviews that have never before been published, using a special two-stage voting intention question that tends to be better at teasing out local tactical voting patterns. It will be supplemented by around 5,000 new interviews every day until election day.
Using the latest statistical techniques, our data team led by Stanford Professor Doug Rivers (YouGov's Chief Scientist) has developed a model that combines the not insignificant number of panelists we have in each constituency (typically between 200 and 500 involved in this study) with imputed results from regional patterns based on detailed demographics, income, ethnicity, work type and of course past voting intention. With this uniquely large dataset, we believe this represents the best available estimate of the current state of the race."
Last night I caught up with the latest episode of This Week filmed live in East London. They had Andrew Roberts on to discuss the Scottish situation. He seemed to think it all rather unfair that the SNP holding the balance of power seemed to give the Scots undue influence within the UK. That may or may not be true but in the end Scotland only produces 59 MPs out of 650. If it is possible that with a particular election result Scotland could wield a lot of influence beyond what you would expect, it surely follows that on different numbers they could have next to no influence at all.
The Conservatives and Lib Dems currently have 351 MPs in England and Wales. If they can get 330 between them at the election then it's safe to say the SNP will be spending 5 years sitting on the opposition benches doing not very much. Likewise if Labour do better than current polling suggests (and they outperformed the polls in 2010) they could combined with the Lib Dems get over 330 MPs in England and Wales and again lock any Scots out of power. It's a high stakes game and the numbers need to be just right for the SNP.
I say that although it seems to me the SNP are likely to win either way. If they hold the balance of power it could well get on the nerves of the rest of the UK. If they don't we end up with a Tory/Lib or Lab/Lib coalition of some kind that has almost no Scottish influence inside it. For the first time ever we could see a British government that only represents England and Wales and the SNP could rightly say that Scots are now locked out of power at a UK level. I don't think they would immediately embrace English nationalism but both Labour and the Lib Dems would be very different beasts shorn of their Scottish MPs.
ELBOW'ing the four polls today (Sun YG, Populus, ICM and Ashcroft) = Lab lead of 0.4%
But...
but...
excluding YG gives a TORY lead of 0.6%!
Sunil, Is ELBOW weighted according to sample size ?
I do weight according to sample size and fwiw my PoP is Con 33.6 Lab 33.1
ukelect.wordpress.com/2015/04/27/poll-of-polls-3/
(Of course, sample size doesn't make a huge difference. The pollsters' weightings are what matter more, and we won't know for a few days how mistaken they were. I'm expecting them to have been overestimating Labour.)
Wind power NIMBYs are one of the few things that gets me genuinely angry. The utter stupidity from them goes beyond nonsense.
NIMBY is a loaded expression - it isn't unreasonable for people to care particularly about the environment where they personally live (because if they don't who else is going to?) And wind farms are blighting inter alia the whole of Highland Scotland and the whole of Cornwall, so the concern is not merely parochial.
Personally I don't think they look too bad; they don't infuriate me like solar panel farms on good agricultural land do.
The nonsense about the EU down thread once again shows the basic cowardice of the euro sceptics. They don't want people to have the choice because they fear Cameron will talk a majority into staying. They are right that this is something to fear.
If the UK has a referendum we don't need a treaty. What we need is a heads of agreement and that is quite doable. We need:
Protection from the EZ using QMV to override our interests.
The right to deny EU citizens the right to our benefits until they have paid into the pot.
Continuing limits on our membership fee.
If they are not willing to agree these matters we leave and take our chances in the big bad world. But I don't see these are insuperable hurdles unless the others see us as more trouble than we are worth. Given the size of our markets and our contributions I don't see that either.
What the Tories are promising is an end to that new Labour nonsense of being at the heart of Europe. We are not and we don't want to be. A part of the EU but not run by the EU. I for one will vote for out if we don't get this. But we will.
Another idiotic post from someone who doesn't understand the EU.
How many exams in EU law have you passed Richard?
Your post made no reference to EU law at all. Straw man attack David which just highlights your ignorance.
You accused me of being an idiot and not knowing how the EU works. I know a lot more about EU law than you. I get paid for that knowledge.
The rest, I agree, is politics and everyone is entitled to their opinion. That is the basis of Conservative policy on the matter.
As an expert on EU law would you be able to confirm whether in your opinion the ECJ has undertaken judicial activism in cases such as Grant v South West Trains Ltd?
Re power generation. I am amazed - as always - by the failure of some posters to understand the differences between: capital cost, maintenance cost, and the cost of a marginal unit of electricity.
Can someone tell me how Miliband's renting proposals-extremely timid-3 year tenancies, RPI increases to try and mitigate the excesses of the market differs against Cameron's timid proposals to cap rail providers to RPI increases for 5 years? The only difference as far as I can see is that one is for 5 years, and the other 3.
One somehow rallies the righties into claiming Marxism is back, and t'other, well nothing.
The rail caps are compensated out of tax revenue for the train companies, so it is a straightforward bung to the commuter belt
The rent caps are interfering in private contracts between two individuals.
They won by 7% on 2010. If Con is ahead on national vote share (even if only very slightly) then they would be ahead in Cannock on UNS.
Not quite as crazy as it seems, MikeL. This is a very atypical seat in terms of its ethnic/social makeup. It's dominated by the white lower-middle-class who are usually pretty aspirational but sometimes rely on benefits when times are tight. It's also got quite a lot of big firms that don't treat its employees too well (Amazon) and has some issues around housing - the majority of its social housing is 3 bed, so the bedroom tax hit it quite hard.
As a result of BRown's ineptitude and bungling with benefits, coupled with an effective candidate, it swung overly Conservative last time. Partly through reversion to the mean, partly through these workplace issues (which Ed Miliband has at least claimed to address) partly through the loss of said candidate and the selection of a local Labour candidate and partly because of benefit reforms, it has been heavily trending Labour again. The NHS reorganisation has also been blamed - however, my own view is that its impact has been at best negligible (in the sense that some voters are pleased that actually, Chase Hospital is being upgraded and run from Wolverhampton, and are about equal in number to those who are angry about the running down of Stafford).
Long term, this seat and particularly Cannock and Rugeley will probably become affluent Birmingham commuter country a la Tamworth, which will make it a fairly safe Conservative seat. But that's 15 years off yet, unless it suddenly dawns on people that you can buy an excellent four-bedroom house next to a railway line with a regular service to Birmingham with stunning views for around £200,000 compared to rather more than double that in Sutton Coldfield.
True enough, Cannock has some nice areas but is no Lichfield. Its one of those places only a really inept Labour Govt would manage to lose. One of the the few old pit towns where they absolutely hate Scargill. Absolutely no local employment outside of the service industry.
This time round Cannock chase is nailed on LAB GAIN
DavidL's red lines look like the ones Dave will get, plus a few on reducing employment rights for British workers. They'll tear the Tories apart as the country looks on with bemusement.
Wind power NIMBYs are one of the few things that gets me genuinely angry. The utter stupidity from them goes beyond nonsense.
NIMBY is a loaded expression - it isn't unreasonable for people to care particularly about the environment where they personally live (because if they don't who else is going to?) And wind farms are blighting inter alia the whole of Highland Scotland and the whole of Cornwall, so the concern is not merely parochial.
Personally I don't think they look too bad; they don't infuriate me like solar panel farms on good agricultural land do.
Personally I find Wind Farms beautiful. The real blight on the landscape of the Highlands is the enormous acreage of non-native conifers that London governments required to be planted across Scotland.
Wind power NIMBYs are one of the few things that gets me genuinely angry. The utter stupidity from them goes beyond nonsense.
I'm open to hear a convincing case for wind turbines, on any basis, including one based on a firm conviction of AGW. I've not heard one yet.
At the most basic level, it's free power. The problem is the accounting convention where historic power generation was paid from the national accounts but is now being attributed to electricity bills giving an unfair impression of "green taxes".
Wind is cheaper, cleaner and has a better long term future.
It's not implemented property. For example, if every Lamp Post in the UK had a 1 Watt wind turbine on it, then those alone would supply 20% of UK power requirements.
I like wind turbines, I'm sure you mean 1 kilowatt, but even so I'm pretty sure your statement is cobblers. Small wind turbines are much less efficient than large ones and most lamp posts are in urban areas where the wind is of poor quality for wind turbines due to the effects of buildings.
Due the the marginal cost of Wind the efficiency of small turbines is not hugely relevant. You're right I meant 1kW. You can buy 1kW domestic turbines for £300. At discount for bilk, I'd expect £100. That's £800m to put one on every lamp post. 20% of UK power consumption for £800m plus the cost of reciprocating the lighting circuits.
Yes there's more cost for some back up gas generators and some storage systems. But it's a tiny cost, especially when it's not highlighted by putting an artificial Tariff on people's bills so it looks bad.
So you have 8 million 1kW wind turbines, which gives you a nominal capacity of 8GW. Unfortunately, the performance of these small wind turbines in low wind speeds is really bad. Shockingly bad. And the wind in urban areas is slower and more choppy than for a big wind turbine at a greater height away from buildings.
I doubt you would generate anything close to 2% of UK power requirements, let alone 20%. Proper sized wind turbines are already making an important contribution.
The nonsense about the EU down thread once again shows the basic cowardice of the euro sceptics. They don't want people to have the choice because they fear Cameron will talk a majority into staying. They are right that this is something to fear.
If the UK has a referendum we don't need a treaty. What we need is a heads of agreement and that is quite doable. We need:
Protection from the EZ using QMV to override our interests.
The right to deny EU citizens the right to our benefits until they have paid into the pot.
Continuing limits on our membership fee.
If they are not willing to agree these matters we leave and take our chances in the big bad world. But I don't see these are insuperable hurdles unless the others see us as more trouble than we are worth. Given the size of our markets and our contributions I don't see that either.
What the Tories are promising is an end to that new Labour nonsense of being at the heart of Europe. We are not and we don't want to be. A part of the EU but not run by the EU. I for one will vote for out if we don't get this. But we will.
Another idiotic post from someone who doesn't understand the EU.
How many exams in EU law have you passed Richard?
Your post made no reference to EU law at all. Straw man attack David which just highlights your ignorance.
You accused me of being an idiot and not knowing how the EU works. I know a lot more about EU law than you. I get paid for that knowledge.
The rest, I agree, is politics and everyone is entitled to their opinion. That is the basis of Conservative policy on the matter.
As an expert on EU law would you be able to confirm whether in your opinion the ECJ has undertaken judicial activism in cases such as Grant v South West Trains Ltd?
Yes, undoubtedly. It is not a common law system. It requires the Courts to read the law purposively in a way that makes a common lawyer shudder. It is part of the deal.
Wind power NIMBYs are one of the few things that gets me genuinely angry. The utter stupidity from them goes beyond nonsense.
NIMBY is a loaded expression - it isn't unreasonable for people to care particularly about the environment where they personally live (because if they don't who else is going to?) And wind farms are blighting inter alia the whole of Highland Scotland and the whole of Cornwall, so the concern is not merely parochial.
Personally I don't think they look too bad; they don't infuriate me like solar panel farms on good agricultural land do.
Personally I find Wind Farms beautiful. The real blight on the landscape of the Highlands is the enormous acreage of non-native conifers that London governments required to be planted across Scotland.
DavidL's red lines look like the ones Dave will get, plus a few on reducing employment rights for British workers. They'll tear the Tories apart as the country looks on with bemusement.
Unfortunately that is true. And won't you love it?
Wind power NIMBYs are one of the few things that gets me genuinely angry. The utter stupidity from them goes beyond nonsense.
I'm open to hear a convincing case for wind turbines, on any basis, including one based on a firm conviction of AGW. I've not heard one yet.
At the most basic level, it's free power. The problem is the accounting convention where historic power generation was paid from the national accounts but is now being attributed to electricity bills giving an unfair impression of "green taxes".
Wind is cheaper, cleaner and has a better long term future.
It's not implemented property. For example, if every Lamp Post in the UK had a 1 Watt wind turbine on it, then those alone would supply 20% of UK power requirements.
I like wind turbines, I'm sure you mean 1 kilowatt, but even so I'm pretty sure your statement is cobblers. Small wind turbines are much less efficient than large ones and most lamp posts are in urban areas where the wind is of poor quality for wind turbines due to the effects of buildings.
Due the the marginal cost of Wind the efficiency of small turbines is not hugely relevant. You're right I meant 1kW. You can buy 1kW domestic turbines for £300. At discount for bilk, I'd expect £100. That's £800m to put one on every lamp post. 20% of UK power consumption for £800m plus the cost of reciprocating the lighting circuits.
Yes there's more cost for some back up gas generators and some storage systems. But it's a tiny cost, especially when it's not highlighted by putting an artificial Tariff on people's bills so it looks bad.
I suspect the cost of somehow connecting 8 million streetlamp turbines to the National Grid, if technically possible (which I doubt) would be astronomical.
Sturgeon is just so competent. How much would Lab or Con be winning by if they had someone with her touch.
One of the remarkable things about Nicola is that she was not always the politician you see today. Initially she was not just shy but absolutely awful at people interactions. What you see today is entirely the product of her mentoring by Alex Salmond.
Wind power NIMBYs are one of the few things that gets me genuinely angry. The utter stupidity from them goes beyond nonsense.
I'm open to hear a convincing case for wind turbines, on any basis, including one based on a firm conviction of AGW. I've not heard one yet.
At the most basic level, it's free power. The problem is the accounting convention where historic power generation was paid from the national accounts but is now being attributed to electricity bills giving an unfair impression of "green taxes".
Wind is cheaper, cleaner and has a better long term future.
Of course it isn't free power. I am not actually opposed to wind power (and really like the offshore ones as they don't tend to spoil sensitive countryside) nor to solar power but the idea it is free is just daft.
The big problem with wind power is it is unreliable and as such is being deployed badly, being used to replace conventional power stations rather than supplement them.
On/Off generation such as gas fills the gap. There's a lot of technology available that turns over-generation from wind into stored energy, some developed well like Pump/Storage, some needing investment like Hydrogen cracking (with huge benefits for car fueling) and some highly theoretical (like superconducting flywheels).
Investment is huge in some of these. But once you invest in the infrastructure, the marginal cost of power drops to near zero.
Elon Musk has promised an announcement this week that people are expecting will be for batteries for use by households, and at a larger scale, to store electricity when it is cheap on the grid for use when it is more expensive.
That sort of technology will help a lot, but you would need a very large amount of storage and a large excess of generation on "normal" days to cope with a long period of blocking in winter. It looks like this sort of thing will be all worked out by the engineers, though. More power to them.
Wind power NIMBYs are one of the few things that gets me genuinely angry. The utter stupidity from them goes beyond nonsense.
I'm open to hear a convincing case for wind turbines, on any basis, including one based on a firm conviction of AGW. I've not heard one yet.
At the most basic level, it's free power. The problem is the accounting convention where historic power generation was paid from the national accounts but is now being attributed to electricity bills giving an unfair impression of "green taxes".
Wind is cheaper, cleaner and has a better long term future.
It's not implemented property. For example, if every Lamp Post in the UK had a 1 Watt wind turbine on it, then those alone would supply 20% of UK power requirements.
I like wind turbines, I'm sure you mean 1 kilowatt, but even so I'm pretty sure your statement is cobblers. Small wind turbines are much less efficient than large ones and most lamp posts are in urban areas where the wind is of poor quality for wind turbines due to the effects of buildings.
Due the the marginal cost of Wind the efficiency of small turbines is not hugely relevant. You're right I meant 1kW. You can buy 1kW domestic turbines for £300. At discount for bilk, I'd expect £100. That's £800m to put one on every lamp post. 20% of UK power consumption for £800m plus the cost of reciprocating the lighting circuits.
Yes there's more cost for some back up gas generators and some storage systems. But it's a tiny cost, especially when it's not highlighted by putting an artificial Tariff on people's bills so it looks bad.
I suspect the cost of somehow connecting 8 million streetlamp turbines to the National Grid, if technically possible (which I doubt) would be astronomical.
As the street lamps are already on the grid, that shouldn't be the problem.
Managing a grid with enormous - and largely uncontrollable and unforecastable - fluctuations would be a nightmare, and you would see terrible wear and tear on transformers and the like.
Kelvin Mackenzie is doing his best to push the SNP surge through the 60% barrier. I think even Katie Hopkins wouldn't have gone this far:
" Kelvin MacKenzie sparked outrage on after he said Scots living in England should be shipped back to Edinburgh as "McBoat people". In a rant in the Sun newspaper, MacKenzie used the humanitarian crisis in the Mediterranean to take yet another pop at Scotland, or “Jockestan”. MacKenzie, the Tory paper's former editor, said: “Get those Libyan people smugglers to bring their boats to the Thames and we will load up all the Jocks and drop them off in Edinburgh.”
Just to be clear I think Kelvin given his surname is of Scottish decent, you are welcome to keep this "English treasure" and there is no need to send him back to his homeland, which he obviously holds very dear to his heart (if he's got one).
Sturgeon is just so competent. How much would Lab or Con be winning by if they had someone with her touch.
One of the remarkable things about Nicola is that she was not always the politician you see today. Initially she was not just shy but absolutely awful at people interactions. What you see today is entirely the product of her mentoring by Alex Salmond.
Indeed...it's surely not a coincidence that the two most impressive party leaders in the past few years have both represented the SNP. Must be the fact that have a real and genuine passion for what they are saying...not just repeating the usual mantra, force-fed to them by party managers
Wind power NIMBYs are one of the few things that gets me genuinely angry. The utter stupidity from them goes beyond nonsense.
I'm open to hear a convincing case for wind turbines, on any basis, including one based on a firm conviction of AGW. I've not heard one yet.
At the most basic level, it's free power. The problem is the accounting convention where historic power generation was paid from the national accounts but is now being attributed to electricity bills giving an unfair impression of "green taxes".
Wind is cheaper, cleaner and has a better long term future.
It's not implemented property. For example, if every Lamp Post in the UK had a 1 Watt wind turbine on it, then those alone would supply 20% of UK power requirements.
I like wind turbines, I'm sure you mean 1 kilowatt, but even so I'm pretty sure your statement is cobblers. Small wind turbines are much less efficient than large ones and most lamp posts are in urban areas where the wind is of poor quality for wind turbines due to the effects of buildings.
Due the the marginal cost of Wind the efficiency of small turbines is not hugely relevant. You're right I meant 1kW. You can buy 1kW domestic turbines for £300. At discount for bilk, I'd expect £100. That's £800m to put one on every lamp post. 20% of UK power consumption for £800m plus the cost of reciprocating the lighting circuits.
Yes there's more cost for some back up gas generators and some storage systems. But it's a tiny cost, especially when it's not highlighted by putting an artificial Tariff on people's bills so it looks bad.
So you have 8 million 1kW wind turbines, which gives you a nominal capacity of 8GW. Unfortunately, the performance of these small wind turbines in low wind speeds is really bad. Shockingly bad. And the wind in urban areas is slower and more choppy than for a big wind turbine at a greater height away from buildings.
I doubt you would generate anything close to 2% of UK power requirements, let alone 20%. Proper sized wind turbines are already making an important contribution.
I do understand the efficiency issue although cycling around Glasgow makes me think lack of wind isn't that much of a problem. However, the point remains, this is a single action, at £800m of cost for, at your worst case 2% of UK energy requirement. It seems to me to be a good deal.
Not so. We are members of a club. Is it in our interests to remain so? Well that kind of depends. But Cameron will let the people choose. I am 53 and have never had a vote on the matter. It is ridiculous. Whether I vote in or out is for me a commercial decision which in my view is finely balanced. I don't feel any of the emotions about it that I did about the referendum which was traumatic. This does not come close to defining my identity no matter what he ECJ thinks.
Even if there were strong economic arguments for remaining a member (which I do not accept for a moment), some things are more important than pure materialism. Despite the fact that the Treaties clearly make EU citizenship parasitic on national citizenship, the Court has in a series of imperialist judgments reversed this hierarchy. It is only doing what it has always done. The EU is and always has been a one way ratchet to integration. It is anachronistic to pretend otherwise. It is also becoming increasingly clear that it is impossible to retain the basic indicia of the nation state while remaining in the EU.
Who in any event would want to be part of a political union in which the right to establish subsidiary companies in foreign states is viewed as similarly fundamental to the right to a fair trial?
I respect your point of view. During the referendum I was deeply stressed. I thought I was going to lose my identity and citizenship. I thought I was going to be forced into something I did not want. I totally get that people feel that way about the EU even although I don't.
But if you are going to win the argument you need to reach out into the economic arguments in the same way as happened in Scotland. I would have voted no no matter how much better off I was going to be in this nirvana/car crash of an independent Scotland. You will vote out no matter what the economic arguments. But that is not where the majority is. Rightly or wrongly most of us just don't care that much.
The out campaign have to do some serious work and learn from the SNP mistakes. We need concrete plans for an alternative which does not fall apart on the first reading or application of thought. Or you will lose.
Isn't that slightly different (although no less reprehensible), though?
The other member states pushed through a measure 11-1 under QMV rules that implemented something that we had opted out from, by putting it "in a different box", i.e. reclassifying it as a health & safety measure.
According to a post from EiT a few weeks ago, didn't we lose the case because the Treaty that we signed was broad enough to allow such a thing? In other words, we lost it because Major (and the government lawyers) didn't understand the limits of the opt-out they secured. I would be interested to hear, as always, LIAMT's interpretation of this.
That is broadly right. The case is UK v EU Council [1996] 3 CML 671. The Court dismissed the UK's action to annul the directive on the basis that it had legitimately been made under what was then article 118a EEC. The lesson as always is that negotiated opt outs often prove useless before the Court of Justice. For the process at work on some of our "opt outs" from Lisbon, see NS v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2013] QB 102 on Protocol 30 (Charter of Fundamental Rights) and McCarthy v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] All ER (EC) 215 on Protocol 20 (Schengen). The Court will construe the derogation very narrowly, while construing the substantive treaty provision in a broad and purposive fashion.
Wind power NIMBYs are one of the few things that gets me genuinely angry. The utter stupidity from them goes beyond nonsense.
NIMBY is a loaded expression - it isn't unreasonable for people to care particularly about the environment where they personally live (because if they don't who else is going to?) And wind farms are blighting inter alia the whole of Highland Scotland and the whole of Cornwall, so the concern is not merely parochial.
Personally I don't think they look too bad; they don't infuriate me like solar panel farms on good agricultural land do.
Personally I find Wind Farms beautiful. The real blight on the landscape of the Highlands is the enormous acreage of non-native conifers that London governments required to be planted across Scotland.
You find them beautiful because you connote them with lovely clean free power; with a bright greener future. I find them ugly because I see them as oppressive fascistic symbols of a tokenistic green racket that is just another way of moving money and power from the poor to the rich. Were you to research the issue properly, you'd cease to see them in the way you do now.
Wind power NIMBYs are one of the few things that gets me genuinely angry. The utter stupidity from them goes beyond nonsense.
NIMBY is a loaded expression - it isn't unreasonable for people to care particularly about the environment where they personally live (because if they don't who else is going to?) And wind farms are blighting inter alia the whole of Highland Scotland and the whole of Cornwall, so the concern is not merely parochial.
Personally I don't think they look too bad; they don't infuriate me like solar panel farms on good agricultural land do.
I f'ing hate wind farms they are appalling monstrosities and a blight on the countryside.
The whole point of preserving countryside is that it looks natural - with a load of bloody propellers stuck on it,you will never retain any degree of natural look
I don't give an s**t about global warming if it means blighting the countryside.
Ditto loads of poxy housing estates. People can't expect to have the family move out, and just stay there with 4-5 bedrooms into you dotage.
Sturgeon is just so competent. How much would Lab or Con be winning by if they had someone with her touch.
One of the remarkable things about Nicola is that she was not always the politician you see today. Initially she was not just shy but absolutely awful at people interactions. What you see today is entirely the product of her mentoring by Alex Salmond.
Latest ARSE with added APLOMB 2015 General Election & "JackW Dozen" Projection Countdown :
777 minutes
Brown trouser day for Smithson's spread bet ?
OGH has already expressed total confidence as regards this particular bet and his contempt, if that is not too strong a word, for JackW's forecasts through his ARSE. Accordingly, I don't expect him to become overly excited by Jack's latest forecast tomorrow morning, whatever that may be. If there is to be a great brown trouser day, I don't expect it to take place until 8 May.
Wind power NIMBYs are one of the few things that gets me genuinely angry. The utter stupidity from them goes beyond nonsense.
NIMBY is a loaded expression - it isn't unreasonable for people to care particularly about the environment where they personally live (because if they don't who else is going to?) And wind farms are blighting inter alia the whole of Highland Scotland and the whole of Cornwall, so the concern is not merely parochial.
Personally I don't think they look too bad; they don't infuriate me like solar panel farms on good agricultural land do.
Personally I find Wind Farms beautiful. The real blight on the landscape of the Highlands is the enormous acreage of non-native conifers that London governments required to be planted across Scotland.
You find them beautiful because you connote them with lovely clean free power; with a bright greener future. I find them ugly because I see them as oppressive fascistic symbols of a tokenistic green racket that is just another way of moving money and power from the poor to the rich. Were you to research the issue properly, you'd cease to see them in the way you do now.
It is possible on a purely aesthetic level to think they look good, or at least ok. I don't find them objectionable on that basis. Presumably you would insist on ascribing that to my presumably confused views on the subject?
I'm sure it's been talked about a lot on here but I just wanted to pitch in with my absolute itching irritation at the subversion of the word progressive by Sturgeon et al. Are they afraid to call themselves socialists? It surprises me that Evan Davies didn't call her out on it and get some kind of explanation. Hey ho.
Sturgeon is just so competent. How much would Lab or Con be winning by if they had someone with her touch.
One of the remarkable things about Nicola is that she was not always the politician you see today. Initially she was not just shy but absolutely awful at people interactions. What you see today is entirely the product of her mentoring by Alex Salmond.
I suspect the cost of somehow connecting 8 million streetlamp turbines to the National Grid, if technically possible (which I doubt) would be astronomical.
Astronomical like Hinckley Point C?
Personally I have no idea what the cost of reciprocating circuits would be. How much does it cost for the grid to pay for that to homes with solar panels or wind turbines.
But it is a question of cost vs reward. I'm not certain the cost of this is relevant given the long term benefit. I would be encouraging every single home owner in the UK with a garden to have a small wind turbine and their roof covered in solar panels. When the wind doesn't blow, it's because the sun is shining.
A proper energy policy, without a care for kickbacks to politicians from French State Industries would work better than the short term nonsense we have today and clearly Labour under Blair failed the UK with their usual short termism.
Today marginal cost should be the focus with no care for up front infrastructure spend. It would offer the potential to have a real and genuine long term benefit to consumers and likely solve any energy security issues that the UK could imagine.
Wind power NIMBYs are one of the few things that gets me genuinely angry. The utter stupidity from them goes beyond nonsense.
NIMBY is a loaded expression - it isn't unreasonable for people to care particularly about the environment where they personally live (because if they don't who else is going to?) And wind farms are blighting inter alia the whole of Highland Scotland and the whole of Cornwall, so the concern is not merely parochial.
Personally I don't think they look too bad; they don't infuriate me like solar panel farms on good agricultural land do.
Personally I find Wind Farms beautiful. The real blight on the landscape of the Highlands is the enormous acreage of non-native conifers that London governments required to be planted across Scotland.
You find them beautiful because you connote them with lovely clean free power; with a bright greener future. I find them ugly because I see them as oppressive fascistic symbols of a tokenistic green racket that is just another way of moving money and power from the poor to the rich. Were you to research the issue properly, you'd cease to see them in the way you do now.
Or he might just find them beautiful, same as a square-rigged ship under sail is beautiful even if it's a slaver.
Ironic to see an anti-NIMBYist thinking Scots should decide what Scotland looks like, though.
Wind power NIMBYs are one of the few things that gets me genuinely angry. The utter stupidity from them goes beyond nonsense.
I'm open to hear a convincing case for wind turbines, on any basis, including one based on a firm conviction of AGW. I've not heard one yet.
At the most basic level, it's free power. The problem is the accounting convention where historic power generation was paid from the national accounts but is now being attributed to electricity bills giving an unfair impression of "green taxes".
Wind is cheaper, cleaner and has a better long term future.
Of course it isn't free power. I am not actually opposed to wind power (and really like the offshore ones as they don't tend to spoil sensitive countryside) nor to solar power but the idea it is free is just daft.
The big problem with wind power is it is unreliable and as such is being deployed badly, being used to replace conventional power stations rather than supplement them.
On/Off generation such as gas fills the gap. There's a lot of technology available that turns over-generation from wind into stored energy, some developed well like Pump/Storage, some needing investment like Hydrogen cracking (with huge benefits for car fueling) and some highly theoretical (like superconducting flywheels).
Investment is huge in some of these. But once you invest in the infrastructure, the marginal cost of power drops to near zero.
Elon Musk has promised an announcement this week that people are expecting will be for batteries for use by households, and at a larger scale, to store electricity when it is cheap on the grid for use when it is more expensive.
That sort of technology will help a lot, but you would need a very large amount of storage and a large excess of generation on "normal" days to cope with a long period of blocking in winter. It looks like this sort of thing will be all worked out by the engineers, though. More power to them.
I still see investment in Hydrogen cracking to be both the short and long term solution to viable Wind and Solar power as well as road transportation.
As a matter of interest, when has the ECJ struck down a portion of a treaty? Surely the EU is defined by the Treaties between its members (starting with the Treaty of Rome). Presumably they could say that Treaties conflicted, and therefore the earlier interpretation should apply, but even that could be worked around in a Treaty could it not?
Just interested.
ICR443 in 1997. It circumvented the opt out that Major had secured from the working time directive by reclassifying it as a Health and Safety Measure (which was therefore under the rules of the EU) rather than part of the Social Chapter.
Isn't that slightly different (although no less reprehensible), though?
The other member states pushed through a measure 11-1 under QMV rules that implemented something that we had opted out from, by putting it "in a different box", i.e. reclassifying it as a health & safety measure.
According to a post from EiT a few weeks ago, didn't we lose the case because the Treaty that we signed was broad enough to allow such a thing? In other words, we lost it because Major (and the government lawyers) didn't understand the limits of the opt-out they secured. I would be interested to hear, as always, LIAMT's interpretation of this.
No it is not. I never claimed that the ECJ had struck down a treaty. That was something you asked about. What I said was that they found ways to circumvent treaty opt outs in order to extend the remit of the EU into areas we believed were exempt. The case I gave supports that contention. ECJ activism is a well known problem and one that no one in any country has been able to deal with (there have been well documented cases in Germany and Ireland as well) because in the end the ECJ to large extent decides the limits of its own power.
Yes, undoubtedly. It is not a common law system. It requires the Courts to read the law purposively in a way that makes a common lawyer shudder. It is part of the deal.
There is nothing whatever in the Treaties that requires them to be interpreted in that way. It was the Court of Justice which decided you had to look first at the spirit of the treaty, then its economic aspect and lastly its terms. Of course, it is reasonable that the court should where possible give effect to the intention of the framers. The problem is that the court claims to do so by reference to superadded purposes which have no basis in the primary or secondary legislation. The only sensible way of discerning the purpose of a provision is by reference to the meaning of the words used.
I do agree, however, that any referendum will have to be won on the economic arguments.
Nate Silver forecasting the GE result on BBC1 Panorama in 15 mins.
I would watch it as Nate Silver is interesting guy...but Richard f##king Bacon.....He had f##ked off to LA, but doesn't appear to be getting any work, so he is back on our screens instead. The man with the brain the size of a pea, when he thinks he is some incredibly well informed deep thinking know it all.
Compared to that, Con is doing substantially better this time.
Possibly a rather selective sample, though not too far from how I remember it. John Major has aged better than Campbell, but I suppose that id because the latter has sold his soul to the devil.
Major started from a better position. He lost 40 seats and rdtained a majority. If Cameron does the same then he is on 273 or so and sitting on the opposition benches.
Wind power NIMBYs are one of the few things that gets me genuinely angry. The utter stupidity from them goes beyond nonsense.
NIMBY is a loaded expression - it isn't unreasonable for people to care particularly about the environment where they personally live (because if they don't who else is going to?) And wind farms are blighting inter alia the whole of Highland Scotland and the whole of Cornwall, so the concern is not merely parochial.
Personally I don't think they look too bad; they don't infuriate me like solar panel farms on good agricultural land do.
Personally I find Wind Farms beautiful. The real blight on the landscape of the Highlands is the enormous acreage of non-native conifers that London governments required to be planted across Scotland.
Quite agree.
I think most would agree that wind turbines are probably more aesthetically pleasing than nodding donkeys.
Wind power NIMBYs are one of the few things that gets me genuinely angry. The utter stupidity from them goes beyond nonsense.
NIMBY is a loaded expression - it isn't unreasonable for people to care particularly about the environment where they personally live (because if they don't who else is going to?) And wind farms are blighting inter alia the whole of Highland Scotland and the whole of Cornwall, so the concern is not merely parochial.
Personally I don't think they look too bad; they don't infuriate me like solar panel farms on good agricultural land do.
Personally I find Wind Farms beautiful. The real blight on the landscape of the Highlands is the enormous acreage of non-native conifers that London governments required to be planted across Scotland.
Whereas the windfarms came from the Archangel Gabriel. My understanding is that Scots Pine is a conifer and as its name implies is native to Scotland, possibly even the Highlands.
Sturgeon is just so competent. How much would Lab or Con be winning by if they had someone with her touch.
One of the remarkable things about Nicola is that she was not always the politician you see today. Initially she was not just shy but absolutely awful at people interactions. What you see today is entirely the product of her mentoring by Alex Salmond.
Indeed...it's surely not a coincidence that the two most impressive party leaders in the past few years have both represented the SNP. Must be the fact that have a real and genuine passion for what they are saying...not just repeating the usual mantra, force-fed to them by party managers
They won by 7% on 2010. If Con is ahead on national vote share (even if only very slightly) then they would be ahead in Cannock on UNS.
Not quite as crazy as it seems, MikeL. This is a very atypical seat in terms of its ethnic/social makeup. It's dominated by the white lower-middle-class who are usually pretty aspirational but sometimes rely on benefits when times are tight. It's also got quite a lot of big firms that don't treat its employees too well (Amazon) and has some issues around housing - the majority of its social housing is 3 bed, so the bedroom tax hit it quite hard.
As a result of BRown's ineptitude and bungling with benefits, coupled with an effective candidate, it swung overly Conservative last time. Partly through reversion to the mean, partly through these workplace issues (which Ed Miliband has at least claimed to address) partly through the loss of said candidate and the selection of a local Labour candidate and partly because of benefit reforms, it has been heavily trending Labour again. The NHS reorganisation has also been blamed - however, my own view is that its impact has been at best negligible (in the sense that some voters are pleased that actually, Chase Hospital is being upgraded and run from Wolverhampton, and are about equal in number to those who are angry about the running down of Stafford).
Long term, this seat and particularly Cannock and Rugeley will probably become affluent Birmingham commuter country a la Tamworth, which will make it a fairly safe Conservative seat. But that's 15 years off yet, unless it suddenly dawns on people that you can buy an excellent four-bedroom house next to a railway line with a regular service to Birmingham with stunning views for around £200,000 compared to rather more than double that in Sutton Coldfield.
True enough, Cannock has some nice areas but is no Lichfield. Its one of those places only a really inept Labour Govt would manage to lose. One of the the few old pit towns where they absolutely hate Scargill. Absolutely no local employment outside of the service industry.
This time round Cannock chase is nailed on LAB GAIN
I'm sure it's been talked about a lot on here but I just wanted to pitch in with my absolute itching irritation at the subversion of the word progressive by Sturgeon et al. Are they afraid to call themselves socialists? It surprises me that Evan Davies didn't call her out on it and get some kind of explanation. Hey ho.
Being progressive and being socialist are not the same thing at all.
It's about time we stopped accepting the Marxist nonsense that society progresses to a socialist nirvana. If anything, judging by the 20th century, any country doing that goes backwards to a remarkable degree.
Whether something is progressive or not should be judged by whether it enlarges or restricts individuals' freedoms. Too many progressive policies are quite the opposite: they increase the power of the state at the expense of the individual.
Wind power NIMBYs are one of the few things that gets me genuinely angry. The utter stupidity from them goes beyond nonsense.
NIMBY is a loaded expression - it isn't unreasonable for people to care particularly about the environment where they personally live (because if they don't who else is going to?) And wind farms are blighting inter alia the whole of Highland Scotland and the whole of Cornwall, so the concern is not merely parochial.
Personally I don't think they look too bad; they don't infuriate me like solar panel farms on good agricultural land do.
Personally I find Wind Farms beautiful. The real blight on the landscape of the Highlands is the enormous acreage of non-native conifers that London governments required to be planted across Scotland.
You find them beautiful because you connote them with lovely clean free power; with a bright greener future. I find them ugly because I see them as oppressive fascistic symbols of a tokenistic green racket that is just another way of moving money and power from the poor to the rich. Were you to research the issue properly, you'd cease to see them in the way you do now.
I find them beautiful because they are - fantastic modern engineering, reaching to the skies with sleek versimilitude that it is possible to live well in your environment while enjoying the technology that makes life good.
Many people visit Holland to enjoy the looking at the windmills.
Whether something is progressive or not should be judged by whether it enlarges or restricts individuals' freedoms. Too many progressive policies are quite the opposite: they increase the power of the state at the expense of the individual.
The Marxists would strongly agree with that. Engles, of course, did define freedom as control of the environment and mastery of the social processes!
I'm sure it's been talked about a lot on here but I just wanted to pitch in with my absolute itching irritation at the subversion of the word progressive by Sturgeon et al. Are they afraid to call themselves socialists? It surprises me that Evan Davies didn't call her out on it and get some kind of explanation. Hey ho.
That's because Sturgeon is not a socialist. Socialism is wholesale nationalisation of industries.
Despite some of the PBTories' distorted views of mainstream thinking, increasing government spending, prioritising strong public services over needless deficit reduction, increased taxes and responsibilites for the super-rich, and increased regulation of markets is only moderate social democracy, not socialism.
I'm sure it's been talked about a lot on here but I just wanted to pitch in with my absolute itching irritation at the subversion of the word progressive by Sturgeon et al. Are they afraid to call themselves socialists? It surprises me that Evan Davies didn't call her out on it and get some kind of explanation. Hey ho.
Being progressive and being socialist are not the same thing at all.
It's about time we stopped accepting the Marxist nonsense that society progresses to a socialist nirvana. If anything, judging by the 20th century, any country doing that goes backwards to a remarkable degree.
Whether something is progressive or not should be judged by whether it enlarges or restricts individuals' freedoms. Too many progressive policies are quite the opposite: they increase the power of the state at the expense of the individual.
" they increase the power of the state at the expense of the individual"
Comments
The difference? They only mention the SNP once.
Wind is cheaper, cleaner and has a better long term future.
It's not implemented property. For example, if every Lamp Post in the UK had a 1 Watt wind turbine on it, then those alone would supply 20% of UK power requirements.
A few years Anthony Lester QC came up with some wording to cover the situation where someone wanted to shout racist insults at, say, Pakistanis, but used "Muslim" as a way of getting round the law. That would deal with a real mischief but do so in a way which did not prevent people criticising either the religion or those of that religion who did things which people wanted to comment on.
But a proposal to outlaw fear or to, in effect, prevent any sort of criticism or critique of Islam or Muslims in general other than on their terms is so wrong, on every level, that one can only hope he has been misreported. If he hasn't been, then it needs to be fought and utterly defeated.
The big problem with wind power is it is unreliable and as such is being deployed badly, being used to replace conventional power stations rather than supplement them.
The rest, I agree, is politics and everyone is entitled to their opinion. That is the basis of Conservative policy on the matter.
I would ask whether you were at either establishment, but I think I can guess.
We elect MPs for a whole host of diverse reasons and as OGH and others are always desperate to point out EU membership is not the first thing on people's minds when they elect an MP.
So would you be happy with a Government that had been elected on its very strong economic and social record deciding that that gave it the right to withdraw us from the EU without further reference to the public even if it hadn't been one of its manifesto pledges?
As a point of principle I certainly wouldn't.
This is a fantastic 80s song whose video probably wouldn't be allowed these days since it features a lot of 16 year-old girls doing suggestive moves. Malcolm McLaren with Double Dutch, produced by wizard Trevor Horn:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZ4jMSCBswY
Or do you just choose to ignore the cases that don't agree with your particular view?
Somehow however I don't see that happening and confidently expect Labour to be 1% - 2% ahead as boringly usual.
Investment is huge in some of these. But once you invest in the infrastructure, the marginal cost of power drops to near zero.
I recall seeing something oddly similar in Harrow East, if I remember correctly.
The cost of the EDF Nuclear Plant is ridiculous compared to the cost of Wind Turbines. And ironically the new Nuclear station is being paid for in part by direct public subsidy from general taxation and a guaranteed price which is 50% higher than current bills.
Yes there's more cost for some back up gas generators and some storage systems. But it's a tiny cost, especially when it's not highlighted by putting an artificial Tariff on people's bills so it looks bad.
Who in any event would want to be part of a political union in which the right to establish subsidiary companies in foreign states is viewed as similarly fundamental to the right to a fair trial?
The other member states pushed through a measure 11-1 under QMV rules that implemented something that we had opted out from, by putting it "in a different box", i.e. reclassifying it as a health & safety measure.
According to a post from EiT a few weeks ago, didn't we lose the case because the Treaty that we signed was broad enough to allow such a thing? In other words, we lost it because Major (and the government lawyers) didn't understand the limits of the opt-out they secured. I would be interested to hear, as always, LIAMT's interpretation of this.
The Conservatives and Lib Dems currently have 351 MPs in England and Wales. If they can get 330 between them at the election then it's safe to say the SNP will be spending 5 years sitting on the opposition benches doing not very much. Likewise if Labour do better than current polling suggests (and they outperformed the polls in 2010) they could combined with the Lib Dems get over 330 MPs in England and Wales and again lock any Scots out of power. It's a high stakes game and the numbers need to be just right for the SNP.
I say that although it seems to me the SNP are likely to win either way. If they hold the balance of power it could well get on the nerves of the rest of the UK. If they don't we end up with a Tory/Lib or Lab/Lib coalition of some kind that has almost no Scottish influence inside it. For the first time ever we could see a British government that only represents England and Wales and the SNP could rightly say that Scots are now locked out of power at a UK level. I don't think they would immediately embrace English nationalism but both Labour and the Lib Dems would be very different beasts shorn of their Scottish MPs.
ukelect.wordpress.com/2015/04/27/poll-of-polls-3/
(Of course, sample size doesn't make a huge difference. The pollsters' weightings are what matter more, and we won't know for a few days how mistaken they were. I'm expecting them to have been overestimating Labour.)
Personally I don't think they look too bad; they don't infuriate me like solar panel farms on good agricultural land do.
The rent caps are interfering in private contracts between two individuals.
DavidL's red lines look like the ones Dave will get, plus a few on reducing employment rights for British workers. They'll tear the Tories apart as the country looks on with bemusement.
777 minutes
When will they next do a poll?
I doubt you would generate anything close to 2% of UK power requirements, let alone 20%. Proper sized wind turbines are already making an important contribution.
Correlation is not causation, of course, but the correlation is astonishing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVsmEtOH50o&feature=youtu.be
That sort of technology will help a lot, but you would need a very large amount of storage and a large excess of generation on "normal" days to cope with a long period of blocking in winter. It looks like this sort of thing will be all worked out by the engineers, though. More power to them.
Managing a grid with enormous - and largely uncontrollable and unforecastable - fluctuations would be a nightmare, and you would see terrible wear and tear on transformers and the like.
" Kelvin MacKenzie sparked outrage on after he said Scots living in England should be shipped back to Edinburgh as "McBoat people". In a rant in the Sun newspaper, MacKenzie used the humanitarian crisis in the Mediterranean to take yet another pop at Scotland, or “Jockestan”. MacKenzie, the Tory paper's former editor, said: “Get those Libyan people smugglers to bring their boats to the Thames and we will load up all the Jocks and drop them off in Edinburgh.”
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/load-up-jocks-drop-edinburgh-5591890
Just to be clear I think Kelvin given his surname is of Scottish decent, you are welcome to keep this "English treasure" and there is no need to send him back to his homeland, which he obviously holds very dear to his heart (if he's got one).
But if you are going to win the argument you need to reach out into the economic arguments in the same way as happened in Scotland. I would have voted no no matter how much better off I was going to be in this nirvana/car crash of an independent Scotland. You will vote out no matter what the economic arguments. But that is not where the majority is. Rightly or wrongly most of us just don't care that much.
The out campaign have to do some serious work and learn from the SNP mistakes. We need concrete plans for an alternative which does not fall apart on the first reading or application of thought. Or you will lose.
The whole point of preserving countryside is that it looks natural - with a load of bloody propellers stuck on it,you will never retain any degree of natural look
I don't give an s**t about global warming if it means blighting the countryside.
Ditto loads of poxy housing estates. People can't expect to have the family move out, and just stay there with 4-5 bedrooms into you dotage.
Once land is built on it's gone for 70-100 years.
Accordingly, I don't expect him to become overly excited by Jack's latest forecast tomorrow morning, whatever that may be.
If there is to be a great brown trouser day, I don't expect it to take place until 8 May.
I’m very pessimistic about them this time. Am I going to be wrong again?
Personally I have no idea what the cost of reciprocating circuits would be. How much does it cost for the grid to pay for that to homes with solar panels or wind turbines.
But it is a question of cost vs reward. I'm not certain the cost of this is relevant given the long term benefit. I would be encouraging every single home owner in the UK with a garden to have a small wind turbine and their roof covered in solar panels. When the wind doesn't blow, it's because the sun is shining.
A proper energy policy, without a care for kickbacks to politicians from French State Industries would work better than the short term nonsense we have today and clearly Labour under Blair failed the UK with their usual short termism.
Today marginal cost should be the focus with no care for up front infrastructure spend. It would offer the potential to have a real and genuine long term benefit to consumers and likely solve any energy security issues that the UK could imagine.
Ironic to see an anti-NIMBYist thinking Scots should decide what Scotland looks like, though.
I do agree, however, that any referendum will have to be won on the economic arguments.
Major started from a better position. He lost 40 seats and rdtained a majority. If Cameron does the same then he is on 273 or so and sitting on the opposition benches.
My understanding is that Scots Pine is a conifer and as its name implies is native to Scotland, possibly even the Highlands.
It's about time we stopped accepting the Marxist nonsense that society progresses to a socialist nirvana. If anything, judging by the 20th century, any country doing that goes backwards to a remarkable degree.
Whether something is progressive or not should be judged by whether it enlarges or restricts individuals' freedoms. Too many progressive policies are quite the opposite: they increase the power of the state at the expense of the individual.
Conservative candidate suspended after Jewish slur against Ed Miliband
I was half expecting a candidate of another party saying something like this.
When I click on an article the article comes up. Two seconds later the page automatically refreshes again and gives a totally blank page.
Many people visit Holland to enjoy the looking at the windmills.
Despite some of the PBTories' distorted views of mainstream thinking, increasing government spending, prioritising strong public services over needless deficit reduction, increased taxes and responsibilites for the super-rich, and increased regulation of markets is only moderate social democracy, not socialism.
Ahhh. But to a socialist that is progressive.