Javid? Who knows what the future holds. But as for his mmm... intellect and drive and energy... he became etc - spip - Well we can only guess at what all this really means, but he does not look a duffer. In comparison all we can say about poor Yvette is that she was the chief economic correspondent of The Independent. Oh and an intern for Bill Clinton in Arkansas.
Apparently Javid was earning £3mn a year. Getting quite depressed at my crappy salary now.
FU John Lilburne I would accept the contributory principle simply being calculated on income tax contributions paid yes, one of the few things Labour did say during the election that was sensible was indeed the idea that if you pay in more to the system you get more out in benefits, a policy which was not actually that far from UKIP's idea that 'you put more into the pot you get more out'
The counter that though (assuming no realistic increase in the total available resource) for some to get more by putting more in, some must get less for putting less in.
Who should get less JSA? What about income support?
I certainly feel JSA (but nothing else) should be heavily linked to your contributions. The fact that there is no financial difference between contributory and non contributory is shocking to say the least.
Contributory JSA should have no means testing, and work on a sliding scale over a six month period 90% of salary, 80% of salary, 70% of salary etc. Then after six months it flips over to the same as non contributory.
You can build into some principles about it not being possible to take out over a five year period more than you put in etc, and also some ceilings so a footballer doesnt end up with £120,000 a week JSA.
Pros - self made man (none of daddy's millions) - nor one of Oxbridge's elite - strong seat, better yet in key Midlands area - would be first ethnic minority leader of a national (or regional?) party
Cons - big business background - could be an establishment figure by 2018/9 - an uninspiring if acceptable orator
Other notes - voted in favour of same sex marriage - strong Thatcherite potential on business - Muslim (of debatable adherence) - expressed support for Israel in the past - currently 45, minister from 2012. - family man
FU John Lilburne I would accept the contributory principle simply being calculated on income tax contributions paid yes, one of the few things Labour did say during the election that was sensible was indeed the idea that if you pay in more to the system you get more out in benefits, a policy which was not actually that far from UKIP's idea that 'you put more into the pot you get more out'
The counter that though (assuming no realistic increase in the total available resource) for some to get more by putting more in, some must get less for putting less in.
Who should get less JSA? What about income support?
I certainly feel JSA (but nothing else) should be heavily linked to your contributions. The fact that there is no financial difference between contributory and non contributory is shocking to say the least.
Contributory JSA should have no means testing, and work on a sliding scale over a six month period 90% of salary, 80% of salary, 70% of salary etc. Then after six months it flips over to the same as non contributory.
You can build into some principles about it not being possible to take out over a five year period more than you put in etc, and also some ceilings so a footballer doesnt end up with £120,000 a week JSA.
It would still make JSA amazingly expensive - it's rather cheap at the moment.
My personal view is that JSA is a need-related benefit, not a contributory one. Indeed I find the whole idea of contributory benefits rather baffling in a system of progressive taxation generally (but I accept that the state pension, contributed to in a very active sense for many years, should be maintained if only for the difficulty in making it needs based.)
Surbiton Indeed, although Indian Hindus and Sikhs tend to produce more graduates and middle class professionals than those from the Pakistani and Bangledeshi communities
"Almost half of Bangladeshi men worked in restaurants and a quarter of Pakistani-origin men were taxi drivers, according to the study released this week"
Although it would be ironic if our first non-white PM was Sajid Javid.
The article does not take into account the "backgrounds" of the different communities.
The original Pakistani, Bangladeshi immigrants came to the UK to do manual work - Pakistanis in industry , Bangladeshis in the service sector, mainly restaurants. Afro-Caribbean's came to work in London Transport and similar places. In other words, the original communities were "working class" as we used to describe them.
Indians, Chinese and people from Africa , were professionals. Students who stayed behind etc. Only in the last ten to twenty years more professionals have joined them.
East African Asians [ mostly Indian ] came as business people [ initially many as shop-keepers ] even though that may not have been their profession in East Africa.
So, the "success" of Bangladeshi and Pakistanis have to be viewed slightly differently. Having said that, the academic improvements of school children in Tower Hamlets has been very good. Three Bangladeshi women are now MPs !
This link shows there is no logical reason on the entire of this planet as to why we allow significant immigration from pakistan or bangladesh. Importing poverty.
FU NI contributions are used to determine eligibility for state pensions and contributory JSA, I would only support its replacement if that contributory principle remains within the welfare system
No they're not. The NI contribution link has long since been broken. The so-called NI "contribution" happens on a zero contribution level set below actually paying anything. Actual NI payments only kick in on a higher threshold.
This year the threshold for "contribution based" payments is set as earning £112 a week or more. NI payments only kick in at £155 a week or more.
Any payments between 112-155 a week have no NI deductions but gain all contribution benefits.
FU John Lilburne I would accept the contributory principle simply being calculated on income tax contributions paid yes, one of the few things Labour did say during the election that was sensible was indeed the idea that if you pay in more to the system you get more out in benefits, a policy which was not actually that far from UKIP's idea that 'you put more into the pot you get more out'
The counter that though (assuming no realistic increase in the total available resource) for some to get more by putting more in, some must get less for putting less in.
Who should get less JSA? What about income support?
I certainly feel JSA (but nothing else) should be heavily linked to your contributions. The fact that there is no financial difference between contributory and non contributory is shocking to say the least.
Contributory JSA should have no means testing, and work on a sliding scale over a six month period 90% of salary, 80% of salary, 70% of salary etc. Then after six months it flips over to the same as non contributory.
You can build into some principles about it not being possible to take out over a five year period more than you put in etc, and also some ceilings so a footballer doesnt end up with £120,000 a week JSA.
It would still make JSA amazingly expensive - it's rather cheap at the moment.
My personal view is that JSA is a need-related benefit, not a contributory one. Indeed I find the whole idea of contributory benefits rather baffling in a system of progressive taxation generally (but I accept that the state pension, contributed to in a very active sense for many years, should be maintained if only for the difficulty in making it needs based.)
It sounds snobbish, but when you have a lot, you have a lot of expenses and commitments. The movement from £40,000 a year to £3,900 cant be accomplished overnight, when you have car lease, sky contracts, mobile phone contracts
FU John Lilburne I would accept the contributory principle simply being calculated on income tax contributions paid yes, one of the few things Labour did say during the election that was sensible was indeed the idea that if you pay in more to the system you get more out in benefits, a policy which was not actually that far from UKIP's idea that 'you put more into the pot you get more out'
The counter that though (assuming no realistic increase in the total available resource) for some to get more by putting more in, some must get less for putting less in.
Who should get less JSA? What about income support?
I certainly feel JSA (but nothing else) should be heavily linked to your contributions. The fact that there is no financial difference between contributory and non contributory is shocking to say the least.
Contributory JSA should have no means testing, and work on a sliding scale over a six month period 90% of salary, 80% of salary, 70% of salary etc. Then after six months it flips over to the same as non contributory.
You can build into some principles about it not being possible to take out over a five year period more than you put in etc, and also some ceilings so a footballer doesnt end up with £120,000 a week JSA.
It would still make JSA amazingly expensive - it's rather cheap at the moment.
My personal view is that JSA is a need-related benefit, not a contributory one. Indeed I find the whole idea of contributory benefits rather baffling in a system of progressive taxation generally (but I accept that the state pension, contributed to in a very active sense for many years, should be maintained if only for the difficulty in making it needs based.)
It sounds snobbish, but when you have a lot, you have a lot of expenses and commitments. The movement from £40,000 a year to £3,900 cant be accomplished overnight, when you have car lease, sky contracts, mobile phone contracts
Those on £40,000 are still in a much better position than the state need care about. Some of their commitments will have been paid in advance, they are more likely to have cash savings and they're more likely to have other means of income. Of course being out of work isn't easy for anyone, but the safety net needn't depend on how high you fall from.
FU NI contributions are used to determine eligibility for state pensions and contributory JSA, I would only support its replacement if that contributory principle remains within the welfare system
No they're not. The NI contribution link has long since been broken. The so-called NI "contribution" happens on a zero contribution level set below actually paying anything. Actual NI payments only kick in on a higher threshold.
This year the threshold for "contribution based" payments is set as earning £112 a week or more. NI payments only kick in at £155 a week or more.
Any payments between 112-155 a week have no NI deductions but gain all contribution benefits.
Under the present system (which is not easy to work out if you are entitled or not), the only real advantage is in a two income household. If you have made the contributions and your partner loses their job you are entitled, if they havent made the necessary contributions they arent, and its up to you as partner to keep them.
When my wife was made redundant, our income dropped by about 50%. We took in a lodger, and cut back. The contributory JSA wasnt the difference between us surviving and not surviving, but it made a dent in not having to eat into any savings in the four to five months it took her to find another job.
FU John Lilburne I would accept the contributory principle simply being calculated on income tax contributions paid yes, one of the few things Labour did say during the election that was sensible was indeed the idea that if you pay in more to the system you get more out in benefits, a policy which was not actually that far from UKIP's idea that 'you put more into the pot you get more out'
The counter that though (assuming no realistic increase in the total available resource) for some to get more by putting more in, some must get less for putting less in.
Who should get less JSA? What about income support?
I certainly feel JSA (but nothing else) should be heavily linked to your contributions. The fact that there is no financial difference between contributory and non contributory is shocking to say the least.
Contributory JSA should have no means testing, and work on a sliding scale over a six month period 90% of salary, 80% of salary, 70% of salary etc. Then after six months it flips over to the same as non contributory.
You can build into some principles about it not being possible to take out over a five year period more than you put in etc, and also some ceilings so a footballer doesnt end up with £120,000 a week JSA.
It would still make JSA amazingly expensive - it's rather cheap at the moment.
My personal view is that JSA is a need-related benefit, not a contributory one. Indeed I find the whole idea of contributory benefits rather baffling in a system of progressive taxation generally (but I accept that the state pension, contributed to in a very active sense for many years, should be maintained if only for the difficulty in making it needs based.)
It sounds snobbish, but when you have a lot, you have a lot of expenses and commitments. The movement from £40,000 a year to £3,900 cant be accomplished overnight, when you have car lease, sky contracts, mobile phone contracts
Those on £40,000 are still in a much better position than the state need care about. Some of their commitments will have been paid in advance, they are more likely to have cash savings and they're more likely to have other means of income. Of course being out of work isn't easy for anyone, but the safety net needn't depend on how high you fall from.
My favourite little quip is that Gordon Brown, with his tax credits, turned a safety net into a fishing net.
Surbiton Indeed, although Indian Hindus and Sikhs tend to produce more graduates and middle class professionals than those from the Pakistani and Bangledeshi communities
"Almost half of Bangladeshi men worked in restaurants and a quarter of Pakistani-origin men were taxi drivers, according to the study released this week"
Although it would be ironic if our first non-white PM was Sajid Javid.
The article does not take into account the "backgrounds" of the different communities.
The original Pakistani, Bangladeshi immigrants came to the UK to do manual work - Pakistanis in industry , Bangladeshis in the service sector, mainly restaurants. Afro-Caribbean's came to work in London Transport and similar places. In other words, the original communities were "working class" as we used to describe them.
Indians, Chinese and people from Africa , were professionals. Students who stayed behind etc. Only in the last ten to twenty years more professionals have joined them.
East African Asians [ mostly Indian ] came as business people [ initially many as shop-keepers ] even though that may not have been their profession in East Africa.
So, the "success" of Bangladeshi and Pakistanis have to be viewed slightly differently. Having said that, the academic improvements of school children in Tower Hamlets has been very good. Three Bangladeshi women are now MPs !
This link shows there is no logical reason on the entire of this planet as to why we allow significant immigration from pakistan or bangladesh. Importing poverty.
This link shows there is no logical reason on the entire of this planet as to why we allow significant immigration from pakistan or bangladesh. Importing poverty.
notme Grandiose Many EU countries, France, Germany the Nordic countries have a contributory benefits system for JSA which means a higher benefit is given for 6-12 months to those who have worked and contributed to the system before returning to a lower level of income related benefit, it seems to work well
PT A largely irrelevant point, as many if not most if not all of those claiming contributory JSA will have earnt more than £155 and paid in NI and even the £112 requirement still means they will have to have worked to claim it
Grandiose But if you have contributed a lot in NI, which after all was originally meant to be an insurance, then you should be able to claim more out when you need it
notme Agree, contributory JSA has a key role to play in ensuring that those who have worked and saved can still claim benefits for a time they have contributed to through NI without having to use up all their savings first
Grandiose But if you have contributed a lot in NI, which after all was originally meant to be an insurance, then you should be able to claim more out when you need it
Contributing a lot in income tax doesn't get you anything at all. No preferential NHS treatment, no personal fire service or police force. Such is the nature of a progressive tax system.
Yes National Insurance was sold on the basis it was contributory, but that is entirely needless and I think people no longer feel that way (with the exception of the state pension). For most people NI is just another tax.
'One of the biggest misunderstandings concerns The EU Large Combustion Plant Directive. This directive has nothing to do with carbon emissions or even coal for that matter. It is intended intended to reduce emissions of SO2, NO2 and soot from old power stations. Germany is building 19 new efficient clean coal power stations and the Dutch are opening another three modern stations – all are compliant with the directive. The UK could easily have done the same. Eon actually proposed to build a new clean coal plant at Kingsnorth in 2008 but FoE protests blocked it.
No – the UK energy crisis is entirely self inflicted – you cant blame the EU. Government policy seems now to be driven by FoE because after the Kingsnorth fiasco they introduced a carbon floor tax to further penalise coal. Their policy now is that no new coal stations can be built without CCS. Neither Eon nor any other energy supplier will invest in CCS because it is uneconomic and have essentially halted any other new investment due to government interference. Kingsnorth has recently shut down with Eon have no plans for any replacement.'
And we think we just elected a sensible Government.
Grandiose But contributory JSA is supposed to provide a guarantee for those who have worked and contributed that they will get benefits at a reasonable level if needed because of unemployment. They do need that if they fall on hard times, and that is where the insurance principle falls in, the police force and NHS and fireservice is something everyone benefits from regardless of economic circumstances
Are people surprised how short Liz Kendall's odds are?
Given the voting system and the Unions' ability to sign up affiliated members and to influence voting to at least some degree (eg they'll be able to send out leaflets though not with the ballot papers) why is she now as short as 4.1 on Betfair?
Is it that the consensus is that people will just vote on what they see, irrespective of Union influence?
eg We can be 99% certain there will be a BBC1 QT Labour candidates special - if she performs very well on that will it be enough for voters to ignore everything else?
If you look at the results from last time it was 60/40 in the affiliated section vs 40/60 in the member section, which is suggesting a decent amount of pull from union endorsements but not an overwhelming amount. And a lot of that was down to double-envelope shenannigans, which they won't be able to use next time. So it doesn't seem like a no-brainer that the unions will get their guy, especially if that guy is Andy Burnham.
Except that there's no measure of how much wind takes from the grid.
Would you like to explain that comment? How - exactly - does wind "take from from the grid"?
Sure: you can make a case that wind is uneconomic to build, given it needs a guaranteed power price (one detached from the prevailing spot price of electricity); and yes, there are times that this means that we pay for wind turbine to be disconnected from the grid. But, I don't think I've ever heard anyone claim that wind turbines "take" from the grid.
It would still make JSA amazingly expensive - it's rather cheap at the moment.
My personal view is that JSA is a need-related benefit, not a contributory one. Indeed I find the whole idea of contributory benefits rather baffling in a system of progressive taxation generally (but I accept that the state pension, contributed to in a very active sense for many years, should be maintained if only for the difficulty in making it needs based.)
Someone else mentioned that unemployment insurance in some other European countries was contribution related. That's actually true of most developed countries. In the US, for example, you get six months at n-percent of salary (and n is quite a big number).
This has two effects: one it does make it more expensive, but two, it means that most people who find themselves short-term unemployed don't find themselves under severe financial pressure, and forced to take an unsuitable job asap. I don't know which system is better - but I'm sure there would be empirical tests you could agree on to find which aided labour mobility more and minimised unemployment.
'One of the biggest misunderstandings concerns The EU Large Combustion Plant Directive. This directive has nothing to do with carbon emissions or even coal for that matter. It is intended intended to reduce emissions of SO2, NO2 and soot from old power stations. Germany is building 19 new efficient clean coal power stations and the Dutch are opening another three modern stations – all are compliant with the directive. The UK could easily have done the same. Eon actually proposed to build a new clean coal plant at Kingsnorth in 2008 but FoE protests blocked it.
No – the UK energy crisis is entirely self inflicted – you cant blame the EU. Government policy seems now to be driven by FoE because after the Kingsnorth fiasco they introduced a carbon floor tax to further penalise coal. Their policy now is that no new coal stations can be built without CCS. Neither Eon nor any other energy supplier will invest in CCS because it is uneconomic and have essentially halted any other new investment due to government interference. Kingsnorth has recently shut down with Eon have no plans for any replacement.'
And we think we just elected a sensible Government.
What energy crisis?
If you turn on the power, the lights come on.
We have one of the cheapest power prices in the developed world (excepting Canada and the US where they have abundant coal and natural gas). We have a "reserve margin" that it is at a multi-decade high.
Con to Lab : 1.1% [ H: 3.36% London ; L: -0.72% SW ] Apart from the South West, the only other region to have a swing from Lab to Con was East Mids 0.19%. West Mids did have a tiny swing to Labour; 0.03%
LD to Con : 8.7% [ H: 11.68% SW ; L: 7.29% NW ]
Con - UKIP: 4.64% [ H: 6.71% Y&H; L: 2.67% SW ]
Lab - UKIP: 3.55% [ H: 5.31% EM ; L: -0.35% London ] Also, in the North East, there was a 5.3% swing.
Green to Lab: 0.21% [ H: London 1.91%; L: -1.24% SW ]
Con to Lab : 1.1% [ H: 3.36% London ; L: -0.72% SW ] Apart from the South West, the only other region to have a swing from Lab to Con was East Mids 0.19%. West Mids did have a tiny swing to Labour; 0.03%
LD to Con : 8.7% [ H: 11.68% SW ; L: 7.29% NW ]
Con - UKIP: 4.64% [ H: 6.71% Y&H; L: 2.67% SW ]
Lab - UKIP: 3.55% [ H: 5.31% EM ; L: -0.35% London ] Also, in the North East, there was a 5.3% swing.
Green to Lab: 0.21% [ H: London 1.91%; L: -1.24% SW ]
You've beaten me to it. Still have Y&H to do, although I could work it out by a process of elimination.
Con to Lab : 1.1% [ H: 3.36% London ; L: -0.72% SW ] Apart from the South West, the only other region to have a swing from Lab to Con was East Mids 0.19%. West Mids did have a tiny swing to Labour; 0.03%
LD to Con : 8.7% [ H: 11.68% SW ; L: 7.29% NW ]
Con - UKIP: 4.64% [ H: 6.71% Y&H; L: 2.67% SW ]
Lab - UKIP: 3.55% [ H: 5.31% EM ; L: -0.35% London ] Also, in the North East, there was a 5.3% swing.
Green to Lab: 0.21% [ H: London 1.91%; L: -1.24% SW ]
You've beaten me to it. Still have Y&H to do, although I could work it out by a process of elimination.
I am not sure why we all missed the obvious. If UNS is applied with the regional swings, we get very close to the actual results. The Tories outperformed Regional UNS by about 10 seats.
England wide , it does not work so well. Partly because, LD to C swing in the SW was 11.68%, England wide it was 8.7%.
South West: +3.72% East Midlands: +2.28% West Midlands: +2.23% Eastern: +1.91% North East: +1.60% Wales: +1.13% South East: +0.99% Greater London: +0.35% Yorkshire & the Humber: -0.23% North West: -0.50% Scotland: -1.83%
Greater London: +7.07% North West: +5.18% Yorkshire & the Humber: +4.80% North East: +3.33% Eastern: +2.41% West Midlands: +2.30% South West: +2.30% South East: +2.07% East Midlands: +1.89% Wales: +0.63% Scotland: -17.70%
LD:
Scotland: -11.33% Wales: -13.60% Greater London: -14.39% West Midlands: -14.94% North West: -15.06% East Midlands: -15.26% Eastern: -15.82% Yorkshire & the Humber: -15.84% South East: -16.78% North East: -17.08% South West: -19.60%
UKIP:
North East: +14.03% Yorkshire & the Humber: +13.19% East Midlands: +12.50% Eastern: +11.95% West Midlands: +11.70% Wales: +11.21% North West: +10.48% South East: +10.47% South West: +9.09% Greater London: +6.37% Scotland: +0.92%
Greens:
South West: +4.79% South East: +3.87% North East: +3.30% Greater London: +3.26% West Midlands: +2.69% North West: +2.69% Yorkshire & the Humber: +2.67% Eastern: +2.46% East Midlands: +2.45% Wales: +2.13% Scotland: +0.66%
Swing, Con to Lab:
Greater London: +3.36% North West: +2.84% Yorkshire & the Humber: +2.52% North East: +0.87% South East: +0.54% Eastern: +0.25% Wales: +0.25% West Midlands: +0.04% East Midlands: -0.20% South West: -0.71% Scotland: -7.94%
Greater London: +7.07% North West: +5.18% Yorkshire & the Humber: +4.80% North East: +3.33% Eastern: +2.41% West Midlands: +2.30% South West: +2.30% South East: +2.07% East Midlands: +1.89% Wales: +0.63% Scotland: -17.70%
LD:
Scotland: -11.33% Wales: -13.60% Greater London: -14.39% West Midlands: -14.94% North West: -15.06% East Midlands: -15.26% Eastern: -15.82% Yorkshire & the Humber: -15.84% South East: -16.78% North East: -17.08% South West: -19.60%
UKIP:
North East: +14.03% Yorkshire & the Humber: +13.19% East Midlands: +12.50% Eastern: +11.95% West Midlands: +11.70% Wales: +11.21% North West: +10.48% South East: +10.47% South West: +9.09% Greater London: +6.37% Scotland: +0.92%
Greens:
South West: +4.79% South East: +3.87% North East: +3.30% Greater London: +3.26% West Midlands: +2.69% North West: +2.69% Yorkshire & the Humber: +2.67% Eastern: +2.46% East Midlands: +2.45% Wales: +2.13% Scotland: +0.66%
Swing, Con to Lab:
Greater London: +3.36% North West: +2.84% Yorkshire & the Humber: +2.52% North East: +0.87% South East: +0.54% Eastern: +0.25% Wales: +0.25% West Midlands: +0.04% East Midlands: -0.20% South West: -0.71% Scotland: -7.94%
Fascinating - Labour's best swing - in London - actually masks some variation, with several seats actually swinging blue both north and south of the river. Wales was another area where the polls w ere totally wrong. I think the message for Labour is that the strategy followed primarily strengthened their support where they were already well ahead. It failed spectacularly in middle England.
Comments
Who should get less JSA? What about income support?
I certainly feel JSA (but nothing else) should be heavily linked to your contributions. The fact that there is no financial difference between contributory and non contributory is shocking to say the least.
Contributory JSA should have no means testing, and work on a sliding scale over a six month period 90% of salary, 80% of salary, 70% of salary etc. Then after six months it flips over to the same as non contributory.
You can build into some principles about it not being possible to take out over a five year period more than you put in etc, and also some ceilings so a footballer doesnt end up with £120,000 a week JSA.
Pros
- self made man (none of daddy's millions)
- nor one of Oxbridge's elite
- strong seat, better yet in key Midlands area
- would be first ethnic minority leader of a national (or regional?) party
Cons
- big business background
- could be an establishment figure by 2018/9
- an uninspiring if acceptable orator
Other notes
- voted in favour of same sex marriage
- strong Thatcherite potential on business
- Muslim (of debatable adherence)
- expressed support for Israel in the past
- currently 45, minister from 2012.
- family man
My personal view is that JSA is a need-related benefit, not a contributory one. Indeed I find the whole idea of contributory benefits rather baffling in a system of progressive taxation generally (but I accept that the state pension, contributed to in a very active sense for many years, should be maintained if only for the difficulty in making it needs based.)
This link shows there is no logical reason on the entire of this planet as to why we allow significant immigration from pakistan or bangladesh. Importing poverty.
This year the threshold for "contribution based" payments is set as earning £112 a week or more.
NI payments only kick in at £155 a week or more.
Any payments between 112-155 a week have no NI deductions but gain all contribution benefits.
When my wife was made redundant, our income dropped by about 50%. We took in a lodger, and cut back. The contributory JSA wasnt the difference between us surviving and not surviving, but it made a dent in not having to eat into any savings in the four to five months it took her to find another job.
{edited with attempted snip}
Lab +7.07%
Con +0.35%
UKIP +6.37%
LD -14.39%
Greens +3.26%
Others -2.65%
notme Agree, contributory JSA has a key role to play in ensuring that those who have worked and saved can still claim benefits for a time they have contributed to through NI without having to use up all their savings first
Yes National Insurance was sold on the basis it was contributory, but that is entirely needless and I think people no longer feel that way (with the exception of the state pension). For most people NI is just another tax.
There is a limit to the percentage of power on the grid that can be supplied by wind: http://euanmearns.com/how-much-windpower-can-the-uk-grid-handle/
But far scarier in this piece are the comments:
'One of the biggest misunderstandings concerns The EU Large Combustion Plant Directive. This directive has nothing to do with carbon emissions or even coal for that matter. It is intended intended to reduce emissions of SO2, NO2 and soot from old power stations. Germany is building 19 new efficient clean coal power stations and the Dutch are opening another three modern stations – all are compliant with the directive. The UK could easily have done the same. Eon actually proposed to build a new clean coal plant at Kingsnorth in 2008 but FoE protests blocked it.
No – the UK energy crisis is entirely self inflicted – you cant blame the EU. Government policy seems now to be driven by FoE because after the Kingsnorth fiasco they introduced a carbon floor tax to further penalise coal. Their policy now is that no new coal stations can be built without CCS. Neither Eon nor any other energy supplier will invest in CCS because it is uneconomic and have essentially halted any other new investment due to government interference. Kingsnorth has recently shut down with Eon have no plans for any replacement.'
And we think we just elected a sensible Government.
Sure: you can make a case that wind is uneconomic to build, given it needs a guaranteed power price (one detached from the prevailing spot price of electricity); and yes, there are times that this means that we pay for wind turbine to be disconnected from the grid. But, I don't think I've ever heard anyone claim that wind turbines "take" from the grid.
This has two effects: one it does make it more expensive, but two, it means that most people who find themselves short-term unemployed don't find themselves under severe financial pressure, and forced to take an unsuitable job asap. I don't know which system is better - but I'm sure there would be empirical tests you could agree on to find which aided labour mobility more and minimised unemployment.
If you turn on the power, the lights come on.
We have one of the cheapest power prices in the developed world (excepting Canada and the US where they have abundant coal and natural gas). We have a "reserve margin" that it is at a multi-decade high.
England only:
Con to Lab : 1.1% [ H: 3.36% London ; L: -0.72% SW ]
Apart from the South West, the only other region to have a swing from Lab to Con was East Mids 0.19%. West Mids did have a tiny swing to Labour; 0.03%
LD to Con : 8.7% [ H: 11.68% SW ; L: 7.29% NW ]
Con - UKIP: 4.64% [ H: 6.71% Y&H; L: 2.67% SW ]
Lab - UKIP: 3.55% [ H: 5.31% EM ; L: -0.35% London ]
Also, in the North East, there was a 5.3% swing.
Green to Lab: 0.21% [ H: London 1.91%; L: -1.24% SW ]
North West region:
2015:
Lab: 1,502,047 (44.65%)
Con: 1,050,124 (31.22%)
UKIP: 459,071 (13.65%)
LD: 219,998 (6.54%)
Greens: 107,889 (3.21%)
Others: 24,926 (0.74%)
TOTAL: 3,364,055
2010:
Lab: 1,292,978 (39.47%)
Con: 1,038,967 (31.71%)
LD: 707,770 (21.60%)
UKIP: 103,782 (3.17%)
Greens: 17,046 (0.52%)
Others: 115,687 (3.53%)
TOTAL: 3,276,230
Changes:
Lab: +5.18%
Con: -0.50%
UKIP: +10.48%
LD: -15.06%
Greens: +2.69%
Others: -2.79%
Swing, Con to Lab: 2.84%
England wide , it does not work so well. Partly because, LD to C swing in the SW was 11.68%, England wide it was 8.7%.
So all this talk of Messina, Crosby is bunkum.
It was Clegg wot won it for the Tories
2015:
Lab: 956,837 (39.15%)
Con: 796,822 (32.60%)
UKIP: 391,923 (16.03%)
LD: 174,069 (7.12%)
Greens; 86,471 (3.54%)
Others: 38,055 (1.56%)
TOTAL: 2,444,177
2010:
Lab: 821,368 (34.68%)
Con: 769,895 (32.51%)
LD: 543,684 (22.96%)
UKIP: 65,876 (2.78%)
Greens: 20,824 (0.88%)
Others: 146,630 (6.19%)
Changes:
Lab: +4.47%
Con: +0.09%
UKIP: +13.25%
LD: -15.84%
Greens: +2.66%
Others: -4.63%
Swing, Con to Lab: 2.19%
Surbiton: if you spot the discrepancy between your figures and mine I'd be interested to know what they are so I can correct any mistakes.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/election2010/results/region/12.stm
I'm pretty sure my calculations of the 2015 results are correct.
2015:
Lab: 956,837 (39.15%)
Con: 796,822 (32.60%)
UKIP: 391,923 (16.03%)
LD: 174,069 (7.12%)
Greens; 86,471 (3.54%)
Others: 38,055 (1.56%)
TOTAL: 2,444,177
2010:
Lab: 826,537 (34.35%)
Con: 790,062 (32.83%)
LD: 552,570 (22.96%)
UKIP: 68,378 (2.84%)
Greens: 20,824 (0.87%)
Others: 148,048 (6.15%)
Changes:
Lab: +4.80%
Con: -0.23%
UKIP: +13.19%
LD: -15.84%
Greens: +2.67%
Others: -4.60%
Swing, Con to Lab: 2.52%
South West: +3.72%
East Midlands: +2.28%
West Midlands: +2.23%
Eastern: +1.91%
North East: +1.60%
Wales: +1.13%
South East: +0.99%
Greater London: +0.35%
Yorkshire & the Humber: -0.23%
North West: -0.50%
Scotland: -1.83%
Labour:
Greater London: +7.07%
North West: +5.18%
Yorkshire & the Humber: +4.80%
North East: +3.33%
Eastern: +2.41%
West Midlands: +2.30%
South West: +2.30%
South East: +2.07%
East Midlands: +1.89%
Wales: +0.63%
Scotland: -17.70%
LD:
Scotland: -11.33%
Wales: -13.60%
Greater London: -14.39%
West Midlands: -14.94%
North West: -15.06%
East Midlands: -15.26%
Eastern: -15.82%
Yorkshire & the Humber: -15.84%
South East: -16.78%
North East: -17.08%
South West: -19.60%
UKIP:
North East: +14.03%
Yorkshire & the Humber: +13.19%
East Midlands: +12.50%
Eastern: +11.95%
West Midlands: +11.70%
Wales: +11.21%
North West: +10.48%
South East: +10.47%
South West: +9.09%
Greater London: +6.37%
Scotland: +0.92%
Greens:
South West: +4.79%
South East: +3.87%
North East: +3.30%
Greater London: +3.26%
West Midlands: +2.69%
North West: +2.69%
Yorkshire & the Humber: +2.67%
Eastern: +2.46%
East Midlands: +2.45%
Wales: +2.13%
Scotland: +0.66%
Swing, Con to Lab:
Greater London: +3.36%
North West: +2.84%
Yorkshire & the Humber: +2.52%
North East: +0.87%
South East: +0.54%
Eastern: +0.25%
Wales: +0.25%
West Midlands: +0.04%
East Midlands: -0.20%
South West: -0.71%
Scotland: -7.94%