If we had AV, global warming would no longer be an issue, we'd have the Greens in a position of power in government, and combating the evils of global warming.
Mr. Antifrank, again, consensus is irrelevant. Science isn't a negotiating process, it's about hypotheses, plausibility, facts and what is actually correct.
As Huxley said - "The great tragedy of Science — the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact."
Cherry-picking? I've put forward some facts based on recent history, and if you think I'm cherry-picking feel free to put forward contrary points which support your view.
All you're doing is asking "What if you're wrong?" without any evidence to back that up.
We have two broad schools of thought. First, that some of our actions are causing the planet to heat up and that warming will be severely detrimental to our prospects and the prospects of much life on earth. Second, that one or other half of that theory is wrong.
Right now, we are not at a point to say definitively which school of thought is correct, though we should note that those who are most expert almost all prefer the first school of thought.
But what you (and every opponent of the scientific consensus) forget is that we have to decide now what actions if any we are going to take on the basis of the information that we have at hand. We cannot simply wait and see, because if we do so, on the view of one school of thought - the one, remember, that is currently favoured by most expert opinion - later will be too late to act.
So we have to decide what actions we take right now. These actions may be wrong. However, it would be complete folly to risk the world if there are steps that we can take right now to mitigate the potential harm.
The arrogance of the opponents is what stands out: the willingness to risk the future of the entire planet to prove a point that they cannot possibly prove right now.
And what do you say to Germany and China that have been installing coal-fired power stations - does CO2 stop at national borders?
Mr. Antifrank, again, consensus is irrelevant. Science isn't a negotiating process, it's about hypotheses, plausibility, facts and what is actually correct.
As Huxley said - "The great tragedy of Science — the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact."
Cherry-picking? I've put forward some facts based on recent history, and if you think I'm cherry-picking feel free to put forward contrary points which support your view.
All you're doing is asking "What if you're wrong?" without any evidence to back that up.
We have two broad schools of thought. First, that some of our actions are causing the planet to heat up and that warming will be severely detrimental to our prospects and the prospects of much life on earth. Second, that one or other half of that theory is wrong.
Right now, we are not at a point to say definitively which school of thought is correct, though we should note that those who are most expert almost all prefer the first school of thought.
But what you (and every opponent of the scientific consensus) forget is that we have to decide now what actions if any we are going to take on the basis of the information that we have at hand. We cannot simply wait and see, because if we do so, on the view of one school of thought - the one, remember, that is currently favoured by most expert opinion - later will be too late to act.
So we have to decide what actions we take right now. These actions may be wrong. However, it would be complete folly to risk the world if there are steps that we can take right now to mitigate the potential harm.
The arrogance of the opponents is what stands out: the willingness to risk the future of the entire planet to prove a point that they cannot possibly prove right now.
And what do you say to Germany and China that have been installing coal-fired power stations - does CO2 stop at national borders?
We do what we can. That includes trying to get an international solution to the problem. I have few kind words to say about Ed Miliband, but he did try to do exactly that in Copenhagen.
AGW ...There is the famous precautionary principle which the Greens love. If something might happen and it's serious, we should take 'appropriate' action. The enthusiasts assume we must take action no matter what the cost but this is clearly wrong.
We might get struck by lightning if we leave the house. If so, it's likely to be fatal. The precautionary principle suggests we don't shelter under trees or by metallic railing during a thunderstorm. It doesn't mean we should never go out.
It is possible that certain gases like carbon dioxide are responsible for warming the world. We don't know it's the main reason or even for sure that the world is warming so to spend billions immediately can hardly be described as appropriate. Those billions could be spent on drug research or immediate aid to starving children.
I can see the economic benefits (eventually) of tidal power or geothermal power after a large initial outlay. But nice though solar power is (and I have panels which earn me a nice annual sum - thanks Ed), it can't take over.
For some reason, AGW has become a faith and not a science. Anyone who has doubts is a heretic and should be thrown onto a low-carbon emission fire.
I don't agree with everything you say but a lot of it is sensible, especially that AGW (on both sides - belief and doubt) should not become a faith, learn more and follow the science. Does anyone doubt that CO2 is a greenhouse gas? When renewables become cheaper than fossil fuels will anyone still argue for burning what is a useful raw material or importing it from other countries and making ourselves dependent on them. Some say that we shouldn't do anything because others are not taking action, but it looks like China has decided to go greener: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8209e816-97de-11e4-b4be-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3dUm675KL
Mr. Antifrank, again, consensus is irrelevant. Science isn't a negotiating process, it's about hypotheses, plausibility, facts and what is actually correct.
As Huxley said - "The great tragedy of Science — the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact."
Cherry-picking? I've put forward some facts based on recent history, and if you think I'm cherry-picking feel free to put forward contrary points which support your view.
All you're doing is asking "What if you're wrong?" without any evidence to back that up.
We have two broad schools of thought. First, that some of our actions are causing the planet to heat up and that warming will be severely detrimental to our prospects and the prospects of much life on earth. Second, that one or other half of that theory is wrong.
Right now, we are not at a point to say definitively which school of thought is correct, though we should note that those who are most expert almost all prefer the first school of thought.
But what you (and every opponent of the scientific consensus) forget is that we have to decide now what actions if any we are going to take on the basis of the information that we have at hand. We cannot simply wait and see, because if we do so, on the view of one school of thought - the one, remember, that is currently favoured by most expert opinion - later will be too late to act.
So we have to decide what actions we take right now. These actions may be wrong. However, it would be complete folly to risk the world if there are steps that we can take right now to mitigate the potential harm.
The arrogance of the opponents is what stands out: the willingness to risk the future of the entire planet to prove a point that they cannot possibly prove right now.
Nonsense. There is a huge big middle option. That there is global warming, and that the effects will be minor and very gradual with actually no catastrophes at all unless we ignore it completely for decades. If we spent a fraction of the money we are spending on emissions reduction on mitigating the effects of that modest warming, whilst spending the saved money on stopping people from really dying right now, finding cures for diseases that are killing people right now, and stopping children from starving right now, and make affordable the heating fuel for old people dying from hypothermia right now would be a much more moral and sensible position, but as a proposition for maintaining research grants, funding international jamborees, and signalling virtue, it sucks the big one.
The chance of the earth warming as opposed to cooling is 50%. (it never stays the same) if it is random - the same as a coin toss. We know that some things have the potential to warm the earth, and some things like pollution or volcanoes have the potential to cool the earth. Thee are many on both sides.
We believe the earth may be warming. It's the leap of faith to associate one possible aspect of that (carbon emissions) to be the main cause that worries me.
If it's science, make a prediction and then check that prediction. Otherwise, it's just an interesting hypothesis.
Reduce carbon emissions by all means. Let's be less dependent on scarce resources. No problems with that. But let's try to sort out the confounding factors in the science.
Mr. Antifrank, again, consensus is irrelevant. Science isn't a negotiating process, it's about hypotheses, plausibility, facts and what is actually correct.
As Huxley said - "The great tragedy of Science — the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact."
Cherry-picking? I've put forward some facts based on recent history, and if you think I'm cherry-picking feel free to put forward contrary points which support your view.
All you're doing is asking "What if you're wrong?" without any evidence to back that up.
We have two broad schools of thought. First, that some of our actions are causing the planet to heat up and that warming will be severely detrimental to our prospects and the prospects of much life on earth. Second, that one or other half of that theory is wrong.
Right now, we are not at a point to say definitively which school of thought is correct, though we should note that those who are most expert almost all prefer the first school of thought.
But what you (and every opponent of the scientific consensus) forget is that we have to decide now what actions if any we are going to take on the basis of the information that we have at hand. We cannot simply wait and see, because if we do so, on the view of one school of thought - the one, remember, that is currently favoured by most expert opinion - later will be too late to act.
So we have to decide what actions we take right now. These actions may be wrong. However, it would be complete folly to risk the world if there are steps that we can take right now to mitigate the potential harm.
The arrogance of the opponents is what stands out: the willingness to risk the future of the entire planet to prove a point that they cannot possibly prove right now.
And what do you say to Germany and China that have been installing coal-fired power stations - does CO2 stop at national borders?
We do what we can. That includes trying to get an international solution to the problem. I have few kind words to say about Ed Miliband, but he did try to do exactly that in Copenhagen.
Mr. Antifrank, again, consensus is irrelevant. Science isn't a negotiating process, it's about hypotheses, plausibility, facts and what is actually correct.
As Huxley said - "The great tragedy of Science — the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact."
Cherry-picking? I've put forward some facts based on recent history, and if you think I'm cherry-picking feel free to put forward contrary points which support your view.
All you're doing is asking "What if you're wrong?" without any evidence to back that up.
We have two broad schools of thought. First, that some of our actions are causing the planet to heat up and that warming will be severely detrimental to our prospects and the prospects of much life on earth. Second, that one or other half of that theory is wrong.
Right now, we are not at a point to say definitively which school of thought is correct, though we should note that those who are most expert almost all prefer the first school of thought.
But what you (and every opponent of the scientific consensus) forget is that we have to decide now what actions if any we are going to take on the basis of the information that we have at hand. We cannot simply wait and see, because if we do so, on the view of one school of thought - the one, remember, that is currently favoured by most expert opinion - later will be too late to act.
So we have to decide what actions we take right now. These actions may be wrong. However, it would be complete folly to risk the world if there are steps that we can take right now to mitigate the potential harm.
The arrogance of the opponents is what stands out: the willingness to risk the future of the entire planet to prove a point that they cannot possibly prove right now.
And what do you say to Germany and China that have been installing coal-fired power stations - does CO2 stop at national borders?
We do what we can. That includes trying to get an international solution to the problem. I have few kind words to say about Ed Miliband, but he did try to do exactly that in Copenhagen.
In the meantime, we do what we can.
Bankrupt our economy and leave our competitors to prosper, very moral I am sure.
In the financial year ending 2015 (April 2014 to March 2015), public sector net borrowing excluding public sector banks (PSNB ex) was £89.2 billion (4.9% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP)): a decrease of £9.3 billion compared with the previous financial year.
In May 2015, PSNB ex was £10.1 billion (0.5% of GDP); a decrease of £2.2 billion compared with May 2014.
Mr. Antifrank, again, consensus is irrelevant. Science isn't a negotiating process, it's about hypotheses, plausibility, facts and what is actually correct.
As Huxley said - "The great tragedy of Science — the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact."
Cherry-picking? I've put forward some facts based on recent history, and if you think I'm cherry-picking feel free to put forward contrary points which support your view.
All you're doing is asking "What if you're wrong?" without any evidence to back that up.
We have two broad schools of thought. First, that some of our actions are causing the planet to heat up and that warming will be severely detrimental to our prospects and the prospects of much life on earth. Second, that one or other half of that theory is wrong.
Right now, we are not at a point to say definitively which school of thought is correct, though we should note that those who are most expert almost all prefer the first school of thought.
But what you (and every opponent of the scientific consensus) forget is that we have to decide now what actions if any we are going to take on the basis of the information that we have at hand. We cannot simply wait and see, because if we do so, on the view of one school of thought - the one, remember, that is currently favoured by most expert opinion - later will be too late to act.
So we have to decide what actions we take right now. These actions may be wrong. However, it would be complete folly to risk the world if there are steps that we can take right now to mitigate the potential harm.
The arrogance of the opponents is what stands out: the willingness to risk the future of the entire planet to prove a point that they cannot possibly prove right now.
And what do you say to Germany and China that have been installing coal-fired power stations - does CO2 stop at national borders?
We do what we can. That includes trying to get an international solution to the problem. I have few kind words to say about Ed Miliband, but he did try to do exactly that in Copenhagen.
Foxinsox "no traction in the real world" The real world is where the votes are cast..and it does have traction.. lots of it.. as demonstrated a few weeks back.
Labour led on the NHS. It was economic competency they lagged on, as well as general leadership, so Burnham is better than Cooper, though Kendall is better than both.
These polls were shown to be an inaccurate reflection of the real world view on May 7.
Mr. Antifrank, again, consensus is irrelevant. Science isn't a negotiating process, it's about hypotheses, plausibility, facts and what is actually correct.
As Huxley said - "The great tragedy of Science — the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact."
Cherry-picking? I've put forward some facts based on recent history, and if you think I'm cherry-picking feel free to put forward contrary points which support your view.
All you're doing is asking "What if you're wrong?" without any evidence to back that up.
We have two broad schools of thought. First, that some of our actions are causing the planet to heat up and that warming will be severely detrimental to our prospects and the prospects of much life on earth. Second, that one or other half of that theory is wrong.
Right now, we are not at a point to say definitively which school of thought is correct, though we should note that those who are most expert almost all prefer the first school of thought.
But what you (and every opponent of the scientific consensus) forget is that we have to decide now what actions if any we are going to take on the basis of the information that we have at hand. We cannot simply wait and see, because if we do so, on the view of one school of thought - the one, remember, that is currently favoured by most expert opinion - later will be too late to act.
So we have to decide what actions we take right now. These actions may be wrong. However, it would be complete folly to risk the world if there are steps that we can take right now to mitigate the potential harm.
The arrogance of the opponents is what stands out: the willingness to risk the future of the entire planet to prove a point that they cannot possibly prove right now.
And what do you say to Germany and China that have been installing coal-fired power stations - does CO2 stop at national borders?
Nonsense. There is a huge big middle option. That there is global warming, and that the effects will be minor and very gradual with actually no catastrophes at all unless we ignore it completely for decades. If we spent a fraction of the money we are spending on emissions reduction on mitigating the effects of that modest warming, whilst spending the saved money on stopping people from really dying right now, finding cures for diseases that are killing people right now, and stopping children from starving right now, and make affordable the heating fuel for old people dying from hypothermia right now would be a much more moral and sensible position, but as a proposition for maintaining research grants, funding international jamborees, and signalling virtue, it sucks the big one.
But this is, by and large, something of a fictional position. I have never met anyone who objects to spending extra money on renewable energy that is in favour of re-allocating the money into government sponsored R&D or international aid. Almost to a man they oppose those things too.
That's a BBC journalist's comment, rather than a statement from the Greek government (or anyone in the EU) I think.
That being said: if Greece crashes out of the Eurozone, and the country does go through a period of catastrophic inflation and civil unrest, it is entirely possible that it turns its back on the West entirely, perhaps joining the Russian customs union.
Nonsense. There is a huge big middle option. That there is global warming, and that the effects will be minor and very gradual with actually no catastrophes at all unless we ignore it completely for decades. If we spent a fraction of the money we are spending on emissions reduction on mitigating the effects of that modest warming, whilst spending the saved money on stopping people from really dying right now, finding cures for diseases that are killing people right now, and stopping children from starving right now, and make affordable the heating fuel for old people dying from hypothermia right now would be a much more moral and sensible position, but as a proposition for maintaining research grants, funding international jamborees, and signalling virtue, it sucks the big one.
But this is, by and large, something of a fictional position. I have never met anyone who objects to spending extra money on renewable energy that is in favour of re-allocating the money into government sponsored R&D or international aid. Almost to a man they oppose those things too.
I continued to be astonished by how certain everyone's opinions - whether Morris_Dancer on one side or LogicalSong on the other - on global warming are.
Can I just say with absolute certainty that I don't know, but that I am endeavouring to increase my understanding.
It is remarkable how little we know (speaking as a scientist and engineer) about the effects of changes of climate on the earth - because most records are in fact very recent compared with those of recorded history.
We know very little about the real effects of the changes in the sun (even upon our electronic communications upon which we now depend) and things like the El Nino which is forecast to bring colder winters to the UK in 2016 or will it be 2017?
What is certain is that as more nations change from subsistence economies to partially industrialised ones, then their demand for energy increases.
With an ever more divided world, then national energy independence is important and so renewable energy becomes more important but cannot be more expensive, when out of the development stage, than the energy used by our competitors.
Certainly in the UK there is a strong case for more domestic heating of water by solar and a certain amount of electricity generation by the same method. Having the generator close to the usage eliminates power loss and expensive transmission. We do have to exploit our tidal energy, but maintenance costs could be high. There is a likely scenario that the UK could be energy independent by 2050, but only if a lot of co-ordinated development is done now and this is not split into separate efforts by devolved nations.
The parallel focus must be energy usage and storage efficiency and this is as important as energy 'creation' but not as glamorous or as capital intensive.
1) "..both Labour and Conservatives divided and unsure about what they stand for.."
Maybe they are - but there's no way that you can say that the LDs are immune from the same problem and keep a straight face.
2) " It was a moment when people were panicked by a couple of foreign manipulators into voting Conservative for fear of a SNP-dominated Miliband government. That particular threat is now out of the way, and is not repeatable."
It is VERY MUCH repeatable. Voters are well used to the concept of producing a projection of the likely number of seats to be gained from a particular opinion/exit poll. Unless Labour get the kind of leads that suggest that they are practically certain to be able to form a government on their own without the SNP then the Tories will always be able to play the SNP card.
The most interesting part of the PSNB was that the April number was revised substantially downward - from £6.8bn to £6.2bn.
Overall debt-to-GDP in the UK on Eurostat numbers is 89.4%, an increase of 2.4% year-over-year.
However, we can expect that the debt-to-GDP number will likely come down quite quickly in the next year. The government's stake in RBS will likely be part sold, the remained of Lloyds will disappear out the door. Furthermore, the continued unwinding of the Northern Rock and Bradford & Bingley books will continue over the next year.
I would estimate debt-to-GDP a year from today will be 3-4% lower than the current level.
In the financial year ending 2015 (April 2014 to March 2015), public sector net borrowing excluding public sector banks (PSNB ex) was £89.2 billion (4.9% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP)): a decrease of £9.3 billion compared with the previous financial year.
In May 2015, PSNB ex was £10.1 billion (0.5% of GDP); a decrease of £2.2 billion compared with May 2014.
So ONS have revised up their estimate for 2014-15 from the previous month...
In the financial year ending 2015 (April 2014 to March 2015), public sector net borrowing excluding public sector banks (PSNB ex) was £89.2 billion (4.9% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP)): a decrease of £9.3 billion compared with the previous financial year.
In May 2015, PSNB ex was £10.1 billion (0.5% of GDP); a decrease of £2.2 billion compared with May 2014.
So ONS have revised up their estimate for 2014-15 from the previous month...
Nonsense. There is a huge big middle option. That there is global warming, and that the effects will be minor and very gradual with actually no catastrophes at all unless we ignore it completely for decades. If we spent a fraction of the money we are spending on emissions reduction on mitigating the effects of that modest warming, whilst spending the saved money on stopping people from really dying right now, finding cures for diseases that are killing people right now, and stopping children from starving right now, and make affordable the heating fuel for old people dying from hypothermia right now would be a much more moral and sensible position, but as a proposition for maintaining research grants, funding international jamborees, and signalling virtue, it sucks the big one.
But this is, by and large, something of a fictional position. I have never met anyone who objects to spending extra money on renewable energy that is in favour of re-allocating the money into government sponsored R&D or international aid. Almost to a man they oppose those things too.
I disagree. If you asked a lot of middle of the road sensible people if they wanted to spend £200bn or so over the next 20 years to possibly reduce the global temperature by 0.1F depending on how much our more profligate neighbours decide to cut back, they would think you were stark raving mad. If you asked the same people how they felt about spending £20-30bn over the same sort of time scales to research and prepare for the possible global warming effects should they happen, and gaining technological benefits and energy independence in passing, they would most think that quite sensible.
Either way, exporting emissions for a feel good factor whilst costing us money and jobs and improving nothing is total idiocy.
The Prime Minister will today tell Muslim communities to "play their part" in helping tackle "one of the biggest threats our world has faced".
In language already described by some Muslim leaders as "unhelpful", David Cameron will suggest that some Muslims have been "quietly condoning" anti-Western ideology.
Mr Cameron will suggest there has been "finger-pointing" at the security services – while it is families of Islamic State recruits and their communities who need to be more proactive in combating the extremist narrative.
Mr. Antifrank, again, consensus is irrelevant. Science isn't a negotiating process, it's about hypotheses, plausibility, facts and what is actually correct.
As Huxley said - "The great tragedy of Science — the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact."
Cherry-picking? I've put forward some facts based on recent history, and if you think I'm cherry-picking feel free to put forward contrary points which support your view.
All you're doing is asking "What if you're wrong?" without any evidence to back that up.
We have two broad schools of thought. First, that some of our actions are causing the planet to heat up and that warming will be severely detrimental to our prospects and the prospects of much life on earth. Second, that one or other half of that theory is wrong.
Right now, we are not at a point to say definitively which school of thought is correct, though we should note that those who are most expert almost all prefer the first school of thought.
But what you (and every opponent of the scientific consensus) forget is that we have to decide now what actions if any we are going to take on the basis of the information that we have at hand. We cannot simply wait and see, because if we do so, on the view of one school of thought - the one, remember, that is currently favoured by most expert opinion - later will be too late to act.
So we have to decide what actions we take right now. These actions may be wrong. However, it would be complete folly to risk the world if there are steps that we can take right now to mitigate the potential harm.
The arrogance of the opponents is what stands out: the willingness to risk the future of the entire planet to prove a point that they cannot possibly prove right now.
And what do you say to Germany and China that have been installing coal-fired power stations - does CO2 stop at national borders?
The UK doesn't have all that much hydroelectric capacity. We're quite cloudy for solar too, our wind generation is decent (More than France that has a much larger area - all the countries ahead of us are much larger in size), and are 6th in the world for Biomass.
Our renewable generation is pretty damned good - our country just isn't THAT well suited to it given that we're quite cloudy, don't have that many powerful rivers for hydro dams, have a fairly high population density and a decent population on a smallish island.
The Prime Minister will today tell Muslim communities to "play their part" in helping tackle "one of the biggest threats our world has faced".
In language already described by some Muslim leaders as "unhelpful", David Cameron will suggest that some Muslims have been "quietly condoning" anti-Western ideology.
Mr Cameron will suggest there has been "finger-pointing" at the security services – while it is families of Islamic State recruits and their communities who need to be more proactive in combating the extremist narrative.
One might unchartiably point out that it is likely those 'Muslim leaders' who are to describe the comments as unhelpful would call any comments even close to such a point as unhelpful, which forms part of Cameron' argument about quietly condoning, even if it is simply as people have not been speaking out against such talk, rather than direct exhortation to follow.
I certainly don't wish to fall into the trap of demonising segements of society or expecting peopel to police their own communities, but there is a problem and politically it has been tough to talk about due to people abusing the defences against discrimination and hatred for their own ends (like Rahman), and all the powers in the world for the security services, an extreme that is distinctly unappealing, will not solve the problem of too many people liking ISIL and their ilk in this country. There are people who do like what they are doing, and the security services and government can only react to those people after action is taken, they cannot really spot these things ahead of time for every single potentially radicalised person.
I think we desperately need supply-side reform at a time when the government - and most of the opposition - are distracted by demand-side reform. Thus the above method would be one way of improving the situation even if it, for me, probably misses the mark slightly.
Nonsense. There is a huge big middle option. That there is global warming, and that the effects will be minor and very gradual with actually no catastrophes at all unless we ignore it completely for decades. If we spent a fraction of the money we are spending on emissions reduction on mitigating the effects of that modest warming, whilst spending the saved money on stopping people from really dying right now, finding cures for diseases that are killing people right now, and stopping children from starving right now, and make affordable the heating fuel for old people dying from hypothermia right now would be a much more moral and sensible position, but as a proposition for maintaining research grants, funding international jamborees, and signalling virtue, it sucks the big one.
But this is, by and large, something of a fictional position. I have never met anyone who objects to spending extra money on renewable energy that is in favour of re-allocating the money into government sponsored R&D or international aid. Almost to a man they oppose those things too.
I continued to be astonished by how certain everyone's opinions - whether Morris_Dancer on one side or LogicalSong on the other - on global warming are.
Can I just say with absolute certainty that I don't know, but that I am endeavouring to increase my understanding.
It's turned into an issue of faith, rather than reason. I've said before there are strong parallels between this and the creationist/evolution spats that crop up (mostly stateside). Overwhelming evidence on one side versus belief and shonky, cherry-picked science on the other.
[OK I'll concede the science is not as definitive as with evolution, but the strong consensus amongst those who should know - climatologists, modellers, biologists, meteorologists, geographers, etc - is very strong]
Not that it matters as much now he's gone, but it is indicative confirmation of Labour's mindset regarding the press.
What is it about Ed and Hampstead Heath?
The former Labour leader was furious over allegations that he had made offensive remarks to Desmond about Israeli action against Palestinians. The Daily Express owner had told the Jewish Telegraph that Miliband had verbally attacked Israel during a chance encounter on London’s Hampstead Heath.
Love how now metro elite types think that by adding the word "conservative" to statist policies that they can sell this nonsense to the electorate. Owen Jones was at it yesterday "what could be more conservative than state owned railways.."
"I am not a Conservative supporter – but come bearing an idea that should appeal to One Nation and progressive Conservatives"
No it doesn't ! CUT HOUSING BENEFIT - it is the biggest distortion to the market.
Nonsense. There is a huge big middle option. That there is global warming, and that the effects will be minor and very gradual with actually no catastrophes at all unless we ignore it completely for decades. If we spent a fraction of the money we are spending on emissions reduction on mitigating the effects of that modest warming, whilst spending the saved money on stopping people from really dying right now, finding cures for diseases that are killing people right now, and stopping children from starving right now, and make affordable the heating fuel for old people dying from hypothermia right now would be a much more moral and sensible position, but as a proposition for maintaining research grants, funding international jamborees, and signalling virtue, it sucks the big one.
But this is, by and large, something of a fictional position. I have never met anyone who objects to spending extra money on renewable energy that is in favour of re-allocating the money into government sponsored R&D or international aid. Almost to a man they oppose those things too.
I continued to be astonished by how certain everyone's opinions - whether Morris_Dancer on one side or LogicalSong on the other - on global warming are.
Can I just say with absolute certainty that I don't know, but that I am endeavouring to increase my understanding.
It's turned into an issue of faith, rather than reason. I've said before there are strong parallels between this and the creationist/evolution spats that crop up (mostly stateside). Overwhelming evidence on one side versus belief and shonky, cherry-picked science on the other.
[OK I'll concede the science is not as definitive as with evolution, but the strong consensus amongst those who should know - climatologists, modellers, biologists, meteorologists, geographers, etc - is very strong]
I find it very difficult to trust the conclusions of the IPCC, who have changed their understanding so many times. For a long time they didn't even consider the ability of the planet to adapt in the face of climate change. And that's absolutely fine, per se. Climate science is complex. But each time the recommendations are met with a unearned level of certainty by The Devoted.
He notes that no *white person* would have a *community leader* nor many other groups - they're in his words a proxy for the total lack of engagement by authorities and politicians within imported cultural ghettos. So self appointed mouths appear to fill the void and cow anyone who disagrees.
The Prime Minister will today tell Muslim communities to "play their part" in helping tackle "one of the biggest threats our world has faced".
In language already described by some Muslim leaders as "unhelpful", David Cameron will suggest that some Muslims have been "quietly condoning" anti-Western ideology.
Mr Cameron will suggest there has been "finger-pointing" at the security services – while it is families of Islamic State recruits and their communities who need to be more proactive in combating the extremist narrative.
One might unchartiably point out that it is likely those 'Muslim leaders' who are to describe the comments as unhelpful would call any comments even close to such a point as unhelpful, which forms part of Cameron' argument about quietly condoning, even if it is simply as people have not been speaking out against such talk, rather than direct exhortation to follow.
I certainly don't wish to fall into the trap of demonising segements of society or expecting peopel to police their own communities, but there is a problem and politically it has been tough to talk about due to people abusing the defences against discrimination and hatred for their own ends (like Rahman), and all the powers in the world for the security services, an extreme that is distinctly unappealing, will not solve the problem of too many people liking ISIL and their ilk in this country. There are people who do like what they are doing, and the security services and government can only react to those people after action is taken, they cannot really spot these things ahead of time for every single potentially radicalised person.
He notes that no *white person* would have a *community leader* nor many other groups - they're in his words a proxy for the total lack of engagement by authorities and politicians within imported cultural ghettos. So self appointed mouths appear to fill the void and cow anyone who disagrees.
The Prime Minister will today tell Muslim communities to "play their part" in helping tackle "one of the biggest threats our world has faced".
In language already described by some Muslim leaders as "unhelpful", David Cameron will suggest that some Muslims have been "quietly condoning" anti-Western ideology.
Mr Cameron will suggest there has been "finger-pointing" at the security services – while it is families of Islamic State recruits and their communities who need to be more proactive in combating the extremist narrative.
One might unchartiably point out that it is likely those 'Muslim leaders' who are to describe the comments as unhelpful would call any comments even close to such a point as unhelpful, which forms part of Cameron' argument about quietly condoning, even if it is simply as people have not been speaking out against such talk, rather than direct exhortation to follow.
I certainly don't wish to fall into the trap of demonising segements of society or expecting peopel to police their own communities, but there is a problem and politically it has been tough to talk about due to people abusing the defences against discrimination and hatred for their own ends (like Rahman), and all the powers in the world for the security services, an extreme that is distinctly unappealing, will not solve the problem of too many people liking ISIL and their ilk in this country. There are people who do like what they are doing, and the security services and government can only react to those people after action is taken, they cannot really spot these things ahead of time for every single potentially radicalised person.
Love how now metro elite types think that by adding the word "conservative" to statist policies that they can sell this nonsense to the electorate. Owen Jones was at it yesterday "what could be more conservative than state owned railways.."
"I am not a Conservative supporter – but come bearing an idea that should appeal to One Nation and progressive Conservatives"
No it doesn't ! CUT HOUSING BENEFIT - it is the biggest distortion to the market.
There are plenty of suggestions in the Shelter report that might appeal more. But I have to say that reform to housing benefit is again the sort of demand-side policy which, whether or not they are good or bad, are in my opinion a distraction: treating the symptom not the cause.
Shelter for me became a joke several years ago - it's so political.
When it argued a position that made me, @Morris_Dancer and many others *homeless* as children because our bedrooms were shared or not big enough - that was so absurd I can't take them seriously.
They're purely there to lobby. That's not a charity in my book.
Love how now metro elite types think that by adding the word "conservative" to statist policies that they can sell this nonsense to the electorate. Owen Jones was at it yesterday "what could be more conservative than state owned railways.."
"I am not a Conservative supporter – but come bearing an idea that should appeal to One Nation and progressive Conservatives"
No it doesn't ! CUT HOUSING BENEFIT - it is the biggest distortion to the market.
There are plenty of suggestions in the Shelter report that might appeal more. But I have to say that reform to housing benefit is again the sort of demand-side policy which, whether or not they are good or bad, are in my opinion a distraction: treating the symptom not the cause.
Shelter for me became a joke several years ago - it's so political.
When it argued a position that made me, @Morris_Dancer and many others *homeless* as children because our bedrooms were shared or not big enough - that was so absurd I can't take them seriously.
They're purely there to lobby. That's not a charity in my book.
Love how now metro elite types think that by adding the word "conservative" to statist policies that they can sell this nonsense to the electorate. Owen Jones was at it yesterday "what could be more conservative than state owned railways.."
"I am not a Conservative supporter – but come bearing an idea that should appeal to One Nation and progressive Conservatives"
No it doesn't ! CUT HOUSING BENEFIT - it is the biggest distortion to the market.
There are plenty of suggestions in the Shelter report that might appeal more. But I have to say that reform to housing benefit is again the sort of demand-side policy which, whether or not they are good or bad, are in my opinion a distraction: treating the symptom not the cause.
I know Shelter's other work has been like that. I alluded to it when I posted the link in my first comment. But this report (perhaps the influence of KPMG) is all serious analysis. You can almost forget it says shelter on the front.
Shelter for me became a joke several years ago - it's so political.
When it argued a position that made me, @Morris_Dancer and many others *homeless* as children because our bedrooms were shared or not big enough - that was so absurd I can't take them seriously.
They're purely there to lobby. That's not a charity in my book.
Love how now metro elite types think that by adding the word "conservative" to statist policies that they can sell this nonsense to the electorate. Owen Jones was at it yesterday "what could be more conservative than state owned railways.."
"I am not a Conservative supporter – but come bearing an idea that should appeal to One Nation and progressive Conservatives"
No it doesn't ! CUT HOUSING BENEFIT - it is the biggest distortion to the market.
There are plenty of suggestions in the Shelter report that might appeal more. But I have to say that reform to housing benefit is again the sort of demand-side policy which, whether or not they are good or bad, are in my opinion a distraction: treating the symptom not the cause.
IIRC it was a while before the GE2010 - we had oodles of posts making fun of the stupidity of the *report*. The Land Before Vanilla so no idea how to find it.
It was almost Harry Potteresque in keeping us living in cupboards under the stairs.
Shelter for me became a joke several years ago - it's so political.
When it argued a position that made me, @Morris_Dancer and many others *homeless* as children because our bedrooms were shared or not big enough - that was so absurd I can't take them seriously.
They're purely there to lobby. That's not a charity in my book.
Love how now metro elite types think that by adding the word "conservative" to statist policies that they can sell this nonsense to the electorate. Owen Jones was at it yesterday "what could be more conservative than state owned railways.."
"I am not a Conservative supporter – but come bearing an idea that should appeal to One Nation and progressive Conservatives"
No it doesn't ! CUT HOUSING BENEFIT - it is the biggest distortion to the market.
There are plenty of suggestions in the Shelter report that might appeal more. But I have to say that reform to housing benefit is again the sort of demand-side policy which, whether or not they are good or bad, are in my opinion a distraction: treating the symptom not the cause.
I hadn't realised quite how closely linked Cameron's fortune in Denmark and the success of the blue bloc were:
A ‘blue bloc’ victory would secure greater support for UK’s EU renegotiation After the Conservatives won the UK general election last month, all four of Denmark’s blue bloc parties voiced their support for Britain’s renegotiation bid – for example they also seek to curtail EU migrants’ access to welfare. The parties have since reached an agreement, named ‘Danish Welfare in Europe’, stating that they will back Britain’s renegotiation project if they win Thursday’s election – in return for support from the eurosceptic Danish People’s Party.
Lars Løkke Rasmussen, who is tipped to become the Danish Prime Minister if the ‘blue bloc’ wins, recently said, "I have been in dialogue with Downing Street…The UK can count on a new Danish government to support them in their efforts to negotiate a new arrangement that secures British welfare, and in the process pave the way for us to push through some of the things we want."
The town’s status as the sunniest place in the UK was reaffirmed this week when a weather expert announced Eastbourne had the highest number of sunshine hours for 2011.
Eastbourne has a history of record-breaking sunshine statistics as a popular holiday destination attracting more than 4.9 million visitors a year.
Over the past 12 months, Eastbourne has recorded an average five hours 23 minutes per day with 273.9 hours of sunshine in April 2011, almost 100 hours more than the long-term average.
The research has been done by Philip Eden, a meteorologist who has written for the Daily Telegraph and Sunday Telegraph as well as managing his own websites weather-uk.com and climate-uk.com.
This week he confirmed Eastbourne recorded a huge 1,962 hours of sunshine during 2011, significantly ahead of rival sunny destinations Jersey and Guernsey.
No it doesn't ! CUT HOUSING BENEFIT - it is the biggest distortion to the market.
The biggest distortion to the market is clearly planning permission.
No, it's the public's desire for certain types of housing; usually the sorts that take up the most land.
That cant be a distortion of the market, that IS the market. If the public desire something and the price increases as a result, that's the market working, if we try and bend things so people can afford (with government money) what they otherwise couldn't, that is the distortion of the market. If people can't afford the houses they want, they will either put up with less, or go somewhere else, forcing business to either pay more, or put up with less people, the market working properly.
No it doesn't ! CUT HOUSING BENEFIT - it is the biggest distortion to the market.
The biggest distortion to the market is clearly planning permission.
No, it's the public's desire for certain types of housing; usually the sorts that take up the most land.
That cant be a distortion of the market, that IS the market.
I think from a public policy perspective it can be. There is of course a market based solely on the demands of the consumer, but there is a second market aligned with the aims of the actors.
1) "..both Labour and Conservatives divided and unsure about what they stand for.."
Maybe they are - but there's no way that you can say that the LDs are immune from the same problem and keep a straight face.
2) " It was a moment when people were panicked by a couple of foreign manipulators into voting Conservative for fear of a SNP-dominated Miliband government. That particular threat is now out of the way, and is not repeatable."
It is VERY MUCH repeatable. Voters are well used to the concept of producing a projection of the likely number of seats to be gained from a particular opinion/exit poll. Unless Labour get the kind of leads that suggest that they are practically certain to be able to form a government on their own without the SNP then the Tories will always be able to play the SNP card.
"Immune" about becoming divided is not the word I would choose to use, Mr Disraeli. You never know what is going to turn up. But the Lib Dems are in the middle of a leaderhip election, and most of the Lib Dems I have spoken to would be more than happy with either candidate. No splits there! It does not sound to me as though Labour are in this happy state. And the complacency of the Conservative Party will surely collapse, as Mr Cameron´s weak and contradictory leadership starts to come unstuck.
About the situation being repeatable at the next general election, I think not. The SNP threat and intimidation will be settled once and for all long before this Parliament comes to an end.
I hadn't realised quite how closely linked Cameron's fortune in Denmark and the success of the blue bloc were:
A ‘blue bloc’ victory would secure greater support for UK’s EU renegotiation After the Conservatives won the UK general election last month, all four of Denmark’s blue bloc parties voiced their support for Britain’s renegotiation bid – for example they also seek to curtail EU migrants’ access to welfare. The parties have since reached an agreement, named ‘Danish Welfare in Europe’, stating that they will back Britain’s renegotiation project if they win Thursday’s election – in return for support from the eurosceptic Danish People’s Party.
Lars Løkke Rasmussen, who is tipped to become the Danish Prime Minister if the ‘blue bloc’ wins, recently said, "I have been in dialogue with Downing Street…The UK can count on a new Danish government to support them in their efforts to negotiate a new arrangement that secures British welfare, and in the process pave the way for us to push through some of the things we want."
Oddly Rasmussen was quoted in the DT earlier today that he did not support any new treaty and would not support the UK looking for one as he didn't feel it was necessary.
I hadn't realised quite how closely linked Cameron's fortune in Denmark and the success of the blue bloc were:
A ‘blue bloc’ victory would secure greater support for UK’s EU renegotiation After the Conservatives won the UK general election last month, all four of Denmark’s blue bloc parties voiced their support for Britain’s renegotiation bid – for example they also seek to curtail EU migrants’ access to welfare. The parties have since reached an agreement, named ‘Danish Welfare in Europe’, stating that they will back Britain’s renegotiation project if they win Thursday’s election – in return for support from the eurosceptic Danish People’s Party.
Lars Løkke Rasmussen, who is tipped to become the Danish Prime Minister if the ‘blue bloc’ wins, recently said, "I have been in dialogue with Downing Street…The UK can count on a new Danish government to support them in their efforts to negotiate a new arrangement that secures British welfare, and in the process pave the way for us to push through some of the things we want."
Oddly Rasmussen was quoted in the DT earlier today that he did not support any new treaty and would not support the UK looking for one as he didn't feel it was necessary.
Don't know if KP slogs through the comments bit would be much obliged if someone could ask him...
How useful is Stewart Lewis? Views of a professional pollster would be very welcome.
Is he really just a "bit of fun"? Seems useful as a yardstick to judge Corbyn by in particular. Nor sure you'd want a fake candidate in all polls but at least some of the time it seems plausibly quite valuable to identify the "pin the tail on the donkey" component.
But then, why do so few pollsters use this trick? Too gimmicky? Often has the (useful commercially?) side effect of extra publicity from the inevitable "X% of voters chose a FAKE candidate in shock new opinion poll" articles elsewhere in the press.
The name is cleverly chosen, don't think it is easily mistaken for a real politician or even just a political pundit. I do wonder which nationally known figure the Lewisites might her mistaking him for; someone on the national airwaves with a pro underdog message and dislike of payday lenders (bugbear among labour supporters) would be Martin Lewis the personal finance journalist and campaigner. Any other mistakable Lewises out there? Or indeed, Stewarts? Or was this just clicking at random?
FWIW, here is my ground up view of Global Warming.
Firstly, some fundamentals:
(1) CO2 is a greenhouse gas in that it absorbs light at a number of points on the near infra-red spectrum resulting in the CO2 molecules heating up. At the lowest level, the 'greenhouse' effect is essentially the slowing down of that packet of infra-red disappearing into space by getting held up heating up a molecule for a while, meaning more heat is in the system at any given moment.
(2) The rise of CO2 in the atmosphere in the last two centuries can be traced directly to fossil fuel burning.
(3) The main other significant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere is water and although the overall amount of water in the atmosphere fluctuates in the short-term, it is ultimately in a balance that depends almost solely on temperature.
(4) If you fire infra-red at two idealised IR transparent boxes with earth like atmospheres, but no weather, and put slightly more CO2 in one box than the other, then basic laws of thermodynamics say the one with more CO2 in will end up slightly hotter and on a pretty similar scale to reported global warming.
The above are all pretty much at the base of the pyramid as scientific fact goes, so to say there is no CO2/human-caused global warming you actually have to either disbelieve many of the very basics of known science since biblical times, or, more likely, you have to come up with something specific that either disrupts or swamps, totally, the scale-up of the basic thermodynamics to global level.
And more, because thermodynamics line up behind AGW, a lot of the scientific onus is on sceptics themselves to prove the disrupting factors. The various debates around sunspots, volcanos, albedo (reflection off cloud and ice) amongst others are all enriching the debate greatly. But a lot of the subsequent research is ruling these out as swamping factors and there is no sign of a majority of sceptics coalescing around any single alternative narrative.
The other thing, of course, is that thermodynamics not only has to be countered by albedo, volcanos or whatever else for a little while to prevent global warming, but that one or other of the counteracting factors will need to operate at many of the different CO2 levels encountered in the journey to a higher CO2 world. It is barely conceivable that the very complexities that permit scepticism will act in a simple uniform way throughout that journey. The nature of the bet on the table for sceptics, even on just the science, is of the 'How lucky do you feel, punk?' variety.
I hadn't realised quite how closely linked Cameron's fortune in Denmark and the success of the blue bloc were:
A ‘blue bloc’ victory would secure greater support for UK’s EU renegotiation After the Conservatives won the UK general election last month, all four of Denmark’s blue bloc parties voiced their support for Britain’s renegotiation bid – for example they also seek to curtail EU migrants’ access to welfare. The parties have since reached an agreement, named ‘Danish Welfare in Europe’, stating that they will back Britain’s renegotiation project if they win Thursday’s election – in return for support from the eurosceptic Danish People’s Party.
Lars Løkke Rasmussen, who is tipped to become the Danish Prime Minister if the ‘blue bloc’ wins, recently said, "I have been in dialogue with Downing Street…The UK can count on a new Danish government to support them in their efforts to negotiate a new arrangement that secures British welfare, and in the process pave the way for us to push through some of the things we want."
Oddly Rasmussen was quoted in the DT earlier today that he did not support any new treaty and would not support the UK looking for one as he didn't feel it was necessary.
Well that just goes back to the well-trodden argument about whether Cameron needs treaty change and/or is going to get it. Succinctly put, in my opinion it is obvious that some measures can be effected via change of directives like 2004/38/EC, some via protocols (ever closer union), some politically (greater use of yellow card subsidiarity), and some require treaty change ("red card" subsidiarity).
The most interesting part of the PSNB was that the April number was revised substantially downward - from £6.8bn to £6.2bn.
Overall debt-to-GDP in the UK on Eurostat numbers is 89.4%, an increase of 2.4% year-over-year.
However, we can expect that the debt-to-GDP number will likely come down quite quickly in the next year. The government's stake in RBS will likely be part sold, the remained of Lloyds will disappear out the door. Furthermore, the continued unwinding of the Northern Rock and Bradford & Bingley books will continue over the next year.
I would estimate debt-to-GDP a year from today will be 3-4% lower than the current level.
How long before we get to pre-crisis levels? Will it be before the next recession?
I think we desperately need supply-side reform at a time when the government - and most of the opposition - are distracted by demand-side reform. Thus the above method would be one way of improving the situation even if it, for me, probably misses the mark slightly.
Great question. I've a special place in my heart for Tom Champagne. He signed all the Reader's Digest Prize Draw letters for years. Much more charismatic than Bill Somebody... wind forward to 5:50
Don't know if KP slogs through the comments bit would be much obliged if someone could ask him...
How useful is Stewart Lewis? Views of a professional pollster would be very welcome.
Is he really just a "bit of fun"? Seems useful as a yardstick to judge Corbyn by in particular. Nor sure you'd want a fake candidate in all polls but at least some of the time it seems plausibly quite valuable to identify the "pin the tail on the donkey" component.
But then, why do so few pollsters use this trick? Too gimmicky? Often has the (useful commercially?) side effect of extra publicity from the inevitable "X% of voters chose a FAKE candidate in shock new opinion poll" articles elsewhere in the press.
The name is cleverly chosen, don't think it is easily mistaken for a real politician or even just a political pundit. I do wonder which nationally known figure the Lewisites might her mistaking him for; someone on the national airwaves with a pro underdog message and dislike of payday lenders (bugbear among labour supporters) would be Martin Lewis the personal finance journalist and campaigner. Any other mistakable Lewises out there? Or indeed, Stewarts? Or was this just clicking at random?
The most interesting part of the PSNB was that the April number was revised substantially downward - from £6.8bn to £6.2bn.
Overall debt-to-GDP in the UK on Eurostat numbers is 89.4%, an increase of 2.4% year-over-year.
However, we can expect that the debt-to-GDP number will likely come down quite quickly in the next year. The government's stake in RBS will likely be part sold, the remained of Lloyds will disappear out the door. Furthermore, the continued unwinding of the Northern Rock and Bradford & Bingley books will continue over the next year.
I would estimate debt-to-GDP a year from today will be 3-4% lower than the current level.
How long before we get to pre-crisis levels? Will it be before the next recession?
The most interesting part of the PSNB was that the April number was revised substantially downward - from £6.8bn to £6.2bn.
Overall debt-to-GDP in the UK on Eurostat numbers is 89.4%, an increase of 2.4% year-over-year.
However, we can expect that the debt-to-GDP number will likely come down quite quickly in the next year. The government's stake in RBS will likely be part sold, the remained of Lloyds will disappear out the door. Furthermore, the continued unwinding of the Northern Rock and Bradford & Bingley books will continue over the next year.
I would estimate debt-to-GDP a year from today will be 3-4% lower than the current level.
How long before we get to pre-crisis levels? Will it be before the next recession?
Probably the next full financial year, roughly.
I meant in terms of the national debt, not merely the deficit.
Good article. My reading of the membership at the moment is that they are fed up with losing and it's overriding ideological preferences - that's why Corbyn isn't doing better. Kendall could yet do well if she persuaded members that she offered an appealing centre-left alternative to the Tories, rather than merely being iconoclastic as an end it itself. Failing that, people will vote for whichever of Burnham and Cooper they think will appeal most widely.
A couple of comments on China after getting back from my fifth visit there. Take what I say with caution as it's anecdotal, like commenting on Britain after going to a conference in Birmingham, but:
* The English-language State press is more gung-ho in foreign poicy than at any time in the last few years - lots of worryingly strident articles about why China is right on maritime boundaries, global economic role, etc. Their big push at the moment is to get the renminbi into the SDR basket, as a matter of prestige as much as anything else.
* On the other hand, they are startlingly blunt about the rule of law issue. Two Chinese students were convicted of rape in the US and the father of one of them was imprisoned for trying to bribe a judge. China Daily published a series of letters not just praising all this but saying that frankly the American legal system was more robust than the Chinese - in China such things would be covered up and the judge might well have taken the bribe, and that is utterly disgraceful and needs to change fast. If I were a corrupt local official in China I'd get the message that the authorities were serious about catching me.
* China is very aware of its polluting record and it's a big issue - Beijing and other cities are normally overcast because of pollution. They do still have coal power stations opening but the momentum is with renewables (they have the largest wind programme in the world) and they're openly saying that if if regions have a choice of fast growth and more pollution or slower grewth, it was mayb e right to take the former in the past but that needs to change.
Not that it matters as much now he's gone, but it is indicative confirmation of Labour's mindset regarding the press.
What is it about Ed and Hampstead Heath?
The former Labour leader was furious over allegations that he had made offensive remarks to Desmond about Israeli action against Palestinians. The Daily Express owner had told the Jewish Telegraph that Miliband had verbally attacked Israel during a chance encounter on London’s Hampstead Heath.
'Chance encounter on Hampstead Heath': that used to be code for something. What exactly is the nature of their relationship? I think we should be told.
Not that it matters as much now he's gone, but it is indicative confirmation of Labour's mindset regarding the press.
What is it about Ed and Hampstead Heath?
The former Labour leader was furious over allegations that he had made offensive remarks to Desmond about Israeli action against Palestinians. The Daily Express owner had told the Jewish Telegraph that Miliband had verbally attacked Israel during a chance encounter on London’s Hampstead Heath.
'Chance encounter on Hampstead Heath': that used to be code for something. What exactly is the nature of their relationship? I think we should be told.
The most interesting part of the PSNB was that the April number was revised substantially downward - from £6.8bn to £6.2bn.
Overall debt-to-GDP in the UK on Eurostat numbers is 89.4%, an increase of 2.4% year-over-year.
However, we can expect that the debt-to-GDP number will likely come down quite quickly in the next year. The government's stake in RBS will likely be part sold, the remained of Lloyds will disappear out the door. Furthermore, the continued unwinding of the Northern Rock and Bradford & Bingley books will continue over the next year.
I would estimate debt-to-GDP a year from today will be 3-4% lower than the current level.
How long before we get to pre-crisis levels? Will it be before the next recession?
Probably the next full financial year, roughly.
I meant in terms of the national debt, not merely the deficit.
Something like 2022, give or take, in GDP terms. Which will be 15 years after the start of the crisis, and thus approximately the next crisis.
These chance meetings with total strangers and the claimed conversations that took place, were perhaps the most bizarre claims made by Ed during his campaign. – As if…!
The SNP threat and intimidation will be settled once and for all long before this Parliament comes to an end.
1) OK - you've convinced me that the LibDems aren't divided, but not that they are sure what they stand for. There have been many discussions on PB recently about what the LibDems actually stand for, but you never seemed to be present unfortunately. Perhaps, and I am asking politely, you could tell me(us) your personal views, as an insider.
2) "The SNP threat and intimidation will be settled once and for all long before this Parliament comes to an end." How? Short of independence the "Scottish Question" will be with us for ever.
(And in true "1066 and all that" mode, as soon as you answer one "Scottish Question" the SNP asks another)
I hadn't realised quite how closely linked Cameron's fortune in Denmark and the success of the blue bloc were:
A ‘blue bloc’ victory would secure greater support for UK’s EU renegotiation After the Conservatives won the UK general election last month, all four of Denmark’s blue bloc parties voiced their support for Britain’s renegotiation bid – for example they also seek to curtail EU migrants’ access to welfare. The parties have since reached an agreement, named ‘Danish Welfare in Europe’, stating that they will back Britain’s renegotiation project if they win Thursday’s election – in return for support from the eurosceptic Danish People’s Party.
Lars Løkke Rasmussen, who is tipped to become the Danish Prime Minister if the ‘blue bloc’ wins, recently said, "I have been in dialogue with Downing Street…The UK can count on a new Danish government to support them in their efforts to negotiate a new arrangement that secures British welfare, and in the process pave the way for us to push through some of the things we want."
Oddly Rasmussen was quoted in the DT earlier today that he did not support any new treaty and would not support the UK looking for one as he didn't feel it was necessary.
Well that just goes back to the well-trodden argument about whether Cameron needs treaty change and/or is going to get it. Succinctly put, in my opinion it is obvious that some measures can be effected via change of directives like 2004/38/EC, some via protocols (ever closer union), some politically (greater use of yellow card subsidiarity), and some require treaty change ("red card" subsidiarity).
All of which can be overturned by the ECJ at the drop of a hat.
Not that it matters as much now he's gone, but it is indicative confirmation of Labour's mindset regarding the press.
What is it about Ed and Hampstead Heath?
The former Labour leader was furious over allegations that he had made offensive remarks to Desmond about Israeli action against Palestinians. The Daily Express owner had told the Jewish Telegraph that Miliband had verbally attacked Israel during a chance encounter on London’s Hampstead Heath.
'Chance encounter on Hampstead Heath': that used to be code for something. What exactly is the nature of their relationship? I think we should be told.
David Cameron’s referendum gamble today looked set to succeed as an exclusive Ipsos MORI poll revealed that Britons want to stay in the European Union — by an overwhelming three to one.
If the historic in-out referendum were to be staged now, 66 per cent say they would vote to remain members and 22 per cent would vote to quit. Excluding the don’t knows, at 12 per cent, the result is an emphatic 75 to 25.
The analysis is interesting but same as with this other blogger ("Labour insider"), I don't get the argument why Cooper should be getting Kendall's second preferences. Because she is a woman? I am assuming that Kendall's second preferences will be dividing more equally between Burnham and Cooper. Part of the reason for that is that you can clearly plot Corbyn on the left of the political spectrum and Cooper on the right. It then gets fuzzy. Given her association with Ed Balls, Yvette Cooper is more of a "continuity" candidate than Burnham. Burnham also is a better communicator than Cooper. For me Burnham is the value bet.
The analysis is interesting but same as with this other blogger ("Labour insider"), I don't get the argument why Cooper should be getting Kendall's second preferences. Because she is a woman? I am assuming that Kendall's second preferences will be dividing more equally between Burnham and Cooper. Part of the reason for that is that you can clearly plot Corbyn on the left of the political spectrum and Cooper on the right. It then gets fuzzy. Given her association with Ed Balls, Yvette Cooper is more of a "continuity" candidate than Burnham. Burnham also is a better communicator than Cooper. For me Burnham is the value bet.
If Kendall is able to raise her profile successfully and close down the 'wrong party' attacks while Corbyn abstains from doing anything outrageous I can see both Cooper and Burnham falling between the two. We shouldn't discount second preference transfers from Cooper or Burnham becoming the decisive factor.
Thanks for the summary. But science works by testing the hypothesis not by being Sherlock Holmes who said something like - "Whatever is left, however unlikely, must be the truth."
And there's a good reason for this.
Lord Kelvin made a famous quote over a hundred years ago ... "There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now, All that remains is more and more precise measurement."
Then came relativity, quantum mechanics and the discovery that baryonic matter (all that we see or are) represents less than 5% of the total stuff in the Universe.
We don't know the unknown unknowns and never will.
Hence we keep the hypothesis and test it. We don't test some possible alternatives and call the original proved.
I'm all for spending money to refursbish the Palace of Westminster, and didn't like the idea of decanting elsewhere, but it's so much more money and for so much longer (even accepting that it will almost certainly take longer and cost more than even the 'cheap and quick' option suggests), that they have to go elsewhere. Somewhere else in London would be fine (I find it hard to believe they would need to build a purpose built other building for it, it seems like they could find 2-3 places to use together for all the purposes they need - and if they do build a new place to sit while the palace is repaired, it only adds to the argument of having the palace as a museum or some other function and no need to its working use)
If the result really is 75-25 in, surely the Conservatives must interpret that as a signal for MORE integration with Europe (and transfers of powers)?
There's a risk that that's precisely the conclusion the EU will draw. These numbers are absolutely awful for the prospect of achieving a decent renegotiation.
The public should be conspiring to lie to pollsters that they'd vote NO even when they'd probably vote YES.
Not only could it lock us into a bad deal with the EU for decades to come, but it could end up causing problems for any future negotiations and opt-outs in the future.
David Cameron’s referendum gamble today looked set to succeed as an exclusive Ipsos MORI poll revealed that Britons want to stay in the European Union — by an overwhelming three to one.
If the historic in-out referendum were to be staged now, 66 per cent say they would vote to remain members and 22 per cent would vote to quit. Excluding the don’t knows, at 12 per cent, the result is an emphatic 75 to 25.
David Cameron’s referendum gamble today looked set to succeed as an exclusive Ipsos MORI poll revealed that Britons want to stay in the European Union — by an overwhelming three to one.
If the historic in-out referendum were to be staged now, 66 per cent say they would vote to remain members and 22 per cent would vote to quit. Excluding the don’t knows, at 12 per cent, the result is an emphatic 75 to 25.
If the result really is 75-25 in, surely the Conservatives must interpret that as a signal for MORE integration with Europe (and transfers of powers)?
There's a risk that that's precisely the conclusion the EU will draw. These numbers are absolutely awful for the prospect of achieving a decent renegotiation.
The public should be conspiring to lie to pollsters that they'd vote NO even when they'd probably vote YES.
Not only could it lock us into a bad deal with the EU for decades to come, but it could end up causing problems for any future negotiations and opt-outs in the future.
'Give me what I want or I'll leave' is a card you can only play once and it's not the strongest card at that.
Power and influence doesn't come from maintaining a permanent grudging disapproval of what's happening.
Comments
*Must dash*
In the meantime, we do what we can.
Does anyone doubt that CO2 is a greenhouse gas?
When renewables become cheaper than fossil fuels will anyone still argue for burning what is a useful raw material or importing it from other countries and making ourselves dependent on them.
Some say that we shouldn't do anything because others are not taking action, but it looks like China has decided to go greener:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8209e816-97de-11e4-b4be-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3dUm675KL
We believe the earth may be warming. It's the leap of faith to associate one possible aspect of that (carbon emissions) to be the main cause that worries me.
If it's science, make a prediction and then check that prediction. Otherwise, it's just an interesting hypothesis.
Reduce carbon emissions by all means. Let's be less dependent on scarce resources. No problems with that. But let's try to sort out the confounding factors in the science.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_electricity_production_from_renewable_sources
That being said: if Greece crashes out of the Eurozone, and the country does go through a period of catastrophic inflation and civil unrest, it is entirely possible that it turns its back on the West entirely, perhaps joining the Russian customs union.
Can I just say with absolute certainty that I don't know, but that I am endeavouring to increase my understanding.
We know very little about the real effects of the changes in the sun (even upon our electronic communications upon which we now depend) and things like the El Nino which is forecast to bring colder winters to the UK in 2016 or will it be 2017?
What is certain is that as more nations change from subsistence economies to partially industrialised ones, then their demand for energy increases.
With an ever more divided world, then national energy independence is important and so renewable energy becomes more important but cannot be more expensive, when out of the development stage, than the energy used by our competitors.
Certainly in the UK there is a strong case for more domestic heating of water by solar and a certain amount of electricity generation by the same method. Having the generator close to the usage eliminates power loss and expensive transmission. We do have to exploit our tidal energy, but maintenance costs could be high. There is a likely scenario that the UK could be energy independent by 2050, but only if a lot of co-ordinated development is done now and this is not split into separate efforts by devolved nations.
The parallel focus must be energy usage and storage efficiency and this is as important as energy 'creation' but not as glamorous or as capital intensive.
1) "..both Labour and Conservatives divided and unsure about what they stand for.."
Maybe they are - but there's no way that you can say that the LDs are immune from the same problem and keep a straight face.
2) " It was a moment when people were panicked by a couple of foreign manipulators into voting Conservative for fear of a SNP-dominated Miliband government. That particular threat is now out of the way, and is not repeatable."
It is VERY MUCH repeatable. Voters are well used to the concept of producing a projection of the likely number of seats to be gained from a particular opinion/exit poll. Unless Labour get the kind of leads that suggest that they are practically certain to be able to form a government on their own without the SNP then the Tories will always be able to play the SNP card.
The most interesting part of the PSNB was that the April number was revised substantially downward - from £6.8bn to £6.2bn.
Overall debt-to-GDP in the UK on Eurostat numbers is 89.4%, an increase of 2.4% year-over-year.
However, we can expect that the debt-to-GDP number will likely come down quite quickly in the next year. The government's stake in RBS will likely be part sold, the remained of Lloyds will disappear out the door. Furthermore, the continued unwinding of the Northern Rock and Bradford & Bingley books will continue over the next year.
I would estimate debt-to-GDP a year from today will be 3-4% lower than the current level.
David Smith @dsmitheconomics 33m33 minutes ago
Good start to year for public finances - May borrowing down £2.2bn on year earlier, April-May together down £5.1bn: http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_407371.pdf …
Either way, exporting emissions for a feel good factor whilst costing us money and jobs and improving nothing is total idiocy.
Our renewable generation is pretty damned good - our country just isn't THAT well suited to it given that we're quite cloudy, don't have that many powerful rivers for hydro dams, have a fairly high population density and a decent population on a smallish island.
Social security spending - zero growth.
Any tips ?
http://order-order.com/2015/06/19/miliband-threatens-to-sue-over-desmond-israel-claims
Not that it matters as much now he's gone, but it is indicative confirmation of Labour's mindset regarding the press.
Big Phil always gives you a good run for your betting.
One might unchartiably point out that it is likely those 'Muslim leaders' who are to describe the comments as unhelpful would call any comments even close to such a point as unhelpful, which forms part of Cameron' argument about quietly condoning, even if it is simply as people have not been speaking out against such talk, rather than direct exhortation to follow.
I certainly don't wish to fall into the trap of demonising segements of society or expecting peopel to police their own communities, but there is a problem and politically it has been tough to talk about due to people abusing the defences against discrimination and hatred for their own ends (like Rahman), and all the powers in the world for the security services, an extreme that is distinctly unappealing, will not solve the problem of too many people liking ISIL and their ilk in this country. There are people who do like what they are doing, and the security services and government can only react to those people after action is taken, they cannot really spot these things ahead of time for every single potentially radicalised person.
http://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2015/06/colin-wiles-a-conservative-case-for-building-100000-social-rented-homes-a-yea.html
I think we desperately need supply-side reform at a time when the government - and most of the opposition - are distracted by demand-side reform. Thus the above method would be one way of improving the situation even if it, for me, probably misses the mark slightly.
For other options I highly recommend this Shelter report (which is not campaigning guff at all): http://www.shelter.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/802270/Building_the_homes_we_need_-_a_programme_for_the_2015_government.pdf
[OK I'll concede the science is not as definitive as with evolution, but the strong consensus amongst those who should know - climatologists, modellers, biologists, meteorologists, geographers, etc - is very strong]
The former Labour leader was furious over allegations that he had made offensive remarks to Desmond about Israeli action against Palestinians. The Daily Express owner had told the Jewish Telegraph that Miliband had verbally attacked Israel during a chance encounter on London’s Hampstead Heath.
"I am not a Conservative supporter – but come bearing an idea that should appeal to One Nation and progressive Conservatives"
No it doesn't ! CUT HOUSING BENEFIT - it is the biggest distortion to the market.
He notes that no *white person* would have a *community leader* nor many other groups - they're in his words a proxy for the total lack of engagement by authorities and politicians within imported cultural ghettos. So self appointed mouths appear to fill the void and cow anyone who disagrees. One might unchartiably point out that it is likely those 'Muslim leaders' who are to describe the comments as unhelpful would call any comments even close to such a point as unhelpful, which forms part of Cameron' argument about quietly condoning, even if it is simply as people have not been speaking out against such talk, rather than direct exhortation to follow.
I certainly don't wish to fall into the trap of demonising segements of society or expecting peopel to police their own communities, but there is a problem and politically it has been tough to talk about due to people abusing the defences against discrimination and hatred for their own ends (like Rahman), and all the powers in the world for the security services, an extreme that is distinctly unappealing, will not solve the problem of too many people liking ISIL and their ilk in this country. There are people who do like what they are doing, and the security services and government can only react to those people after action is taken, they cannot really spot these things ahead of time for every single potentially radicalised person.
MoDawah @kingofdawah Jun 17
In order to stop alienated people joining Islamic State we must give them hope
Hope they can transform the UK into an Islamic State instead
When it argued a position that made me, @Morris_Dancer and many others *homeless* as children because our bedrooms were shared or not big enough - that was so absurd I can't take them seriously.
They're purely there to lobby. That's not a charity in my book.
#
http://www.golfchannel.com/news/joe-posnanski/does-age-really-matter-golf-yes-it-does/
Interesting reading !
It was almost Harry Potteresque in keeping us living in cupboards under the stairs.
Looks like we had Summer in April (again
About the situation being repeatable at the next general election, I think not. The SNP threat and intimidation will be settled once and for all long before this Parliament comes to an end.
Oddly Rasmussen was quoted in the DT earlier today that he did not support any new treaty and would not support the UK looking for one as he didn't feel it was necessary.
I know next to nothing about Danish politics. Obviously.
Don't know if KP slogs through the comments bit would be much obliged if someone could ask him...
How useful is Stewart Lewis? Views of a professional pollster would be very welcome.
Is he really just a "bit of fun"? Seems useful as a yardstick to judge Corbyn by in particular. Nor sure you'd want a fake candidate in all polls but at least some of the time it seems plausibly quite valuable to identify the "pin the tail on the donkey" component.
But then, why do so few pollsters use this trick? Too gimmicky? Often has the (useful commercially?) side effect of extra publicity from the inevitable "X% of voters chose a FAKE candidate in shock new opinion poll" articles elsewhere in the press.
The name is cleverly chosen, don't think it is easily mistaken for a real politician or even just a political pundit. I do wonder which nationally known figure the Lewisites might her mistaking him for; someone on the national airwaves with a pro underdog message and dislike of payday lenders (bugbear among labour supporters) would be Martin Lewis the personal finance journalist and campaigner. Any other mistakable Lewises out there? Or indeed, Stewarts? Or was this just clicking at random?
Firstly, some fundamentals:
(1) CO2 is a greenhouse gas in that it absorbs light at a number of points on the near infra-red spectrum resulting in the CO2 molecules heating up. At the lowest level, the 'greenhouse' effect is essentially the slowing down of that packet of infra-red disappearing into space by getting held up heating up a molecule for a while, meaning more heat is in the system at any given moment.
(2) The rise of CO2 in the atmosphere in the last two centuries can be traced directly to fossil fuel burning.
(3) The main other significant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere is water and although the overall amount of water in the atmosphere fluctuates in the short-term, it is ultimately in a balance that depends almost solely on temperature.
(4) If you fire infra-red at two idealised IR transparent boxes with earth like atmospheres, but no weather, and put slightly more CO2 in one box than the other, then basic laws of thermodynamics say the one with more CO2 in will end up slightly hotter and on a pretty similar scale to reported global warming.
The above are all pretty much at the base of the pyramid as scientific fact goes, so to say there is no CO2/human-caused global warming you actually have to either disbelieve many of the very basics of known science since biblical times, or, more likely, you have to come up with something specific that either disrupts or swamps, totally, the scale-up of the basic thermodynamics to global level.
And more, because thermodynamics line up behind AGW, a lot of the scientific onus is on sceptics themselves to prove the disrupting factors. The various debates around sunspots, volcanos, albedo (reflection off cloud and ice) amongst others are all enriching the debate greatly. But a lot of the subsequent research is ruling these out as swamping factors and there is no sign of a majority of sceptics coalescing around any single alternative narrative.
The other thing, of course, is that thermodynamics not only has to be countered by albedo, volcanos or whatever else for a little while to prevent global warming, but that one or other of the counteracting factors will need to operate at many of the different CO2 levels encountered in the journey to a higher CO2 world. It is barely conceivable that the very complexities that permit scepticism will act in a simple uniform way throughout that journey. The nature of the bet on the table for sceptics, even on just the science, is of the 'How lucky do you feel, punk?' variety.
Well that just goes back to the well-trodden argument about whether Cameron needs treaty change and/or is going to get it. Succinctly put, in my opinion it is obvious that some measures can be effected via change of directives like 2004/38/EC, some via protocols (ever closer union), some politically (greater use of yellow card subsidiarity), and some require treaty change ("red card" subsidiarity).
"Meanwhile, despite the best efforts of the last Government, housebuilders simply refuse to boost their production to the levels required."
Because if there's one thing businesses love to do, it's to choose to do less business.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUxRea2mmgA
Although, probably not in an El Nino year.....
A couple of comments on China after getting back from my fifth visit there. Take what I say with caution as it's anecdotal, like commenting on Britain after going to a conference in Birmingham, but:
* The English-language State press is more gung-ho in foreign poicy than at any time in the last few years - lots of worryingly strident articles about why China is right on maritime boundaries, global economic role, etc. Their big push at the moment is to get the renminbi into the SDR basket, as a matter of prestige as much as anything else.
* On the other hand, they are startlingly blunt about the rule of law issue. Two Chinese students were convicted of rape in the US and the father of one of them was imprisoned for trying to bribe a judge. China Daily published a series of letters not just praising all this but saying that frankly the American legal system was more robust than the Chinese - in China such things would be covered up and the judge might well have taken the bribe, and that is utterly disgraceful and needs to change fast. If I were a corrupt local official in China I'd get the message that the authorities were serious about catching me.
* China is very aware of its polluting record and it's a big issue - Beijing and other cities are normally overcast because of pollution. They do still have coal power stations opening but the momentum is with renewables (they have the largest wind programme in the world) and they're openly saying that if if regions have a choice of fast growth and more pollution or slower grewth, it was mayb e right to take the former in the past but that needs to change.
There have been many discussions on PB recently about what the LibDems actually stand for, but you never seemed to be present unfortunately.
Perhaps, and I am asking politely, you could tell me(us) your personal views, as an insider.
2) "The SNP threat and intimidation will be settled once and for all long before this Parliament comes to an end."
How? Short of independence the "Scottish Question" will be with us for ever.
(And in true "1066 and all that" mode, as soon as you answer one "Scottish Question" the SNP asks another)
@benatipsosmori: George Osborne has soared to his highest level of popularity since 2010, among highest for any Cons chancellor http://t.co/7WafBAqPjO
All of which can be overturned by the ECJ at the drop of a hat.
If the historic in-out referendum were to be staged now, 66 per cent say they would vote to remain members and 22 per cent would vote to quit. Excluding the don’t knows, at 12 per cent, the result is an emphatic 75 to 25.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/we-want-to-stay-in-eu-voters-tell-pm-10331462.html
Thanks for the summary. But science works by testing the hypothesis not by being Sherlock Holmes who said something like - "Whatever is left, however unlikely, must be the truth."
And there's a good reason for this.
Lord Kelvin made a famous quote over a hundred years ago ... "There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now, All that remains is more and more precise measurement."
Then came relativity, quantum mechanics and the discovery that baryonic matter (all that we see or are) represents less than 5% of the total stuff in the Universe.
We don't know the unknown unknowns and never will.
Hence we keep the hypothesis and test it. We don't test some possible alternatives and call the original proved.
Be far cheaper to flog it to a developer, and build a couple of debating chambers, offices and meeting rooms elsewhere.
I recommend the London assembly for debating chambers.
The public should be conspiring to lie to pollsters that they'd vote NO even when they'd probably vote YES.
Not only could it lock us into a bad deal with the EU for decades to come, but it could end up causing problems for any future negotiations and opt-outs in the future.
Surely the pollsters can't be getting the referendum wrong too?
It is just felicitous happenstance that as usual, the interests of the country and the Tory party are alligned
Where the pollsters will mess it up, is on turnout, because more people will say they will turn out than actually will.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33190940
Oh dear, UKIP's best asset is getting the push for daring to question the Cult of Nigel, and stating the bloody obvious!
I'm beginning to this UKIP actually want to lose this referendum. Farage is a joke.
The EU just don't dance until they have no alternative.
Power and influence doesn't come from maintaining a permanent grudging disapproval of what's happening.