I'm sorry Mike but I wholly disagree with the idea that Labour could have stayed in power.
It's true that Brown didn't have to resign when he did. What he would have had to have done, had he stayed on, was present a Queen's Speech to the Commons within a couple of weeks or so of the election. Unless the Lib Dems were prepared to vote for whatever Brown (or some at that point unelected successor), put forward, that Queen's Speech would have been lost and by convention he would have had to resign the government. If he still didn't, a vote of No Confidence would have undoubtedly followed, in which the parties couldn't credibly have voted in any other way than that which they did on the Queen's Speech.
At that point, the constitutional position isn't quite as cut and dried as some 'experts' make out. She wouldn't be obliged to call on the leader of the opposition - though that is usually regarded as the next step. Soundings would almost certainly have been taken from Palace officials as to who might be able to form a government. Unless Clegg and virtually all the minor parties bar the DUP were prepared to positively support another Labour leader e.g. D Miliband, it would have been Cameron she'd have called on.
The option of a minority government was always there for the Tories, not least because the Lib Dems were quite clear that they were prepared to offer the Tories support on a confidence-and-supply basis if a coalition couldn't be done but a lesser deal could.
Personally, I think that a minority Tory government would have been a worse option for the country, worse still for the Tories, no better for the Lib Dems and only superior for Labour, who would have had a much better chance of bringing the government down at a time convenient to them.
Can Carl and the other greenie fools go and express their CO2 concerns to the developing world, China, India, South America etc..I am sure they will listen patienlty and then kick their butts out of town.
You really don't understand the way this works. The countries of the developing world will listen to Carl intently, nod sagely, and then say: "we need help!" Carl will then come back to the UK and say we need to give these poor countries money to help counter climate change.
Which may be accurate. However, any country building coal-fired power stations, developing nuclear weapons, or having a space program should have no help from us with this regard.
The option of a minority government was always there for the Tories, not least because the Lib Dems were quite clear that they were prepared to offer the Tories support on a confidence-and-supply basis if a coalition couldn't be done but a lesser deal could.
And not least because Cameron himself said one was possible.
In his meeting with Tory MPs on the Monday evening, David Cameron said the party had no option but to go into coalition with the Lib Dems, and that a minority government wouldn't be viable.
And yet only two days later, in the famous press conference in Downing Street garden (misnamed the Rose Garden press conference), Cameron claimed he could indeed have gone it alone, but much preferred a firm coalition with the Lib Dems.
"We could have had a minority government backed by a Confidence and Supply arrangement but thought this is so uninspiring, it might last for a month, six months or a year but it won't do what we want to achieve..."
Deathdevil Recommended 211 Be fair, he wasn't in power - he was busy living a glitzy, wealthy lifestyle, using elitist social media sites to plan his nights out so he could avoid coming into contact with any "Trash".
LlamaRiot Recommend 117
Labour run councils seem to like them
Recommend 196 Quite. Lambeth council advertised this post a few months ago, and I'm sure there are plenty of others. I live in Lambeth, and my MP is... Chuka Umunna.
Had Brown called an election in Oct 2008 it may have been interesting, his ratings had leapt by net 40 points and Camerons fallen by 10, the Tories were all over the place hiding Osborne away from media coverage during the crisis, but it was a narrow window.
I think he'd have had to wait for the immediate crisis to be dealt with, but, having rescued the banks and 'saved the world', he had a window of opportunity. And it wasn't difficult - it just needed him to admit that tax revenues had collapsed, because of the crisis 'which started in America', and to ask the country to trust him and Darling rather than Cameron and Osborne to make the necessary, painful choices.
What could Osborne have done then? Say, 'Yes we'd do the same'? In which case, why wouldn't voters have stayed with Labour?
Instead Brown went for the risible position of trying to blame the laws of arithmetic on evil Tories, to the evident frustration of Mandelson, Darling and the other sane ministers. It was (from Labour's point of view) a catastrophic political error, which arose entirely from his own character flaws.
Let's take the thread at face value. It implies that in May 2010 Clegg and the LDs were in a position of immense power, for Cameron had no real choice but to form a coalition on just about whatever terms the LDs wanted if the Conservatives were to be returned to government.
Yet three years later we have a Conservative government run on Cameron and Osborne's terms, with no more than the very occasional bone being thrown to the LD poodle. Where did it all go wrong for Clegg?
I suggest you post that on Conservativehome and see if any posters there agree with you .
OK, so you think that the direction of the government isn't that far off where the LDs would have wanted to take it. To me, that says a lot about where they sit on the political spectrum. Are you an Orange Booker too?
Channel 4 reporting on struggling economy in Cornwall, or what Cathy Newman overheard in a Cornish pub, whilst moaning about Cameron having a holiday near Padstow.
Good on Caroline Lucas and the other protesters. Fracking is insane.
I don't agree that fracking is insane, but I think what Lucas has done is probably the kind of thing the people who voted for her would have wanted.
So good on her..
Not entirely sure about that. It's what her core eco-hardliner vote would have wanted. Whether it's what the floating centre-left voters who went Green to keep out the Tories would have wanted is a different matter. Whether being seen to be opposed to cheaper energy is what her low-income voters want is also a different matter.
Experts have been looking at this problem for some time, and it would be a waste of time for me to replicate their work.
They have all concluded that we can massively cut our reliance on fossil fuels by widespread deployment of renewable technologies, and that we would make life easier for ourselves if we include nuclear in the mix and get a move on with carbon capture and storage.
The government response - of whichever colour rosette - has been distinctly underwhelming, despite the fact that we have known this is the situation for more than a decade, very little has been done, or attempted to be done.
We seem to be drifting into an energy policy that relies on gas out of inertia, rather than choice.
You do not have to replicate their work. Look at the problems, crunch some figures, and learn. (*)
As the farcical IEA report released today showed, people can produce any ridiculous report under the guise of being an 'expert' (a problem I believe courts occasionally suffer from wrt expert witnesses).
If you believe strongly in this, you are almost beholden to go as deeply as you can into it. Reading documents like (1) can only help. If you do not, you leave yourself open to the attention of shysters.
Do it, and at least the shysters who fool you will be more accomplished. ;-)
I've done it twice now by different means, and it's actually quite fun. And I learnt a great deal both times, including that some of my assumptions were false.
It is really worth doing, if only to slay people like me with the sword of fact.
Owen Eoins @OwenEoins84 Correct to criticise #Fracking arrests. We tried #Democracy it didn't work. As democratic socialists we have right to ignore that. #Balcombe
Owen Eoins @OwenEoins84 But it's not right for anyone else to ignore the law. In fact, no one else is allowed to protest at all #NoPlatform
The option of a minority government was always there for the Tories, not least because the Lib Dems were quite clear that they were prepared to offer the Tories support on a confidence-and-supply basis if a coalition couldn't be done but a lesser deal could.
And not least because Cameron himself said one was possible.
In his meeting with Tory MPs on the Monday evening, David Cameron said the party had no option but to go into coalition with the Lib Dems, and that a minority government wouldn't be viable.
And yet only two days later, in the famous press conference in Downing Street garden (misnamed the Rose Garden press conference), Cameron claimed he could indeed have gone it alone, but much preferred a firm coalition with the Lib Dems.
"We could have had a minority government backed by a Confidence and Supply arrangement but thought this is so uninspiring, it might last for a month, six months or a year but it won't do what we want to achieve..."
Well that fits quite closely with my definition of "unviable".
Good on Caroline Lucas and the other protesters. Fracking is insane.
Why?
The only insane thing is neglecting our energy security. If our energy security can be ensured using green power, all for the good. If not, we need to try to move towards it. Until that idyllic state is reached, fracking might well form a reasonable part of the energy-supply mix.
Put barriers to fracking and other fossil fuel exploration insanity in place, and move their generous subsidies and favours to renewable energy, and we might make progress on CO2 emissions.
A question I've asked many times, and rarely have received an answer from the green lobby: what do you believe is an achievable energy mix for the UK in 2020, 2030 and 2040? How much wind, tidal, nuclear, gas, coal, oil will the UK need, and in what proportions? How much will that energy cost, and what are the security implications (*)?
Until you have an answer for these questions, then throwing 'insane' around is rather, well, insane.
As a starter, I point you towards David MacKay's excellent website. Peruse it and see that there are no easy answers ... http://www.withouthotair.com/
(*) If going for solar and some other advanced technologies, factor in availability of rare-earth and other raw materials.
"Achievable" is a mostly political question. We have the resources and technology to produce a far larger proportion of our energy from non fossil fuel sources. We just choose not to.
It would just be nice to see a Government set out a direction of travel that reduces our CO2 emissions, rather than encouraging more as this Government is doing (and, sadly, the next Government probably will too).
And the reason why they don't? The effect it would have on energy and fuel prices, and the effect that would have on public opinion.
If the Tories, Lib Dems and Labour came out in favour of massive increases in renewable energy production and restricting carbon-based fuel, there's little that would be more likely to turn UKIP into a genuine contender for power in 2015. All parties remember the fuel protests of 2000 and shudder.
So, you've stated it nicely. Labour are incompetent financially.
Brown, who you quite rightly denigrate, seems to have been propelled into some sort of comfort blanket for old-timers. I'd have chosen hard-labour as his fate.
Can Carl and the other greenie fools go and express their CO2 concerns to the developing world, China, India, South America etc..I am sure they will listen patienlty and then kick their butts out of town.
You really don't understand the way this works. The countries of the developing world will listen to Carl intently, nod sagely, and then say: "we need help!" Carl will then come back to the UK and say we need to give these poor countries money to help counter climate change.
Which may be accurate. However, any country building coal-fired power stations, developing nuclear weapons, or having a space program should have no help from us with this regard.
That's a bit beneath you. I think we've discussed this before, but my personal position on Climate Change is that it's probably too late in many respects, because of pathetic lack of political will the world over.
But the less we rely on CO2 emissions the less we will have to do in the way of mitigation over the coming years (given that mitigation is going to be an incredibly difficult thing,because the impact of climate change is so uncertain, it's going to be an as-and-when job).
As far as security goes, too, renewables are the only sensible way forward in the medium to long term, no matter what developing countries do. Unfortunately, again, our politicians never think medium-long term (an unavoidable flaw in democracy!)
Good on Caroline Lucas and the other protesters. Fracking is insane.
I don't agree that fracking is insane, but I think what Lucas has done is probably the kind of thing the people who voted for her would have wanted.
So good on her..
Not entirely sure about that. It's what her core eco-hardliner vote would have wanted. Whether it's what the floating centre-left voters who went Green to keep out the Tories would have wanted is a different matter. Whether being seen to be opposed to cheaper energy is what her low-income voters want is also a different matter.
I doubt "low income voters" believe for one second that fracking will lower energy bills.
Of course there could have been a Conservative minority administration. First, a history and constitutional lesson for those posters who appear not to get it.
1. Brown was directed by the civil service not to resign after the election. The "Squatter in Number 10" stories were used with great effect to apply pressure, but constitutionally were incorrect 2. The Labour team were clear that the arithmetic was in place to sustain a minority Labour administration. Namely that no nationalist would dare vote against the government on a confidence motion knowing that the likely result would be a majority Tory government. It is pointed out that such a government would (a) be wildly unpopular and (b) be very unstable, but the notion that Brown's government had to fall is simply not true when the election result is that no party has won. 3. Clegg's team pleaded with Brown not to resign when he did. A Labour deal was still possible they insisted and wanted more time for negotiations. It appears to be consensus now that this was just a negotiating tactic by Clegg to exert more from Cameron, but at the time it was Brown who decided that enough was enough and called Clegg's bluff.
So, how could there have been a minority Tory government? Brown wouldn't - couldn't resign - if there wasn't an alternative government which could command a majority. Had the Tory Lib Dem negotiations bogged down he wouldn't resign to let Cameron run his own minority unsupported government. No, instead Brown would have opened the next session of parliament and test the maths on the "nationalists won't vote us down" premise.
Had his government won the vote then the Tories would have been stuck in opposition. Remember that Brown had already agreed to step aside, the only negotiation with the LibDems was how quickly. Labour grandees weren't happy with the concept but are people seriously suggesting that Blunkett et al would have voted down a David Milliband or Alastair Darling led administration so that the Tories could take over instead?
So what Brady wanted would have been an all or nothing strategy. Cameron could have been PM of a minority Tory administration, but only if the runes fell the right way at several key decision points. Cameron and his team clearly saw this to be the case and decided that a deal where they make concessions to the LibDems is better than not making a deal and missing out.
I do wonder at what point Her Majesty would call upon someone who was neither the PM nor the Leader of the Opposition. Say the Tories had got a few fewer seats and a Lib/Lab/other coalition been more viable. If Brown had resigned following losing the QS by a couple of votes, and some of those voting against stated they would support a Labour-led Government under a different PM, would she go to the Opposition first? Would she go to another member of the Labour Party other than its leader? And if so, whom? Or could she ask the leader of a minor party to form the government?
2009 was a horrible time for Labour in the polls and on the doorstep, Cam could have won outright. By June Labour were on 22% in one poll.
By then Brown had completely blown the opportunity, with his insistence on pretending virtually no cuts were needed.
Had Brown called an election in Oct 2008 it may have been interesting, his ratings had leapt by net 40 points and Camerons fallen by 10, the Tories were all over the place hiding Osborne away from media coverage during the crisis, but it was a narrow window.
But wasn't the rise in his rating precisely because people thought he was concentrating on getting on with the job (a job which it has to be said needed getting on with). It would have been extremely tricky for Brown to have capitalised on that spike in ratings by calling an election without undermining the reason for it.
The option of a minority government was always there for the Tories, not least because the Lib Dems were quite clear that they were prepared to offer the Tories support on a confidence-and-supply basis if a coalition couldn't be done but a lesser deal could.
And not least because Cameron himself said one was possible.
In his meeting with Tory MPs on the Monday evening, David Cameron said the party had no option but to go into coalition with the Lib Dems, and that a minority government wouldn't be viable.
And yet only two days later, in the famous press conference in Downing Street garden (misnamed the Rose Garden press conference), Cameron claimed he could indeed have gone it alone, but much preferred a firm coalition with the Lib Dems.
"We could have had a minority government backed by a Confidence and Supply arrangement but thought this is so uninspiring, it might last for a month, six months or a year but it won't do what we want to achieve..."
Well that fits quite closely with my definition of "unviable".
Do you seriously believe if Cammie and Clegg had to go for confidence and supply (say if Clegg wouldn't back down on PR instead of AV and Cammie said no which was entirely possible) then Cammie would have taken to the airwaves saying confidence and supply "is so uninspiring, it might last for a month, six months or a year but it won't do what we want to achieve" ?
LOL
Pull the other one.
He and Clegg would have tried their hardest to make it work as long as possible and they would have spun it as the best of all possible deals. Since neither could be certain of either an improved election result if it fell apart or that their MPs and grassroots wouldn't vent their ire on them if it did fall apart.
It might well have fallen apart or it could have gone on for as long as this coalition has done. We'll never know. The fact is it was always possible and both Cameron and Clegg said it was. The coalition was a choice. It was Cammie and Clegg's preferred choice yet the spin that there was no alternative is just that, spin. There was always a different choice available. It just wasn''t the one Cameron and Clegg wanted.
Good on Caroline Lucas and the other protesters. Fracking is insane.
I don't agree that fracking is insane, but I think what Lucas has done is probably the kind of thing the people who voted for her would have wanted.
So good on her..
Not entirely sure about that. It's what her core eco-hardliner vote would have wanted. Whether it's what the floating centre-left voters who went Green to keep out the Tories would have wanted is a different matter. Whether being seen to be opposed to cheaper energy is what her low-income voters want is also a different matter.
I doubt "low income voters" believe for one second that fracking will lower energy bills.
Primarily because it won't.
1. It is doing in the US. 2. If the energy can't be extracted profitably, why are the companies so keen to have a go?
Can Carl and the other greenie fools go and express their CO2 concerns to the developing world, China, India, South America etc..I am sure they will listen patienlty and then kick their butts out of town.
You really don't understand the way this works. The countries of the developing world will listen to Carl intently, nod sagely, and then say: "we need help!" Carl will then come back to the UK and say we need to give these poor countries money to help counter climate change.
Which may be accurate. However, any country building coal-fired power stations, developing nuclear weapons, or having a space program should have no help from us with this regard.
That's a bit beneath you. I think we've discussed this before, but my personal position on Climate Change is that it's probably too late in many respects, because of pathetic lack of political will the world over.
But the less we rely on CO2 emissions the less we will have to do in the way of mitigation over the coming years (given that mitigation is going to be an incredibly difficult thing,because the impact of climate change is so uncertain, it's going to be an as-and-when job).
As far as security goes, too, renewables are the only sensible way forward in the medium to long term, no matter what developing countries do. Unfortunately, again, our politicians never think medium-long term (an unavoidable flaw in democracy!)
Yes, I'm sorry, I shouldn't have used your name wrt that geopolitical rant.
I'm more in favour of mitigation that reduction for a number of reasons that are probably too convoluted to go into at the moment.
But I am an engineer, and whilst I shuffle electrons using code, I know a dangerous little about the engineering realities of hardware (civil, electrical and mechanical). And I believe it best not to bet the house on technology that is not yet proven at a production level.
But that means you have to invest in trying to prove the alternative technology: whether that be fusion, wind, tidal, or any other up-and-coming tech. And that's the stage we're at.
That's why you'll find me an advocate of testing new technologies in limited ways, to work out which works best. A little caution now might save the planet later.
Let's take the thread at face value. It implies that in May 2010 Clegg and the LDs were in a position of immense power, for Cameron had no real choice but to form a coalition on just about whatever terms the LDs wanted if the Conservatives were to be returned to government.
Yet three years later we have a Conservative government run on Cameron and Osborne's terms, with no more than the very occasional bone being thrown to the LD poodle. Where did it all go wrong for Clegg?
I suggest you post that on Conservativehome and see if any posters there agree with you .
OK, so you think that the direction of the government isn't that far off where the LDs would have wanted to take it. To me, that says a lot about where they sit on the political spectrum. Are you an Orange Booker too?
Me an Orange Booker ??? You don't come on here very much do you ? I am a realist that understands that a party of 57 MP's cannot get all they want as part of a Coalition government with a party with 300 MPs .
I wonder how long it will take for the lefties and indeed the entire Labour Party to realise that a lot of the problems concerning Eds image and popularity or rather lack of it is down to one word..Crosby.. No wonder they are crapping themselves. Can't wait for Farage to be included in the Debates. Ed will still be trying to work out which six form screwed up facial expression to wear as Farage rips another hole in his rear end.. He will go for Labour ..not the Tories..
I do wonder at what point Her Majesty would call upon someone who was neither the PM nor the Leader of the Opposition. Say the Tories had got a few fewer seats and a Lib/Lab/other coalition been more viable. If Brown had resigned following losing the QS by a couple of votes, and some of those voting against stated they would support a Labour-led Government under a different PM, would she go to the Opposition first? Would she go to another member of the Labour Party other than its leader? And if so, whom? Or could she ask the leader of a minor party to form the government?
I think that would very much be a suck-it-and-see situation.
Some expert opinion I remember hearing at the time of the negotiations (which mirrored what I read when I wrote my university dissertation on pretty much this topic), was that HMQ is obliged to send for the leader of the opposition, and that the convention exists to provide rules to keep her above controversy. The opinion's wrong.
Take, for example, what might have happened in 2003 when Blair was trying to lead Britain into the Iraq War. Suppose IDS had asked for a confidential briefing about the nature and extent of the intelligence on which Blair was making his case and decided that it didn't stack up (or that if Blair refused, he couldn't take the PM's word). Tory opinion was lukewarm over the war but many MPs were prepared to give the leadership and PM the benefit of the doubt. Had IDS opposed Blair - as Gaitskell did to Eden over Suez - the Tory MPs would probably have split fairly evenly and Blair would probably have lost his vote. Had he then upped the ante and gone for a confidence vote, the stakes - war or peace - were so high that he could have lost that too, especially if Brown's allies let it be known that such a vote wouldn't be held against an MP.
Blair would then have been bound to resign but the Queen couldn't possibly have invited IDS to form a government. She would without doubt have asked Brown, who the cabinet would have nominated pretty much unanimously, and who would clearly have commanded a majority in the Commons.
The beauty of the UK constitution is its flexibility matched to an unwillingness of the key participants not to abuse that flexibility. Guidelines are good but they're not always the last word.
In 1997 there was a rather untypical rise in the LD vote of 3.5 percentage points in the Derby South constituency.
Looking back at it now, it seems to me very likely that this was something to do with the fact that the name of the LD candidate was Beckett, the same as the Labour MP.
tim .. if none of this shit regarding squid pointing matters , shit of your own making, why do you repeat it on every thread..Have you brought the cows in yet..
On-topic, Cameron's offer of talks on the Friday afternoon was the game-changer. I thought he would refuse any deal and attempt to form a minority administration.
I would, as a LD member, have had real issues with the party propping up a Labour Party which had polled just 29% of the vote and lost in excess of a hundred seats. At least the Tories had polled more votes and won more seats which is I suppose one measure of legitimacy.
On fracking, I remain confused as to the potential for replacing imported crude oil with shale oil on a significant level. The theory for gas I understand but I didn't think you could, for example, run a car on shale oil. Perhaps you can though I suspect some refining would be needed but I don't know what that entails.
As for prices, we're back to our old friend supply and demand. A lot of countries getting into fracking would reduce the price you would think which would be a double-edge sword - good news for the consumer, not so good news for HM Treasury. I seem to recall that despite the presence of gas and oil in the North Sea we remained at the warp and weft of OPEC and world energy prices.
“The Tories are planning to run the line that the country should not give back the keys to the people who crashed the car. The truth is the car ran a lot better under Labour, and can do so again.”
I think that puts it better than I can.
We had that Jaguar really purring, until we ended up upside down in the ditch, with only a faceful of airbag standing between us and oblivion.
"2. The Labour team were clear that the arithmetic was in place to sustain a minority Labour administration. Namely that no nationalist would dare vote against the government on a confidence motion knowing that the likely result would be a majority Tory government. It is pointed out that such a government would (a) be wildly unpopular and (b) be very unstable, but the notion that Brown's government had to fall is simply not true when the election result is that no party has won."
Quite how a minority Labour government might have be sustained 68 seats short of a majority is a mystery. Such a government would have been at the whim of the combined numbers of the Conservatives and LibDems. Frankly a minority Labour administration was an absolute non starter as Brown and other senior Labour figures knew only too well.
Let's take the thread at face value. It implies that in May 2010 Clegg and the LDs were in a position of immense power, for Cameron had no real choice but to form a coalition on just about whatever terms the LDs wanted if the Conservatives were to be returned to government.
Yet three years later we have a Conservative government run on Cameron and Osborne's terms, with no more than the very occasional bone being thrown to the LD poodle. Where did it all go wrong for Clegg?
I suggest you post that on Conservativehome and see if any posters there agree with you .
OK, so you think that the direction of the government isn't that far off where the LDs would have wanted to take it. To me, that says a lot about where they sit on the political spectrum. Are you an Orange Booker too?
Me an Orange Booker ??? You don't come on here very much do you ? I am a realist that understands that a party of 57 MP's cannot get all they want as part of a Coalition government with a party with 300 MPs .
My god exactly and if not only more LD MPs and members realised that but, more critically, the Tories realised that they cannot get all that _they_ want for precisely the same reasons, there would be far less needless gnashing of teeth on both sides.
according to the Cheshire Farmer it would be a good idea if Ed proposed it.. then I think he gave it a little more thought..Farage would savage Milliband..a man against a boy
“The Tories are planning to run the line that the country should not give back the keys to the people who crashed the car. The truth is the car ran a lot better under Labour, and can do so again.”
I think that puts it better than I can.
We had that Jaguar really purring, until we ended up upside down in the ditch, with only a faceful of airbag standing between us and oblivion.
Let's take the thread at face value. It implies that in May 2010 Clegg and the LDs were in a position of immense power, for Cameron had no real choice but to form a coalition on just about whatever terms the LDs wanted if the Conservatives were to be returned to government.
Yet three years later we have a Conservative government run on Cameron and Osborne's terms, with no more than the very occasional bone being thrown to the LD poodle. Where did it all go wrong for Clegg?
I suggest you post that on Conservativehome and see if any posters there agree with you .
OK, so you think that the direction of the government isn't that far off where the LDs would have wanted to take it. To me, that says a lot about where they sit on the political spectrum. Are you an Orange Booker too?
Me an Orange Booker ??? You don't come on here very much do you ? I am a realist that understands that a party of 57 MP's cannot get all they want as part of a Coalition government with a party with 300 MPs .
My god exactly and if not only more LD MPs and members realised that but, more critically, the Tories realised that they cannot get all that _they_ want for precisely the same reasons, there would be far less needless gnashing of teeth on both sides.
No way are they going to let a party with zero MPs into the debates.
Maybe, maybe not. UKIP are making a good showing of outperforming the Lib Dems at the moment, at least on share of the vote. If they can maintain third place in the polls, take more votes in the 2014 locals than the Lib Dems (repeating their achievement of 2013), secure first or at least second in the Euroelection, and continue to consistently take seconds and thirds in by-elections, they will have a very strong case. Sky could be tempted because the Murdochs seem Kipperish, the Beeb could be tempted to stuff the Tories, both will be tempted to mix things up simply for the story - and both will claim it's representing public opinion. ITV will tag along.
What the effect of Farage taking part in the debates would be is hard to predict, other than probably dramatic. They might take votes off their right-of-centre rivals. They might take votes from the socially conservative left. They might take votes from the disillusioned and uninspired. They might crash and burn (with apologies to Farage for the metaphor). What they won't be is dull.
On topic, What If "Clegg and Cameron failed to reach a deal in 2010" is one scenario I'll be writing for a series of counterfactuals I'm aiming to write.
MP If Farage wants to attend the Conservative conference he can always join the party..no probs..he aint that far away..
Really?
Strange, because he doesn't sound all that keen with Cammie as tory leader.
Nigel Farage hints at Ukip-Tory deal if Cameron sacked
Nigel Farage has declared Ukip is “here to stay” and signalled the Tories would have to sack David Cameron if they want an election deal with his party.
He also denied his ambition was to become prime minister, but confirmed he will stand for election to the UK parliament in 2015.
Have just put another small bet on the ALP for the Oz election at 6/1. The Coalition are clear favourites, but 2 polls today had it 50-50, so I think the ALP odds are a bit long, may be a worth a punt
Mr Porky.. You know that MP's say one thing and mean another..take your local hero for example .. Kick out nuclear weapons, but remain in Nato.. aint gonna happen... Rejoin the EU , without Schengen.. aint gonna happen . Keep Sterling .. aint gonna happen..Keep all of the UK govrernment jobs based in Scotland...aint gonna happen. See what I mean Porky..
David Herdson - Interesting scenario, but purely hypothetical, IDS was a fully paid up neocon and had strong links to Cheney and the GOP who were using him to provide Blair's spine. If Ken Clarke had won the leadership though he would certainly have opposed the war which would have been interesting, with Brown having supported the war the LDs could even have backed Clarke on his Iraq position
In 1997 there was a rather untypical rise in the LD vote of 3.5 percentage points in the Derby South constituency.
Looking back at it now, it seems to me very likely that this was something to do with the fact that the name of the LD candidate was Beckett, the same as the Labour MP.
At the 2007 Scottish parliamentary elections, in Dunfermline West, just 43 people who voted for Labour on the "list" vote also voted for the Conservative candidate for the constituency. In Dunfermline East, the equivalent number was 1050 votes. Could be something to do with the name of the Tory candidate in Dunfermline East, Graeme Gordon Brown?
Mr Porky.. I realise that you may have a problem with English but I did drop a hint when I said Local Hero.. I was of course referring to Scotlands premier Serial L*ar Mr Salmond .
Let's take the thread at face value. It implies that in May 2010 Clegg and the LDs were in a position of immense power, for Cameron had no real choice but to form a coalition on just about whatever terms the LDs wanted if the Conservatives were to be returned to government.
Yet three years later we have a Conservative government run on Cameron and Osborne's terms, with no more than the very occasional bone being thrown to the LD poodle. Where did it all go wrong for Clegg?
I suggest you post that on Conservativehome and see if any posters there agree with you .
OK, so you think that the direction of the government isn't that far off where the LDs would have wanted to take it. To me, that says a lot about where they sit on the political spectrum. Are you an Orange Booker too?
Me an Orange Booker ??? You don't come on here very much do you ? I am a realist that understands that a party of 57 MP's cannot get all they want as part of a Coalition government with a party with 300 MPs .
My god exactly and if not only more LD MPs and members realised that but, more critically, the Tories realised that they cannot get all that _they_ want for precisely the same reasons, there would be far less needless gnashing of teeth on both sides.
Agree 100% Is this a first ?
Gulp. Could be.
The thing that is depressing, though, is that to me (and to you...), this is transparently obvious. It is so obvious that it raises huge questions of judgement if not sanity about those who can't or refuse to see it.
On-topic, Cameron's offer of talks on the Friday afternoon was the game-changer. I thought he would refuse any deal and attempt to form a minority administration.
I would, as a LD member, have had real issues with the party propping up a Labour Party which had polled just 29% of the vote and lost in excess of a hundred seats. At least the Tories had polled more votes and won more seats which is I suppose one measure of legitimacy.
On fracking, I remain confused as to the potential for replacing imported crude oil with shale oil on a significant level. The theory for gas I understand but I didn't think you could, for example, run a car on shale oil. Perhaps you can though I suspect some refining would be needed but I don't know what that entails.
As for prices, we're back to our old friend supply and demand. A lot of countries getting into fracking would reduce the price you would think which would be a double-edge sword - good news for the consumer, not so good news for HM Treasury. I seem to recall that despite the presence of gas and oil in the North Sea we remained at the warp and weft of OPEC and world energy prices.
Nice one! Brings back memories of interesting bar graphs on election fliers.
Any how's, shale gas is a game changer on many levels. It turns the screws on OPEC, but more importantly it destroys one of the main financial arguments for the SNP.
Renewables, do not work. At the end of the 18th century, windmills covered the UK, technologically advanced backed by cheap labour and like the canal system, wiped out by advances within 50 years or less of being built.
(If Fitalass is still around, perhaps she would like to inform us of the canal in Aberdeen. I have to admit bursting out laughing when I started researching it, particularly when someone in the train company breached the canal bank by "accident" and left a number of boats stranded)
Oh! Fracking was patented back around 1868 or so, and for the scientifically deficient, whether from gas, solid or liquid, if the hydro carbons are available, then it is possible to crack it to virtually what ever is required. Anyone ever wonder about margarine?
Mr Porky.. I realise that you may have a problem with English but I did drop a hint when I said Local Hero..
Poor old Doddy. You really do sound quite bewildered at times. Either Farage is telling the truth and wouldn't touch the tories as long as Cammie is leader (you remember Cammie don't you? Tory leader and called the kippers "fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists") or according to you NF will "say one thing and mean another" thus embrace the tories and Cammie while joining them in a spirit of peace and harmony in some delusional pact bollocks.
David Herdson - Interesting scenario, but purely hypothetical, IDS was a fully paid up neocon and had strong links to Cheney and the GOP who were using him to provide Blair's spine. If Ken Clarke had won the leadership though he would certainly have opposed the war which would have been interesting, with Brown having supported the war the LDs could even have backed Clarke on his Iraq position
Indeed. I doubt IDS really would have rowed back given that he was even more hawkish than Blair (and I don't think he was playing politics to separate Blair from his party - Duncan Smith isn't that kind of politician and in any case, the dynamics are all wrong for that kind of plan to have worked).
The important thing though was to find a situation whereby Blair could have lost that vote, which would have required the Tories to at least split fairly evenly in the lobbies. A Clarke-led party may well have done that.
The two others who might have stopped it were Brown and Clare Short. Had Brown - and hence his supporters - decided to oppose the war, for whatever reason (and again, I don't think it would have been likely but it was possible), Blair's position would have been untenable. Similarly, Short remaining in the cabinet provided Blair with some cover and that changed some minds and votes as to whether it was worth fighting. Had she followed Cook out, votes would undoubtedly have swung to No, though it would have been the fewest of the various situations sketched.
But whatever the method, had Blair been obliged to stand down, it would have been a Labour politician who replaced him, not the Leader of the Opposition.
Mr Porky, sorry that wont do.. I made a specific ref to your Local Hero ,Scotlands Serial Liar..Mr Alex Salmond.. he said all of those things, and he knows they are not going to happen.. he is lying to the Scots
David Herdson - Indeed, interesting scenarios, the most likely being a Short resignation. Had Blair then lost the vote could Robin Cook have replaced him as the most prominent anti-war vote and as the outgoing Foreign Secretary arguably the most senior Labour politician after Brown?
"In fact, just about anyone can attack Ed Miliband, so long as they stick to the party line. That’s the line that basically states Ed Miliband’s main problem is he isn’t quite Left-wing enough. He was OK in the beginning (mustn’t embarrass those trade union leaders and Left-wing commentators who told everyone he was one of their own), but since then he’s lost his way a bit. Miliband’s head’s been turned by those nasty New Labourites. So, he can be criticised for not standing up to the Tories strongly on welfare, for the odd ill-timed immigration intervention, for not pledging to renationalise enough things (doesn’t really matter what), for not supporting the unions when they call a strike (doesn’t really matter what the strike’s about), and for not sacking Liam Byrne. All of these attacks are permissible.
What is not permissible is any sort of attack from the Right. You say Labour’s not tough enough on welfare? Traitor. Not tough enough on immigration? Racist traitor. Not tough enough on fiscal responsibility? Progress member. Interventions from the Right, cannot, by definition, be the intervention of a loyal comrade. At best they represent the brain-dead wail of the Blairite zombie; at worst, the malign whisper of the Tory fifth columnist.
Is it any wonder Labour is in such a mess? Ed Miliband’s party isn’t embarked on a program of renewal, it’s staging a revival of “Animal Farm”. The Blairites strangled debate and neutered dissent, the Left argues. So to ensure that doesn’t happen again, we must strangle debate and neuter dissent ourselves. Only until everyone who disagrees with us is dealt with, you understand. Than we can all go back to disagreeing again..."
Surely Labour can't afford to drop Ed Balls, that would be a sign of defeat.
Balls is up against Osbrowne and achieving nothing. This would be the same Osbrowne who is the only politician that comes close to Clegg's voter repelling toxicity. If you can't even score against someone as unpopular as Osbrowne then you have already lost.
Let's remember though that basing anything on the PB Hodges rumourmill unwise to say the least. Vince Cable has resigned twice already according to some of the most amusing ones. Until the facts say otherwise Balls is still shadow chancellor.
In 1997 there was a rather untypical rise in the LD vote of 3.5 percentage points in the Derby South constituency.
Looking back at it now, it seems to me very likely that this was something to do with the fact that the name of the LD candidate was Beckett, the same as the Labour MP.
At the 2007 Scottish parliamentary elections, in Dunfermline West, just 43 people who voted for Labour on the "list" vote also voted for the Conservative candidate for the constituency. In Dunfermline East, the equivalent number was 1050 votes. Could be something to do with the name of the Tory candidate in Dunfermline East, Graeme Gordon Brown?
Another example of the same phenomenon is Glasgow Maryhill in 1997. The Natural Law Party candidate received the highest number of votes in the party's history.
The name of their candidate in the constituency was Blair:
Plato. Why don't you try giving us your own opinions in your own words instead of reprinting reams of articles from the Telegraph and Mail which we could easily access ourselves? It makes navigating the site like crawling through the U bend of a Syrian toilet
tim is in fine form today .. the man who is a self confessed fibber talks about someone not having a spine... Tim could begin to find his by posting under his real name..
Outrage Bus Driver @Outrage_Bus We are extremely busy this evening with #BenefitsBritain1949 on the idiot lantern. All those who vote for a living are no doubt watching it.
David Herdson - Indeed, interesting scenarios, the most likely being a Short resignation. Had Blair then lost the vote could Robin Cook have replaced him as the most prominent anti-war vote and as the outgoing Foreign Secretary arguably the most senior Labour politician after Brown?
I think that's very unlikely. Cook never had much of a personal following in leadership terms (i.e. no faction that he led), though was respected within Labour and the House in general for his debating skills and forensic ability. Brown was always the successor and had Blair fallen in 2003, he'd have become PM four years earlier than he did (Brown was also sufficiently distant from the Iraq debates that he wouldn't have suffered much collateral damage from Blair's loss and in many ways was in an ideal position to heal Labour from those splits, certainly more so than Cook).
It is possible - maybe probable - that Cook would have been offered his old job back in a Brown cabinet. Jack Straw would have had to leave the Foreign Office but not necessarily the cabinet. Cook and Brown did have a feud that went way back into the mists of Scottish Labour politics so he'd have been kept away from the big domestic departments. With that record towards Brown and with the Blairites presumably bitter at his role in bringing down their man, he wouldn't have had that much leverage, despite his being the most prominent Labour voice on the side of public opinion in the issue of the day.
The important thing though was to find a situation whereby Blair could have lost that vote, which would have required the Tories to at least split fairly evenly in the lobbies. A Clarke-led party may well have done that.
The two others who might have stopped it were Brown and Clare Short. Had Brown - and hence his supporters - decided to oppose the war, for whatever reason (and again, I don't think it would have been likely but it was possible), Blair's position would have been untenable. Similarly, Short remaining in the cabinet provided Blair with some cover and that changed some minds and votes as to whether it was worth fighting. Had she followed Cook out, votes would undoubtedly have swung to No, though it would have been the fewest of the various situations sketched.
But whatever the method, had Blair been obliged to stand down, it would have been a Labour politician who replaced him, not the Leader of the Opposition.
Brown could certainly have stopped it. I don't think Short could have - by that time she didn't have a significant following in the PLP if she ever did (I was cynical about her from the day she warmly congratulated me for something I hadn't done). In any case it was one issue where many MPs actually thought deeply about the issue and arrived at a personal view - I don't remember whipping being especially active, though there were any number of meetings with ministers. Jack Straw was important - he made it clear that he had qualms, and the fact that he was staying in support influenced others.
Returning to the present day, there's a certain irony in the fact that I'll be at the Tory conference (albeit in my non-partisan day job role) though Farage is excluded. Last year I counted at least half a dozen Labour people there, representing diverse NGOs, and likewise saw NGO Tories at the Labour event. I saw a figure somewhere that only 40% of the people at the big party conferences are actually delegates and supporters.
The good news is that UKIP finally woke up and said of course you can have a stand, why haven't you booked it yet? So I might see MikeK there - anyone else?
Oh! Fracking was patented back around 1868 or so, and for the scientifically deficient, whether from gas, solid or liquid, if the hydro carbons are available, then it is possible to crack it to virtually what ever is required. Anyone ever wonder about margarine?
Er, thank you, I think.
I'm still none the wiser. From what you say, it is possible to get oil via the fracking process but in what quantities and how much refining does it need to produce petrol ?
I also read the fracking process requires large amounts of water - presumably it doesn't have to be fresh water or does it ?
I'm trying to improve my knowledge to form a view - it's not proving easy.
Comments
It's true that Brown didn't have to resign when he did. What he would have had to have done, had he stayed on, was present a Queen's Speech to the Commons within a couple of weeks or so of the election. Unless the Lib Dems were prepared to vote for whatever Brown (or some at that point unelected successor), put forward, that Queen's Speech would have been lost and by convention he would have had to resign the government. If he still didn't, a vote of No Confidence would have undoubtedly followed, in which the parties couldn't credibly have voted in any other way than that which they did on the Queen's Speech.
At that point, the constitutional position isn't quite as cut and dried as some 'experts' make out. She wouldn't be obliged to call on the leader of the opposition - though that is usually regarded as the next step. Soundings would almost certainly have been taken from Palace officials as to who might be able to form a government. Unless Clegg and virtually all the minor parties bar the DUP were prepared to positively support another Labour leader e.g. D Miliband, it would have been Cameron she'd have called on.
The option of a minority government was always there for the Tories, not least because the Lib Dems were quite clear that they were prepared to offer the Tories support on a confidence-and-supply basis if a coalition couldn't be done but a lesser deal could.
Personally, I think that a minority Tory government would have been a worse option for the country, worse still for the Tories, no better for the Lib Dems and only superior for Labour, who would have had a much better chance of bringing the government down at a time convenient to them.
Which may be accurate. However, any country building coal-fired power stations, developing nuclear weapons, or having a space program should have no help from us with this regard.
BBC ticker.
http://lego.gizmodo.com/an-epic-history-of-britain-as-told-through-lego-1162632691
Deathdevil
Recommended 211
Be fair, he wasn't in power - he was busy living a glitzy, wealthy lifestyle, using elitist social media sites to plan his nights out so he could avoid coming into contact with any "Trash".
LlamaRiot
Recommend 117
Labour run councils seem to like them
Recommend 196
Quite. Lambeth council advertised this post a few months ago, and I'm sure there are plenty of others. I live in Lambeth, and my MP is... Chuka Umunna.
What could Osborne have done then? Say, 'Yes we'd do the same'? In which case, why wouldn't voters have stayed with Labour?
Instead Brown went for the risible position of trying to blame the laws of arithmetic on evil Tories, to the evident frustration of Mandelson, Darling and the other sane ministers. It was (from Labour's point of view) a catastrophic political error, which arose entirely from his own character flaws.
As the farcical IEA report released today showed, people can produce any ridiculous report under the guise of being an 'expert' (a problem I believe courts occasionally suffer from wrt expert witnesses).
If you believe strongly in this, you are almost beholden to go as deeply as you can into it. Reading documents like (1) can only help. If you do not, you leave yourself open to the attention of shysters.
Do it, and at least the shysters who fool you will be more accomplished. ;-)
I've done it twice now by different means, and it's actually quite fun. And I learnt a great deal both times, including that some of my assumptions were false.
It is really worth doing, if only to slay people like me with the sword of fact.
(1): http://www.nationalgrid.com/NR/rdonlyres/86C815F5-0EAD-46B5-A580-A0A516562B3E/50819/10312_1_NG_Futureenergyscenarios_WEB1.pdf
(*) One blog post I read recently was using MW and MWh interchangeably...
Owen Eoins @OwenEoins84
Correct to criticise #Fracking arrests. We tried #Democracy it didn't work. As democratic socialists we have right to ignore that. #Balcombe
Owen Eoins @OwenEoins84
But it's not right for anyone else to ignore the law. In fact, no one else is allowed to protest at all #NoPlatform
http://t.co/KzcoUFNj7D
If the Tories, Lib Dems and Labour came out in favour of massive increases in renewable energy production and restricting carbon-based fuel, there's little that would be more likely to turn UKIP into a genuine contender for power in 2015. All parties remember the fuel protests of 2000 and shudder.
So, you've stated it nicely. Labour are incompetent financially.
Brown, who you quite rightly denigrate, seems to have been propelled into some sort of comfort blanket for old-timers. I'd have chosen hard-labour as his fate.
But the less we rely on CO2 emissions the less we will have to do in the way of mitigation over the coming years (given that mitigation is going to be an incredibly difficult thing,because the impact of climate change is so uncertain, it's going to be an as-and-when job).
As far as security goes, too, renewables are the only sensible way forward in the medium to long term, no matter what developing countries do. Unfortunately, again, our politicians never think medium-long term (an unavoidable flaw in democracy!)
Primarily because it won't.
1. Brown was directed by the civil service not to resign after the election. The "Squatter in Number 10" stories were used with great effect to apply pressure, but constitutionally were incorrect
2. The Labour team were clear that the arithmetic was in place to sustain a minority Labour administration. Namely that no nationalist would dare vote against the government on a confidence motion knowing that the likely result would be a majority Tory government. It is pointed out that such a government would (a) be wildly unpopular and (b) be very unstable, but the notion that Brown's government had to fall is simply not true when the election result is that no party has won.
3. Clegg's team pleaded with Brown not to resign when he did. A Labour deal was still possible they insisted and wanted more time for negotiations. It appears to be consensus now that this was just a negotiating tactic by Clegg to exert more from Cameron, but at the time it was Brown who decided that enough was enough and called Clegg's bluff.
So, how could there have been a minority Tory government? Brown wouldn't - couldn't resign - if there wasn't an alternative government which could command a majority. Had the Tory Lib Dem negotiations bogged down he wouldn't resign to let Cameron run his own minority unsupported government. No, instead Brown would have opened the next session of parliament and test the maths on the "nationalists won't vote us down" premise.
Had his government won the vote then the Tories would have been stuck in opposition. Remember that Brown had already agreed to step aside, the only negotiation with the LibDems was how quickly. Labour grandees weren't happy with the concept but are people seriously suggesting that Blunkett et al would have voted down a David Milliband or Alastair Darling led administration so that the Tories could take over instead?
So what Brady wanted would have been an all or nothing strategy. Cameron could have been PM of a minority Tory administration, but only if the runes fell the right way at several key decision points. Cameron and his team clearly saw this to be the case and decided that a deal where they make concessions to the LibDems is better than not making a deal and missing out.
I do wonder at what point Her Majesty would call upon someone who was neither the PM nor the Leader of the Opposition. Say the Tories had got a few fewer seats and a Lib/Lab/other coalition been more viable. If Brown had resigned following losing the QS by a couple of votes, and some of those voting against stated they would support a Labour-led Government under a different PM, would she go to the Opposition first? Would she go to another member of the Labour Party other than its leader? And if so, whom? Or could she ask the leader of a minor party to form the government?
How does gluing yourself to railings improve the environment? #rollonfracking
Well quite.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/isabel-hardman/2013/08/briefing-advice-today-for-ed-miliband/
Do you seriously believe if Cammie and Clegg had to go for confidence and supply (say if Clegg wouldn't back down on PR instead of AV and Cammie said no which was entirely possible) then Cammie would have taken to the airwaves saying confidence and supply "is so uninspiring, it might last for a month, six months or a year but it won't do what we want to achieve" ?
LOL
Pull the other one.
He and Clegg would have tried their hardest to make it work as long as possible and they would have spun it as the best of all possible deals. Since neither could be certain of either an improved election result if it fell apart or that their MPs and grassroots wouldn't vent their ire on them if it did fall apart.
It might well have fallen apart or it could have gone on for as long as this coalition has done. We'll never know. The fact is it was always possible and both Cameron and Clegg said it was. The coalition was a choice. It was Cammie and Clegg's preferred choice yet the spin that there was no alternative is just that, spin. There was always a different choice available. It just wasn''t the one Cameron and Clegg wanted.
2. If the energy can't be extracted profitably, why are the companies so keen to have a go?
Nick Boles @GeneralBoles
Wot is your name? Don't tell him Nick.... pic.twitter.com/KO5g0TQ5dQ
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BSDRexuCUAIqno2.jpg:large
My complaint is that the police un-glued her. They could have concreted her into place as a monument. It's the way she'd have liked to go.
Let's Frack on with it.
I'm more in favour of mitigation that reduction for a number of reasons that are probably too convoluted to go into at the moment.
But I am an engineer, and whilst I shuffle electrons using code, I know a dangerous little about the engineering realities of hardware (civil, electrical and mechanical). And I believe it best not to bet the house on technology that is not yet proven at a production level.
But that means you have to invest in trying to prove the alternative technology: whether that be fusion, wind, tidal, or any other up-and-coming tech. And that's the stage we're at.
That's why you'll find me an advocate of testing new technologies in limited ways, to work out which works best. A little caution now might save the planet later.
No wonder they are crapping themselves.
Can't wait for Farage to be included in the Debates.
Ed will still be trying to work out which six form screwed up facial expression to wear as Farage rips another hole in his rear end..
He will go for Labour ..not the Tories..
Some expert opinion I remember hearing at the time of the negotiations (which mirrored what I read when I wrote my university dissertation on pretty much this topic), was that HMQ is obliged to send for the leader of the opposition, and that the convention exists to provide rules to keep her above controversy. The opinion's wrong.
Take, for example, what might have happened in 2003 when Blair was trying to lead Britain into the Iraq War. Suppose IDS had asked for a confidential briefing about the nature and extent of the intelligence on which Blair was making his case and decided that it didn't stack up (or that if Blair refused, he couldn't take the PM's word). Tory opinion was lukewarm over the war but many MPs were prepared to give the leadership and PM the benefit of the doubt. Had IDS opposed Blair - as Gaitskell did to Eden over Suez - the Tory MPs would probably have split fairly evenly and Blair would probably have lost his vote. Had he then upped the ante and gone for a confidence vote, the stakes - war or peace - were so high that he could have lost that too, especially if Brown's allies let it be known that such a vote wouldn't be held against an MP.
Blair would then have been bound to resign but the Queen couldn't possibly have invited IDS to form a government. She would without doubt have asked Brown, who the cabinet would have nominated pretty much unanimously, and who would clearly have commanded a majority in the Commons.
The beauty of the UK constitution is its flexibility matched to an unwillingness of the key participants not to abuse that flexibility. Guidelines are good but they're not always the last word.
In 1997 there was a rather untypical rise in the LD vote of 3.5 percentage points in the Derby South constituency.
Looking back at it now, it seems to me very likely that this was something to do with the fact that the name of the LD candidate was Beckett, the same as the Labour MP.
On-topic, Cameron's offer of talks on the Friday afternoon was the game-changer. I thought he would refuse any deal and attempt to form a minority administration.
I would, as a LD member, have had real issues with the party propping up a Labour Party which had polled just 29% of the vote and lost in excess of a hundred seats. At least the Tories had polled more votes and won more seats which is I suppose one measure of legitimacy.
On fracking, I remain confused as to the potential for replacing imported crude oil with shale oil on a significant level. The theory for gas I understand but I didn't think you could, for example, run a car on shale oil. Perhaps you can though I suspect some refining would be needed but I don't know what that entails.
As for prices, we're back to our old friend supply and demand. A lot of countries getting into fracking would reduce the price you would think which would be a double-edge sword - good news for the consumer, not so good news for HM Treasury. I seem to recall that despite the presence of gas and oil in the North Sea we remained at the warp and weft of OPEC and world energy prices.
"2. The Labour team were clear that the arithmetic was in place to sustain a minority Labour administration. Namely that no nationalist would dare vote against the government on a confidence motion knowing that the likely result would be a majority Tory government. It is pointed out that such a government would (a) be wildly unpopular and (b) be very unstable, but the notion that Brown's government had to fall is simply not true when the election result is that no party has won."
Quite how a minority Labour government might have be sustained 68 seats short of a majority is a mystery. Such a government would have been at the whim of the combined numbers of the Conservatives and LibDems. Frankly a minority Labour administration was an absolute non starter as Brown and other senior Labour figures knew only too well.
LOL
What the effect of Farage taking part in the debates would be is hard to predict, other than probably dramatic. They might take votes off their right-of-centre rivals. They might take votes from the socially conservative left. They might take votes from the disillusioned and uninspired. They might crash and burn (with apologies to Farage for the metaphor). What they won't be is dull.
Strange, because he doesn't sound all that keen with Cammie as tory leader. Perhaps the gullible eurosceptic tories will oblige him and defenestrate Cammie? Or perhaps not.
See what I mean Porky..
*chortle*
https://twitter.com/vickywong710/status/369531234524741635/photo/1
I shouldn't think Farage will be worried by only being on the fringes of the Conservative conference.
The real fun will be at the UKIP two-day conference that will place on September 20-21 at Westminster Hall, and is already oversubscribed.
Will the MSM be there in force? You bet. Will they televise it? Dunno!
The thing that is depressing, though, is that to me (and to you...), this is transparently obvious. It is so obvious that it raises huge questions of judgement if not sanity about those who can't or refuse to see it.
And yet many many can't or refuse to see it.
Can't wait to hear the worlds "Cannock Chase Labour Gain" at the next GE. We could do without bigots like him in politics....
Balls Up or Out?
The rumours are circulating.
Any how's, shale gas is a game changer on many levels. It turns the screws on OPEC, but more importantly it destroys one of the main financial arguments for the SNP.
Renewables, do not work. At the end of the 18th century, windmills covered the UK, technologically advanced backed by cheap labour and like the canal system, wiped out by advances within 50 years or less of being built.
(If Fitalass is still around, perhaps she would like to inform us of the canal in Aberdeen. I have to admit bursting out laughing when I started researching it, particularly when someone in the train company breached the canal bank by "accident" and left a number of boats stranded)
Oh! Fracking was patented back around 1868 or so, and for the scientifically deficient, whether from gas, solid or liquid, if the hydro carbons are available, then it is possible to crack it to virtually what ever is required. Anyone ever wonder about margarine?
The important thing though was to find a situation whereby Blair could have lost that vote, which would have required the Tories to at least split fairly evenly in the lobbies. A Clarke-led party may well have done that.
The two others who might have stopped it were Brown and Clare Short. Had Brown - and hence his supporters - decided to oppose the war, for whatever reason (and again, I don't think it would have been likely but it was possible), Blair's position would have been untenable. Similarly, Short remaining in the cabinet provided Blair with some cover and that changed some minds and votes as to whether it was worth fighting. Had she followed Cook out, votes would undoubtedly have swung to No, though it would have been the fewest of the various situations sketched.
But whatever the method, had Blair been obliged to stand down, it would have been a Labour politician who replaced him, not the Leader of the Opposition.
Unless they really do feel like the white flag?
Seems like a mistake when the polls are OK.
Believe it when I see it.
'Literally' in the old-fashioned sense...
"In fact, just about anyone can attack Ed Miliband, so long as they stick to the party line. That’s the line that basically states Ed Miliband’s main problem is he isn’t quite Left-wing enough. He was OK in the beginning (mustn’t embarrass those trade union leaders and Left-wing commentators who told everyone he was one of their own), but since then he’s lost his way a bit. Miliband’s head’s been turned by those nasty New Labourites. So, he can be criticised for not standing up to the Tories strongly on welfare, for the odd ill-timed immigration intervention, for not pledging to renationalise enough things (doesn’t really matter what), for not supporting the unions when they call a strike (doesn’t really matter what the strike’s about), and for not sacking Liam Byrne. All of these attacks are permissible.
What is not permissible is any sort of attack from the Right. You say Labour’s not tough enough on welfare? Traitor. Not tough enough on immigration? Racist traitor. Not tough enough on fiscal responsibility? Progress member. Interventions from the Right, cannot, by definition, be the intervention of a loyal comrade. At best they represent the brain-dead wail of the Blairite zombie; at worst, the malign whisper of the Tory fifth columnist.
Is it any wonder Labour is in such a mess? Ed Miliband’s party isn’t embarked on a program of renewal, it’s staging a revival of “Animal Farm”. The Blairites strangled debate and neutered dissent, the Left argues. So to ensure that doesn’t happen again, we must strangle debate and neuter dissent ourselves. Only until everyone who disagrees with us is dealt with, you understand. Than we can all go back to disagreeing again..."
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/labour-to-trust-in-good-sense-and-judgment-of-teenagers-2013081978748
Let's remember though that basing anything on the PB Hodges rumourmill unwise to say the least. Vince Cable has resigned twice already according to some of the most amusing ones. Until the facts say otherwise Balls is still shadow chancellor.
http://boston.cbslocal.com/2013/08/18/scott-brown-exploring-run-for-president/
The name of their candidate in the constituency was Blair:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glasgow_Maryhill_(UK_Parliament_constituency)
He must have a good chance of taking the seat which I think the party has never held before.
He stood there in 2010 GE too.
Traditional "Candidate surrounded by activists holding Labour placards" pic
https://twitter.com/GeorgeFoulkes/status/369552210851422208/photo/1
It is the momentous day on which the political speech of our lifetimes was made to an awestruck public and media.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mCovGqMiZyA
Large one indeed Prime Minister, large one indeed.
We are extremely busy this evening with #BenefitsBritain1949 on the idiot lantern. All those who vote for a living are no doubt watching it.
It is possible - maybe probable - that Cook would have been offered his old job back in a Brown cabinet. Jack Straw would have had to leave the Foreign Office but not necessarily the cabinet. Cook and Brown did have a feud that went way back into the mists of Scottish Labour politics so he'd have been kept away from the big domestic departments. With that record towards Brown and with the Blairites presumably bitter at his role in bringing down their man, he wouldn't have had that much leverage, despite his being the most prominent Labour voice on the side of public opinion in the issue of the day.
Chief executive of UK Independence Party, Will Gilpin, leaves his post by "mutual agreement" http://bbc.in/13MZHYU #UKIP
Returning to the present day, there's a certain irony in the fact that I'll be at the Tory conference (albeit in my non-partisan day job role) though Farage is excluded. Last year I counted at least half a dozen Labour people there, representing diverse NGOs, and likewise saw NGO Tories at the Labour event. I saw a figure somewhere that only 40% of the people at the big party conferences are actually delegates and supporters.
The good news is that UKIP finally woke up and said of course you can have a stand, why haven't you booked it yet? So I might see MikeK there - anyone else?
I'm still none the wiser. From what you say, it is possible to get oil via the fracking process but in what quantities and how much refining does it need to produce petrol ?
I also read the fracking process requires large amounts of water - presumably it doesn't have to be fresh water or does it ?
I'm trying to improve my knowledge to form a view - it's not proving easy.