"Record numbers of “jobless” wasps are more likely to attack us because they are drunk and aggressive, the British Red Cross has warned.
With their queens fully supplied with all the nectar they need, worker wasps now have nothing to do but laze around getting drunk on fermenting fruit, according to environmental authorities.
Perhaps better described as retired than “jobless” – since all the workers will have died out by the time winter comes around – the insects are becoming increasingly bold and angry in their old age >>
fox - I didn't vote for Ed, but I think we'll win and he'll be fine as PM - one of Britain's more intelligent leaders, with a good strategic sense and reluctant to take anything for granted. I don't often bother to say so here, as it's not exactly a centre for swing voters.
For obvious reasons I won't go into detail, but as the (AFAIK) only contributor here actually affected by Labour funding issues, I am less worried about help with funding than at any election since 1997.
Nick as a top marginal target for Labour of course you should have no money worries. Unless Labour start thinking they can get a 30+ majority and then re-direct the money elsewhere.
"There is little doubt that a clear majority of MPs supported – and still support – the option of military action against Syria. One examination of the voting figures suggests that 490 MPs voted for motions supporting a process which could lead to an attack. Only 52 MPs voted against the use of force in any circumstances by opposing both the Labour amendment and the government motion. Yet for the past week, the ministerial mantra has been that parliament has spoken, and that Britain will not take part in any use of force.
On that reading, the pivotal moment last week was when David Cameron stood up in the Commons after the votes and announced that parliament had spoken against military action, and "I get that". But parliament hadn't spoken. And Cameron didn't get it. He must have known that there was a majority for action if the words could have been agreed. Statecraft required the prime minister to accept the votes, and to promise to reflect, to consult and to think afresh.
Conversations with parliamentarians and officials since then lead me to the conclusion that Cameron made this petulant error because he had lost it with Miliband in the hours leading up to the vote."
Thats a very telling analysis. Camerons petulant and uncontrolled behaviour overrode his previous concern about Syria, and has undermined Britain internationally.
A coward who likes a Sam Cam Syrian refugee photoshoot but whose personal arrogance negates any position he may want to take.
Poor old tim - can't say anything good about Ed - not much of a spinner are you ?
Christopher Hope @christopherhope Bumpy 1922 meeting for William Hague last night. Senior Tory MPs said last week's vote debacle had damaged UK's standing internationally.
You have to feel a bit sorry for Hague on this, overruled by Cameron and Osborne on a chaotic recall of parliament, and it's his department that will bear the brunt of the posh lads cock up.
After last week's vote the UK's international reputaton has been greatly enhanced , the damage done to it under New Labour is starting to heal. Not only has Osborne done a fine job with the economy but he's apparently been instrumental in keeping the UK out of a foolish ME adventure.
fox - I didn't vote for Ed, but I think we'll win and he'll be fine as PM - one of Britain's more intelligent leaders, with a good strategic sense and reluctant to take anything for granted. I don't often bother to say so here, as it's not exactly a centre for swing voters.
Says Nick Palmer whilst holding a lucky rabbit's foot, four leaf clover in a fingers crossed hand.
The worst two paragraphs from Mr Aaronovich. Others describe this glowingly as Strong and Decisive Ed.
"...And in this moment of crisis it became clear — as it does — what Mr Miliband is. A personable man (and he is a very pleasant companion), politically he is not a presence at all, he is an absence. He is Oedipal Ed, the negator of the unpopular actions of the fathers; the anti-Blair, the non-Brown. His technique for victory to is follow behind the leader, wait for a slip-up and exploit his or her mistakes. He did it to his brother. He hopes to do it to David Cameron. He is neither hunter nor prey, he is scavenger. He is a political vulture. Mission creep? His mission is all about creeping.
And though you can just about see how in a bad year Ed Miliband could become prime minister, what I cannot any longer pretend, after three years of his leadership, is that he would be a good one. On the contrary. I think he would be a disaster. Strangely, I think both the country and his party already know it." http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/columnists/davidaaronovitch/article3860789.ece
This story seems more than a bit overblown to me. Firstly, it is by no means clear that the other Unions will follow the GMB's lead. Secondly, it is by no means certain that they will follow through on this. Thirdly, there are a number of ways the Union could make up the shortfall of the contribution to Labour.
What we have to ask ourselves is how far these Union leaders are willing to go to show their irritation with Ed. They are not stupid men. They know that stories like this are not good for Labour or the political standing of the Unions themselves. Will they really want to hit the red buttons? I doubt it.
One way of looking at this is that the decision of the GMB rather proves Ed's point. The idea that the Union can decide how many its members are paying these notional dues is in their discretion and can be cut from a notional 420K to 50K is fairly absurd. Something does need to be done to put these "members" on some sort of real footing. Of course this should have been a matter of discussion, consensus and agreement instead of unilateral declarations but there we are.
"There is little doubt that a clear majority of MPs supported – and still support – the option of military action against Syria. One examination of the voting figures suggests that 490 MPs voted for motions supporting a process which could lead to an attack. Only 52 MPs voted against the use of force in any circumstances by opposing both the Labour amendment and the government motion. Yet for the past week, the ministerial mantra has been that parliament has spoken, and that Britain will not take part in any use of force.
On that reading, the pivotal moment last week was when David Cameron stood up in the Commons after the votes and announced that parliament had spoken against military action, and "I get that". But parliament hadn't spoken. And Cameron didn't get it. He must have known that there was a majority for action if the words could have been agreed. Statecraft required the prime minister to accept the votes, and to promise to reflect, to consult and to think afresh.
Conversations with parliamentarians and officials since then lead me to the conclusion that Cameron made this petulant error because he had lost it with Miliband in the hours leading up to the vote."
Thats a very telling analysis. Camerons petulant and uncontrolled behaviour overrode his previous concern about Syria, and has undermined Britain internationally.
A coward who likes a Sam Cam Syrian refugee photoshoot but whose personal arrogance negates any position he may want to take.
Utter horse crap.
The House of Commons decided.
Endex.
And a vast majority voted for motions which included the option of military action against Syria. It was Cameron's petulance that took it off the table. At least we shouldn't hear any more bleating from Cameron now, no more morality lectures, no more photoshoots.
Are you simply being terminally stupid or under the influence of illegal substances :
fox - I didn't vote for Ed, but I think we'll win and he'll be fine as PM - one of Britain's more intelligent leaders, with a good strategic sense and reluctant to take anything for granted. I don't often bother to say so here, as it's not exactly a centre for swing voters.
The weather was curious this morning - clear earlier then the fog came down very quickly and has now cleared this part of East London.
On-topic, it can't be helpful for democracy if one party, albeit financed by a very small group of people, is comprehensively able to out-spend and out-resource its opponents thought that of course doesn't guarantee success. It's impossible to ignore the power of money within the democratic process but much harder to decide what to do about it.
Less on-topic, the almost continuous assault on Ed Miliband by some on here is curious. If he were such a weak and irrelevant figure, why waste time and words attacking him? I would imagine that for some it wouldn't matter who the Labour leader was, that person would be the subject of ridicule and attack but as someone once said "politics is a rough trade".
It's almost impossible to think that the Syria vote was less than a week ago and it's been wonderful to see the frantic spinning and over-analysis by those determined to make the events of last Thursday evening seem like a glorious victory for the Prime Minister and a huge strategic defeat for the Leader of the Opposition when I suspect it was neither.
It's far too early to judge if Ed Miliband would make a good PM or not - people had doubts about David Cameron in his early days in Opposition and it's too early to tell if he is a good Prime Minister as well. So much depends on events and the quality of those around the PM as much as the qualities of the man or woman in charge. There are clearly many on here who regard the prospect of an Ed Miliband-led Government with near apoplexy. A more reasoned approach might suggest that there are considerable constraints on what any Prime Minister can do and it may be that apart from the style, there wouldn't be a lot of difference between Ed M and Dave C.
The worst two paragraphs from Mr Aaronovich. Others describe this glowingly as Strong and Decisive Ed.
"...And in this moment of crisis it became clear — as it does — what Mr Miliband is. A personable man (and he is a very pleasant companion), politically he is not a presence at all, he is an absence. He is Oedipal Ed, the negator of the unpopular actions of the fathers; the anti-Blair, the non-Brown. His technique for victory to is follow behind the leader, wait for a slip-up and exploit his or her mistakes. He did it to his brother. He hopes to do it to David Cameron. He is neither hunter nor prey, he is scavenger. He is a political vulture. Mission creep? His mission is all about creeping.
And though you can just about see how in a bad year Ed Miliband could become prime minister, what I cannot any longer pretend, after three years of his leadership, is that he would be a good one. On the contrary. I think he would be a disaster. Strangely, I think both the country and his party already know it." http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/columnists/davidaaronovitch/article3860789.ece
That first paragraph and its phrasing reads as if Aaronovitch is channeling pb's own SeanT. Maybe they both nicked the style from Shakespeare.
Sky News .. Teachers to strike over conditions ... Have they actually returned from their ultra long summer holidays yet?. Were they balloted on the beaches?. That will get the sympathy vote.
Paul Waugh @paulwaugh 4m Urgent Question granted to Liam Byrne at 1030am to ask re Nao.report on Universal Credit.
My god at first glance I read that as saying Liam Byrne had asked for a NATO report on Universal Credit and, worryingly, for 1.8 secs, thought: oh, ok.
The better comparison for Ed is IDS - Picked because of who he wasn't, unsure of his leadership in the party, lacking the confidence of big backers and fatally ignored or poorly rated by the public in general and too many of his own supporters. Ed Duncan-Smith step forward.
I fear that comparison may be close to the mark. However, Ed is doing considerably better in the opinion polls than IDS and so he may still survive to receive the judgement of the electorate in 2015.
Indeed so. Additionally Labour are very poor regicides and unless Ed's position becomes utterly untenable he will remain in place - Excellent news for the Coalition.
JackW. Probably true, just look at how Lab MPs (such as our Nick) did nothing about the inept GordonB as PM. EdM is probably safe but he did only have 31% of the MPs backing him in the Leadership election. That leaves 69% wanting someone else.
It's also true that every Labour leader since Gaitskell, with the exception of Blair, was persistently and often viciously pilloried by the media and the pro-Conservative written Press in particular.
Blair got away with it because a) even the Tories were fed up with John Major though some died in the ditch with him and b) Blair was so unlike his predecessors that it was harder for the traditional attack lines to work.
To be fair, Conservative leaders aren't immune from vitriol, the worst of which is usually from their own side though oddly enough I don't recall the volume of negativity around Michael Howard that his predecessors received.
How much of an impact all this has on the electorate is debatable - the notion that they are "all as bad as each other" is very strong and politicians (undeservedly in most instances) are widely held in contempt or is it a form of envy, I'm not sure.
Is there some kind of eccentric British parliamentary tradition that prevents another vote on this?
In a normal democracy it can sometimes happen that the process of voting on amendments then voting on the final result fails to produce a yes vote when you could have got one. This happens because you try to get the strongest bill you can, and compromise with just enough people to make a majority, but if you miscalculate - as will happen from time to time given independent-minded MPs - you'll try to push through a stronger bill than you had a majority for, so you need to go back and weaken the bill enough to get more people into the tent.
Personally I'm happy to see the UK give up and stay out of this one, but what's puzzling is that some people seemed to think that it was an urgent humanitarian necessity for the UK to agree to military action, in which case it's very hard to see why they're not advocating for a new vote on a weaker bill.
fox - I didn't vote for Ed, but I think we'll win and he'll be fine as PM - one of Britain's more intelligent leaders, with a good strategic sense and reluctant to take anything for granted. I don't often bother to say so here, as it's not exactly a centre for swing voters.
Labour will get in next time and make the taxpayers cough up for a new fund for the Unions to go alongside the "modernisation fund" they made last time. Then some of the money will mysteriously make its way back to the Labour Party through donations. Lovely.
Tim, am I right in interpreting your posts below that your judgement is that Labour's GE 2015 campaign will not suffer from a major shortage in funding? .
At this rate we will have Labour collapsing in the stench of its own financial incompetence and the Conservatives reduced to 2 old ladies and a pekinese as Dave turns everybody off. The 2020 election will be UKIP v LDs. PM Clegg or Farage ?
2 old ladies, a pekinese and RichardNabavi you mean?
Doesn't everyone have two kitchens. most Country Mansions have one extra and of course if one has a pool then a very well equipped bar/cooker is a definite must. So assume two kitchens in the Manor House in Cheshire and one in the offie= 3..
At this rate we will have Labour collapsing in the stench of its own financial incompetence and the Conservatives reduced to 2 old ladies and a pekinese as Dave turns everybody off. The 2020 election will be UKIP v LDs. PM Clegg or Farage ?
Got some time for this view. The next election will be relatively boring with I suspect Labour scrabbling a small majority, but this time there's no money for them to chuck about buying votes and they'll no doubt balls the economy up even worse.
I think by the election after we could see UKIP and possibly a new party gaining a significant number of seats.
The only party that wants to reverse it is the FDP. Let's watch their score in the elections and see how much the Germans are regretting renewables.
A perfect example of how political parties are captured by wanky out of touch elites and how slow policy change to reflect what's going on in the real world can be. Packaged with all the other policy areas people vote for and it seems the man in the street's anger over rising energy bills has no place to vent.
The only party that wants to reverse it is the FDP. Let's watch their score in the elections and see how much the Germans are regretting renewables.
A perfect example of how political parties are captured by wanky out of touch elites and how slow policy change to reflect what's going on in the real world can be. Packaged with all the other policy areas people vote for and it seems the man in the street's anger over rising energy bills has no place to vent.
Is there some polling to back up your assumptions about the German in the street? Isn't it also possible that there's a wanky out-of-touch elite person writing for Speigel?
Top 10 UK Cities (Outside London) According to 1000 Americans
Anyway, here are the top 10 answers and the percentage of people who said them. In some cases, these include misspelt variants, as you can see from the raw data download available at the end of this post.
Liverpool (15% of respondents answered ‘Liverpool’) Manchester (12%) Leeds (4.7%) Cambridge (3.7%) Bristol (3.6%) Wales (3.6%) Oxford (3.0%) Birmingham (2.4%) Bath (2.3%) Paris (1.9%) – Yes, Paris
Bet that BBC poll omitted anything about the roles of Ed Davey, Chris Huhne, Ed Miliband and other 'Energy Ministers' in adding levies on electricity firms & customers.
In other news another subsidised wind farm generator fails in the wind.
Is there some kind of eccentric British parliamentary tradition that prevents another vote on this?
In a normal democracy it can sometimes happen that the process of voting on amendments then voting on the final result fails to produce a yes vote when you could have got one. This happens because you try to get the strongest bill you can, and compromise with just enough people to make a majority, but if you miscalculate - as will happen from time to time given independent-minded MPs - you'll try to push through a stronger bill than you had a majority for, so you need to go back and weaken the bill enough to get more people into the tent.
Personally I'm happy to see the UK give up and stay out of this one, but what's puzzling is that some people seemed to think that it was an urgent humanitarian necessity for the UK to agree to military action, in which case it's very hard to see why they're not advocating for a new vote on a weaker bill.
No.
However no British PM has suffered such a foreign policy defeat in living memory and the PM was unequivocal in his response - The HoC has spoken and the issue will not be revisited.
Panelbase broke all the rules by asking the key referendum question only after other questions which led to responses on the referendum question more in line with what the SNP wanted, the SNP being the client. And the wording of other later questions in that poll is also highly leading. So it's very clearly a case of a polling company willing to take the client's money to do their bidding in exactly the form required by the client, in the knowledge that if they didn't they wouldn't get the business.
If you dispute the evidence of bias staring you in the face, then here's another notorious example of this sort of thing from a couple of years back. This time the SNP were on the receiving end and Populus were the culprit, in a poll commissioned by supermarkets opposed to the SNP proposal for a supermarket tax. Again, the key question (Q6, which generated the headlines) was asked after other leading questions leading to a predictable result which just happened to be the one the client wanted.
tim - you appear to have tacked back in to the choppy waters again....
meanwhile another PB Tory says Ed is Crap or a xxxxxx xxxx as some might say.
This is the most extraordinary and spineless admission. As I say in my article, what Miliband and many of his MPs wanted was for the Government and the Americans – anyone, anyone as long as it wasn’t them – to take responsibility for a military action about which they could not make up their minds.
The venom of Tim's attacks on Cammo incidentally on this issue tell you something when you see all these liberal interventionists being similarly poisonous about Milibands...
Tim, am I right in interpreting your posts below that your judgement is that Labour's GE 2015 campaign will not suffer from a major shortage in funding? .
Funding in UK politics is overstated. For the Tories, it maybe important. After all they don't work hard. Pavement politics is unknown to most of them.
For Labour and the Lib Dems less so. Think about it. The LDs got 24% of the vote. 2/3rds of the Tories. Did they spend 2/3rds of the Tory spend ? Yes, if you have money , you will spend. But diminishing marginal returns set in very early. We have PPB's here. The US don't . They have to buy adverts. We don't. On TV, I mean.
Just when you thought nothing more could be added to the theme, Dominic Sandbrook in the Mail comes to the rescue:
Indeed, he reminds me of a weak medieval king — Edward II, say, or Richard II — who, after years being kicked around by barons and favourites, makes a desperate, flailing bid to reassert his authority, and promptly ends up on the wrong end of a red-hot poker.
The venom of Tim's attacks on Cammo incidentally on this issue tell you something when you see all these liberal interventionists being similarly poisonous about Milibands...
last time he became as unhinged was when Falkirk broke. It's like watching a squirrel that has been hit by a truck twitching on the side of the road - waiting for the next truck to bring the darkness - unfortunately its not due until May 2015..
Patrick O'Flynn@oflynnexpress6m Martin Kettle in Gdn claims the Murdoch empire is offering huge sums for Lefties to put the boot into Ed Miliband...
Tom Watson's blog surely would be above that at least!!
I just find that very hard to believe as a conspiracy theory - I suspect that the likes of Mirror manTony Parsons who's moved to the Sun is about Labour losing the plot and his vintage. The notion that he'd sell his soul for £££ is just meh.
Mr. T, I thought you were becoming annoyingly fit and healthy due to a newfound(ish) liking for the gym?
Have you considered using a lasso?
Strange but true: for a short time some of the retiarii [Roman gladiators who used a net and trident] instead used a lasso (according to Philip Matyszak's eminently enjoyable Gladiator Unofficial Manual).
Bet that BBC poll omitted anything about the roles of Ed Davey, Chris Huhne, Ed Miliband and other 'Energy Ministers' in adding levies on electricity firms & customers.
In other news another subsidised wind farm generator fails in the wind.
Yes, well, do a survey of all Rolls Royces and you'll find the odd one breaking down. But both in Britain and IIRC Germany there are substantial polling majorities in favour of renewables - in Britain at least even when the question explicitly states the subsidy given to them, wind energy remains the most popular energy source. Obviously it needs backup from other sources but it's a useful contribution. More importantly, as we won't agree personally, this is the view of most Brits.
That said, when we looked at the German feed-in tariff system we decided not to do it (except for the immature technologies like wave which need help to become viable) because it suffers from the same syndrome as the CAP - there's a guarantee of paying for energy whether it's needed or efficiently produced or not.
Fox: the responses to my comments on Ed show exactly why I don't usually bother to make them. Really, contributing posts saying one likes one's party or leader are a waste of time here - someone else says yah boo, rubbish, and how much has the discussion advanced? Richard N found the same when he endorsed Osborne in glowing terms. The best pb discussions are about what the public think rather than about what we think, except when it's something not mainstream political.
"The venom of Tim's attacks on Cammo incidentally on this issue tell you something when you see all these liberal interventionists being similarly poisonous about Milibands... "
I think you make a fair point and it's clear how angry this is making people on both sides. What I find depressing is that over 70% of the population are on Miliband's side (I'm not sure Tim is) yet through his ineptitude he hasn't managed to capitalize one jot.
As for Aaronovich though I like him a lot as a journalist he was one of the few who was more gung-ho than even Blair about invading Iraq and also one of his most vociferous defenders of its 'success' even when a blind man on a camel could see it was a failure. I think he's just a natural born invader of Arab countries
Mr. Palmer, the public also want to bring back hanging and leave the EU.
I'd also add that if individuals are pro-wind and happy to pay more, make it opt-in. Those who want to pay more and get 'sustainable' energy from windfarms can do so, and those who don't want to can get cheaper electricity from other sources.
It's no hardship for the likes of Davey, Cameron and Miliband to pay a few hundred pounds more each year, but it's far more significant for those on average wages and a serious issue for the poor.
Is there some kind of eccentric British parliamentary tradition that prevents another vote on this?
In a normal democracy it can sometimes happen that the process of voting on amendments then voting on the final result fails to produce a yes vote when you could have got one. This happens because you try to get the strongest bill you can, and compromise with just enough people to make a majority, but if you miscalculate - as will happen from time to time given independent-minded MPs - you'll try to push through a stronger bill than you had a majority for, so you need to go back and weaken the bill enough to get more people into the tent.
Personally I'm happy to see the UK give up and stay out of this one, but what's puzzling is that some people seemed to think that it was an urgent humanitarian necessity for the UK to agree to military action, in which case it's very hard to see why they're not advocating for a new vote on a weaker bill.
No.
However no British PM has suffered such a foreign policy defeat in living memory and the PM was unequivocal in his response - The HoC has spoken and the issue will not be revisited.
490 MP's voted for motions which included the option of military action in Syria. A petulant PM reacted in a fit of pique and took it off the table.
So no more bleeding heart posing from this coward of a PM on this issue please. His choice, his choice to overrule Hague and cock up the recall of parliament, but he's pathetically trying to blame other people.
You seem utterly unable to understand the sovereignty of parliament.
The House of Commons made its choice against the advice of the Prime Minister. He accepts that decision.
All the rest from you is froth and drivel. Get over it.
@nickpalmer Wind farms and solar power do not generate enough reliable levels of electricity to meet household needs, and it doesn't help when large coal fired stations like Didcot are taken out of commission. A good proportion of recent tariff rises is due to the meddling of politicians acting in response to Green pressure groups. If the lights go out, it won't be a vote winner.
Rolls Royce cars don't have engines which rip themselves apart.
I find it absolutely astounding that the PM has a kitchen in his own home and another one in Downing Street plus a smaller one for his family needs in the flat .. A disgrace. The next scandal will be him installing a microwave in there. The man is a scoundrel This must be the top total trivia tale from Cheshire in a long time.
'"The venom of Tim's attacks on Cammo incidentally on this issue tell you something when you see all these liberal interventionists being similarly poisonous about Milibands... "
'"The venom of Tim's attacks on Cammo incidentally on this issue tell you something when you see all these liberal interventionists being similarly poisonous about Milibands... "
Does anyone apart from Tim rate Ed?
Evidence that tim rates Ed ?
Ed's Syria triumph is beginning to resemble one of his mentor Gordon's budgets - loud cheers followed by an unravelling...
Maybe we caring pbTories should organize a massive humanitarian assistance programme for tim. Poor defenceless lamb, he's being kicked all over the shop: it's a human rights catastophe. Send in the marines...
Is there some kind of eccentric British parliamentary tradition that prevents another vote on this?
In a normal democracy it can sometimes happen that the process of voting on amendments then voting on the final result fails to produce a yes vote when you could have got one. This happens because you try to get the strongest bill you can, and compromise with just enough people to make a majority, but if you miscalculate - as will happen from time to time given independent-minded MPs - you'll try to push through a stronger bill than you had a majority for, so you need to go back and weaken the bill enough to get more people into the tent.
Personally I'm happy to see the UK give up and stay out of this one, but what's puzzling is that some people seemed to think that it was an urgent humanitarian necessity for the UK to agree to military action, in which case it's very hard to see why they're not advocating for a new vote on a weaker bill.
No.
However no British PM has suffered such a foreign policy defeat in living memory and the PM was unequivocal in his response - The HoC has spoken and the issue will not be revisited.
490 MP's voted for motions which included the option of military action in Syria. A petulant PM reacted in a fit of pique and took it off the table.
So no more bleeding heart posing from this coward of a PM on this issue please. His choice, his choice to overrule Hague and cock up the recall of parliament, but he's pathetically trying to blame other people.
You seem utterly unable to understand the sovereignty of parliament.
The House of Commons made its choice against the advice of the Prime Minister. He accepts that decision.
All the rest from you is froth and drivel. Get over it.
I get that he's incompetent, couldn't get his own side to come back from holiday/ support him but overruled Hague who could see that and is reduced to pathetically hawking his conscience around the world while not having the balls to fight for what he "believes in" in Parliament.
And there's always someone else to blame.
Thirty Labour MP's failed to vote. Was Ed even more "incompetent" ?
Just give yourself a break "tim" and try to limit your own embarrassing contributions.
Two very old friends of mine have just had their first babies. At roughly the age of 50. I had mine in my mid 40s.
Trying to work out whether this is a trend, or whether we were just an impossibly selfish, lazy generation who only had kids when they were bored of everything else. Probably the latter.
Still, all part of the baby boom. Onwards to 80 million!
That's nothing. Anthony Quinn fathered a child in his eighties.
Will the co op bank still be part of the co op in years time ?
Personally I think it will have to change hands, the Coop doesn't have the cash to recapitalise it. It will either get sold or be spun off and given some stupid new name like' thanxgordon.
Thought it was being partially listed (with co-op group as majority shareholder) in order to offer the bail-in bond holders liquidity?
Is there some kind of eccentric British parliamentary tradition that prevents another vote on this?
In a normal democracy it can sometimes happen that the process of voting on amendments then voting on the final result fails to produce a yes vote when you could have got one. This happens because you try to get the strongest bill you can, and compromise with just enough people to make a majority, but if you miscalculate - as will happen from time to time given independent-minded MPs - you'll try to push through a stronger bill than you had a majority for, so you need to go back and weaken the bill enough to get more people into the tent.
Personally I'm happy to see the UK give up and stay out of this one, but what's puzzling is that some people seemed to think that it was an urgent humanitarian necessity for the UK to agree to military action, in which case it's very hard to see why they're not advocating for a new vote on a weaker bill.
No.
However no British PM has suffered such a foreign policy defeat in living memory and the PM was unequivocal in his response - The HoC has spoken and the issue will not be revisited.
490 MP's voted for motions which included the option of military action in Syria. A petulant PM reacted in a fit of pique and took it off the table.
So no more bleeding heart posing from this coward of a PM on this issue please. His choice, his choice to overrule Hague and cock up the recall of parliament, but he's pathetically trying to blame other people.
Most MPs and a very large majority of the public want nothing to do with Syria. There's no reason for the PM to seek another vote.
Two very old friends of mine have just had their first babies. At roughly the age of 50. I had mine in my mid 40s.
Trying to work out whether this is a trend, or whether we were just an impossibly selfish, lazy generation who only had kids when they were bored of everything else. Probably the latter.
Still, all part of the baby boom. Onwards to 80 million!
That's nothing. Anthony Quinn fathered a child in his eighties.
Bet that BBC poll omitted anything about the roles of Ed Davey, Chris Huhne, Ed Miliband and other 'Energy Ministers' in adding levies on electricity firms & customers.
In other news another subsidised wind farm generator fails in the wind.
Yes, well, do a survey of all Rolls Royces and you'll find the odd one breaking down. But both in Britain and IIRC Germany there are substantial polling majorities in favour of renewables - in Britain at least even when the question explicitly states the subsidy given to them, wind energy remains the most popular energy source. Obviously it needs backup from other sources but it's a useful contribution. More importantly, as we won't agree personally, this is the view of most Brits.
That said, when we looked at the German feed-in tariff system we decided not to do it (except for the immature technologies like wave which need help to become viable) because it suffers from the same syndrome as the CAP - there's a guarantee of paying for energy whether it's needed or efficiently produced or not.
Fox: the responses to my comments on Ed show exactly why I don't usually bother to make them. Really, contributing posts saying one likes one's party or leader are a waste of time here - someone else says yah boo, rubbish, and how much has the discussion advanced? Richard N found the same when he endorsed Osborne in glowing terms. The best pb discussions are about what the public think rather than about what we think, except when it's something not mainstream political.
The public has an IQ of about 110 (add on 10 to the median for the Wisdom of Crowds). This means they are pretty good at moral decisions, and constitutional decisions, and overall political direction - which is why we have elections and REFERENDUMS on these things. But technical stuff like energy policy are probably outwith public comprehension.
So we probably need to ignore them, or educate them, on windmills.
The fact is that if Europe goes for renewables it will be paying vastly more for its energy at a time when fierce competitors like the USA and increasingly China will be getting the benefits of cheap shale gas and cheaper-than-expected oil.
This is totally unsustainable financially and will further hamper the European economy at a time when it is already the weakest link in the global chain.
It's insane. Clownlike. It's like a man with a limp, in a 100m sprint final, deciding to wear a heavy overcoat as well, to make sure he loses.
Given the option, price is the most important thing to consumers:
"60 per cent of people said it is more important to provide cheap power than to cut carbon emissions during times of economic difficulty. "
I remember the Economist, in a Bagehot article, tipping IDS as a hot shot several years before he became LotO. Very prescient.
I'm not convinced he overperformed while in the job but seems now to have found his place as a passionate champion of the poor and underpriveleged.
If, by luck or judgement, he can also carve out a place for himself which sets him against civil service bad practices he will have done everyone and the country a favour.
Maybe we caring pbTories should organize a massive humanitarian assistance programme for tim. No massive intervention. Poor defenceless lamb, he's being kicked all over the shop: it's a human rights catastophe. Send in the marines...
Ladbrokes Politics @LadPolitics 1h Odds of the three party leaders to be replaced before the General Election: 2/1 Clegg 3/1 Cameron 4/1 Miliband
Bet that BBC poll omitted anything about the roles of Ed Davey, Chris Huhne, Ed Miliband and other 'Energy Ministers' in adding levies on electricity firms & customers.
In other news another subsidised wind farm generator fails in the wind.
Yes, well, do a survey of all Rolls Royces and you'll find the odd one breaking down. But both in Britain and IIRC Germany there are substantial polling majorities in favour of renewables - in Britain at least even when the question explicitly states the subsidy given to them, wind energy remains the most popular energy source. Obviously it needs backup from other sources but it's a useful contribution. More importantly, as we won't agree personally, this is the view of most Brits.
That said, when we looked at the German feed-in tariff system we decided not to do it (except for the immature technologies like wave which need help to become viable) because it suffers from the same syndrome as the CAP - there's a guarantee of paying for energy whether it's needed or efficiently produced or not.
Fox: the responses to my comments on Ed show exactly why I don't usually bother to make them. Really, contributing posts saying one likes one's party or leader are a waste of time here - someone else says yah boo, rubbish, and how much has the discussion advanced? Richard N found the same when he endorsed Osborne in glowing terms. The best pb discussions are about what the public think rather than about what we think, except when it's something not mainstream political.
The public has an IQ of about 110 (add on 10 to the median for the Wisdom of Crowds). This means they are pretty good at moral decisions, and constitutional decisions, and overall political direction - which is why we have elections and REFERENDUMS on these things. But technical stuff like energy policy are probably outwith public comprehension.
So we probably need to ignore them, or educate them, on windmills.
The fact is that if Europe goes for renewables it will be paying vastly more for its energy at a time when fierce competitors like the USA and increasingly China will be getting the benefits of cheap shale gas and cheaper-than-expected oil.
This is totally unsustainable financially and will further hamper the European economy at a time when it is already the weakest link in the global chain.
It's insane. Clownlike. It's like a man with a limp, in a 100m sprint final, deciding to wear a heavy overcoat as well, to make sure he loses.
Given the option, price is the most important thing to consumers:
"60 per cent of people said it is more important to provide cheap power than to cut carbon emissions during times of economic difficulty. "
But on the other hand: Andrew Hawkins @Andrew_ComRes 2m ComRes/BBC R5Live poll finds 55% who are prepared to pay more for "greener, cleaner" energy http://ht.ly/oA1Q2
Which all just shows the limitations of polling.. depending on the wording and emphasis of the question asked. Yes Prime Minster got it spot on.
Maybe we caring pbTories should organize a massive humanitarian assistance programme for tim. Poor defenceless lamb, he's being kicked all over the shop: it's a human rights catastophe. Send in the marines...
Might we have a vote on that ....
I promise not to be on holiday or in a sound proofed room !!
On the Kent crash - my sympathies are with the people who were travelling at an appropriate speed for the conditions then managed to stop in time, and get rear ended whilst stationery - possibly hitting the car in front.
Maybe we caring pbTories should organize a massive humanitarian assistance programme for tim. No massive intervention. Poor defenceless lamb, he's being kicked all over the shop: it's a human rights catastophe. Send in the marines...
Ladbrokes Politics @LadPolitics 1h Odds of the three party leaders to be replaced before the General Election: 2/1 Clegg 3/1 Cameron 4/1 Miliband
@NickPalmer: Unlike others on here I am in two minds about Ed Milliband. He strikes me as a nice person, to the extent that one can judge, and he has what is essential in a politician - a streak of ruthlessness, as shown by his decision to stand for Leader. (I don't accept the claim that he "knifed" his brother - David M had no more automatic claim to be Labour leader than I do.)
I think the real problem is that he is not willing to say clearly that he repudiates Labour's recent history - from his position on the left - partly because he may fear that this is not an election winning strategy. So the impression is given that he is on the left - by comparison with Blair for instance - but he does not really set out a left-wing/social democrat alternative from Labour. Hence the charge of being policy-lite etc.
He may be a good PM; he may be biding his time, who knows. It's worth remembering that even Thatcher came to power relatively policy-lite and with a lot of doubts about her style and leadership skills and with most of her party sceptical about her abilities. She didn't fully become "Thatcher" until later.
The real risk for Labour, it seems to me, will be the the gap between the expectations of those voting for them and what they can actually do when in power.
It certainly was very foggy in the area this morning, but still.
Too many people from the island drive like lunatics down that carriageway. And particularly across that bridge. This should be a wake up call. Probably won't be though.
@tim - thanks for the reminder that I, Most Benign Leader (almong with Most Rev Dr N and Naughty N the jolly-green-gayer) are doing rather well in the betting stakes with you. And I note you lost another one yesterday.
Maybe we caring pbTories should organize a massive humanitarian assistance programme for tim. No massive intervention. Poor defenceless lamb, he's being kicked all over the shop: it's a human rights catastophe. Send in the marines...
Ladbrokes Politics @LadPolitics 1h Odds of the three party leaders to be replaced before the General Election: 2/1 Clegg 3/1 Cameron 4/1 Miliband
Dartmoor, which currently holds 630 Category C inmates, was opened in 1809 to house thousands of prisoners from the Napoleonic wars. At one point the prison held 6,000 inmates, including American sailors from the 1812 War. Among its most famous inmates were Frank “the Mad Axeman” Mitchell, whom the Kray brothers helped to escape from the prison, and the Irish Republicans Michael Davitt and Eamon de Valera, who went on to become Prime Minister and President of the Irish Republic. http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/politics/article3860342.ece
Bet that BBC poll omitted anything about the roles of Ed Davey, Chris Huhne, Ed Miliband and other 'Energy Ministers' in adding levies on electricity firms & customers.
In other news another subsidised wind farm generator fails in the wind.
Yes, well, do a survey of all Rolls Royces and you'll find the odd one breaking down. But both in Britain and IIRC Germany there are substantial polling majorities in favour of renewables - in Britain at least even when the question explicitly states the subsidy given to them, wind energy remains the most popular energy source. Obviously it needs backup from other sources but it's a useful contribution. More importantly, as we won't agree personally, this is the view of most Brits.
That said, when we looked at the German feed-in tariff system we decided not to do it (except for the immature technologies like wave which need help to become viable) because it suffers from the same syndrome as the CAP - there's a guarantee of paying for energy whether it's needed or efficiently produced or not.
Fox: the responses to my comments on Ed show exactly why I don't usually bother to make them. Really, contributing posts saying one likes one's party or leader are a waste of time here - someone else says yah boo, rubbish, and how much has the discussion advanced? Richard N found the same when he endorsed Osborne in glowing terms. The best pb discussions are about what the public think rather than about what we think, except when it's something not mainstream political.
I'm always a little sceptical about single issue polling.
As you say, there are strong majorities in favour of renewables.
Equally, I'm sure if you polled it there would be strong opposition to rising energy bills
So either: (a) the general public lacks the information to make a judgement (b) they are bipolar or (c) they don't connect the dots in a single issue poll
Comments
"Record numbers of “jobless” wasps are more likely to attack us because they are drunk and aggressive, the British Red Cross has warned.
With their queens fully supplied with all the nectar they need, worker wasps now have nothing to do but laze around getting drunk on fermenting fruit, according to environmental authorities.
Perhaps better described as retired than “jobless” – since all the workers will have died out by the time winter comes around – the insects are becoming increasingly bold and angry in their old age >>
Not only has Osborne done a fine job with the economy but he's apparently been instrumental in keeping the UK out of a foolish ME adventure.
"...And in this moment of crisis it became clear — as it does — what Mr Miliband is. A personable man (and he is a very pleasant companion), politically he is not a presence at all, he is an absence. He is Oedipal Ed, the negator of the unpopular actions of the fathers; the anti-Blair, the non-Brown. His technique for victory to is follow behind the leader, wait for a slip-up and exploit his or her mistakes. He did it to his brother. He hopes to do it to David Cameron. He is neither hunter nor prey, he is scavenger. He is a political vulture. Mission creep? His mission is all about creeping.
And though you can just about see how in a bad year Ed Miliband could become prime minister, what I cannot any longer pretend, after three years of his leadership, is that he would be a good one. On the contrary. I think he would be a disaster. Strangely, I think both the country and his party already know it." http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/columnists/davidaaronovitch/article3860789.ece
24-hour tim = ........
Incomparable.
What we have to ask ourselves is how far these Union leaders are willing to go to show their irritation with Ed. They are not stupid men. They know that stories like this are not good for Labour or the political standing of the Unions themselves. Will they really want to hit the red buttons? I doubt it.
One way of looking at this is that the decision of the GMB rather proves Ed's point. The idea that the Union can decide how many its members are paying these notional dues is in their discretion and can be cut from a notional 420K to 50K is fairly absurd. Something does need to be done to put these "members" on some sort of real footing. Of course this should have been a matter of discussion, consensus and agreement instead of unilateral declarations but there we are.
He'll be "fine" as PM.
I could do with looking back to see what the pre-PM judgement from the same source said about Gordon Brown to benchmark this opinion.
Sycophantic drivel.
The weather was curious this morning - clear earlier then the fog came down very quickly and has now cleared this part of East London.
On-topic, it can't be helpful for democracy if one party, albeit financed by a very small group of people, is comprehensively able to out-spend and out-resource its opponents thought that of course doesn't guarantee success. It's impossible to ignore the power of money within the democratic process but much harder to decide what to do about it.
Less on-topic, the almost continuous assault on Ed Miliband by some on here is curious. If he were such a weak and irrelevant figure, why waste time and words attacking him? I would imagine that for some it wouldn't matter who the Labour leader was, that person would be the subject of ridicule and attack but as someone once said "politics is a rough trade".
It's almost impossible to think that the Syria vote was less than a week ago and it's been wonderful to see the frantic spinning and over-analysis by those determined to make the events of last Thursday evening seem like a glorious victory for the Prime Minister and a huge strategic defeat for the Leader of the Opposition when I suspect it was neither.
It's far too early to judge if Ed Miliband would make a good PM or not - people had doubts about David Cameron in his early days in Opposition and it's too early to tell if he is a good Prime Minister as well. So much depends on events and the quality of those around the PM as much as the qualities of the man or woman in charge. There are clearly many on here who regard the prospect of an Ed Miliband-led Government with near apoplexy. A more reasoned approach might suggest that there are considerable constraints on what any Prime Minister can do and it may be that apart from the style, there wouldn't be a lot of difference between Ed M and Dave C.
ALEX SALMOND +11
DAVID CAMERON -45
ED MILIBAND -46
NICK CLEGG -53
Mensa?
Degree attained (if any) and in what and from whom?
Court of public opinion?
Which school they were sent to?
If they are Labour or not?
Is Salmond's ego so fragile that he needs this kind of vanity polling ?
Have they actually returned from their ultra long summer holidays yet?.
Were they balloted on the beaches?.
That will get the sympathy vote.
Which school did he go to I wonder ... won't need to wait for long probably.
Dan Hodges@DPJHodges
Just had breakfast with Lord Ashcroft. A fine man. Some dangerously left-wing views mind...
Worthless push poll.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/high-costs-and-errors-of-german-transition-to-renewable-energy-a-920288.html
A harsh lesson to be learned here.
Entries will close at 7pm today:
http://www.electiongame.co.uk/australia13/
http://www.electiongame.co.uk/norway13/
Many thanks,
DC
Blair got away with it because a) even the Tories were fed up with John Major though some died in the ditch with him and b) Blair was so unlike his predecessors that it was harder for the traditional attack lines to work.
To be fair, Conservative leaders aren't immune from vitriol, the worst of which is usually from their own side though oddly enough I don't recall the volume of negativity around Michael Howard that his predecessors received.
How much of an impact all this has on the electorate is debatable - the notion that they are "all as bad as each other" is very strong and politicians (undeservedly in most instances) are widely held in contempt or is it a form of envy, I'm not sure.
In a normal democracy it can sometimes happen that the process of voting on amendments then voting on the final result fails to produce a yes vote when you could have got one. This happens because you try to get the strongest bill you can, and compromise with just enough people to make a majority, but if you miscalculate - as will happen from time to time given independent-minded MPs - you'll try to push through a stronger bill than you had a majority for, so you need to go back and weaken the bill enough to get more people into the tent.
Personally I'm happy to see the UK give up and stay out of this one, but what's puzzling is that some people seemed to think that it was an urgent humanitarian necessity for the UK to agree to military action, in which case it's very hard to see why they're not advocating for a new vote on a weaker bill.
So assume two kitchens in the Manor House in Cheshire and one in the offie= 3..
I think by the election after we could see UKIP and possibly a new party gaining a significant number of seats.
The only party that wants to reverse it is the FDP. Let's watch their score in the elections and see how much the Germans are regretting renewables.
A perfect example of how political parties are captured by wanky out of touch elites and how slow policy change to reflect what's going on in the real world can be. Packaged with all the other policy areas people vote for and it seems the man in the street's anger over rising energy bills has no place to vent.
Top 10 UK Cities (Outside London) According to 1000 Americans
Anyway, here are the top 10 answers and the percentage of people who said them. In some cases, these include misspelt variants, as you can see from the raw data download available at the end of this post.
Liverpool (15% of respondents answered ‘Liverpool’)
Manchester (12%)
Leeds (4.7%)
Cambridge (3.7%)
Bristol (3.6%)
Wales (3.6%)
Oxford (3.0%)
Birmingham (2.4%)
Bath (2.3%)
Paris (1.9%) – Yes, Paris
Whatever happened here?
BBC Breaking News ✔ @BBCBreaking
200 people injured - 6 seriously - in #Sheppey crossing crash, Kent, involving 100 vehicles http://bbc.in/150QP6h pic.twitter.com/lrNmPtgqt1
10:06 AM - 5 Sep 2013
In other news another subsidised wind farm generator fails in the wind.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2410938/How-40mph-winds-wrecked-turbine-Photo-shows-blades-torn-buckled-force-gale.html
How noble of @RachelReevesMP to rally against unpaid internships. After advertising for six. order-order.com/2013/09/05/rac…
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-23970047
However no British PM has suffered such a foreign policy defeat in living memory and the PM was unequivocal in his response - The HoC has spoken and the issue will not be revisited.
If you dispute the evidence of bias staring you in the face, then here's another notorious example of this sort of thing from a couple of years back. This time the SNP were on the receiving end and Populus were the culprit, in a poll commissioned by supermarkets opposed to the SNP proposal for a supermarket tax. Again, the key question (Q6, which generated the headlines) was asked after other leading questions leading to a predictable result which just happened to be the one the client wanted.
http://www.populus.co.uk/Poll/SNP-Retail-Tax-Poll/
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/douglascarswellmp/100234252/this-is-the-end-of-westminster-politics-as-we-know-it-and-about-time/
I fail to see how that could affect anything...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0ZZJXw4MTA
.. oh.
http://www.thecourier.co.uk/news/scotland/holidaying-mp-eric-joyce-s-trial-delayed-1.127332
Can't appear in court, has to finish a walking holiday.
meanwhile another PB Tory says Ed is Crap or a xxxxxx xxxx as some might say.
This is the most extraordinary and spineless admission. As I say in my article, what Miliband and many of his MPs wanted was for the Government and the Americans – anyone, anyone as long as it wasn’t them – to take responsibility for a military action about which they could not make up their minds.
Deplorable.
http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2013/09/05/ed-miliband-and-syria/
For Labour and the Lib Dems less so. Think about it. The LDs got 24% of the vote. 2/3rds of the Tories. Did they spend 2/3rds of the Tory spend ? Yes, if you have money , you will spend. But diminishing marginal returns set in very early. We have PPB's here. The US don't . They have to buy adverts. We don't. On TV, I mean.
Indeed, he reminds me of a weak medieval king — Edward II, say, or Richard II — who, after years being kicked around by barons and favourites, makes a desperate, flailing bid to reassert his authority, and promptly ends up on the wrong end of a red-hot poker.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2411828/DOMINIC-SANDBROOK-Poor-floundering-Mr-Miliband-just-signed-political-death-warrant.html
Martin Kettle in Gdn claims the Murdoch empire is offering huge sums for Lefties to put the boot into Ed Miliband...
Tom Watson's blog surely would be above that at least!!
tim, as you well know, the reason Cam may be ignored by world leaders (he won't be of course) is because.....
....
....
....
....LABOUR VOTED AGAINST THE BILL....
Have you considered using a lasso?
Strange but true: for a short time some of the retiarii [Roman gladiators who used a net and trident] instead used a lasso (according to Philip Matyszak's eminently enjoyable Gladiator Unofficial Manual).
That said, when we looked at the German feed-in tariff system we decided not to do it (except for the immature technologies like wave which need help to become viable) because it suffers from the same syndrome as the CAP - there's a guarantee of paying for energy whether it's needed or efficiently produced or not.
Fox: the responses to my comments on Ed show exactly why I don't usually bother to make them. Really, contributing posts saying one likes one's party or leader are a waste of time here - someone else says yah boo, rubbish, and how much has the discussion advanced? Richard N found the same when he endorsed Osborne in glowing terms. The best pb discussions are about what the public think rather than about what we think, except when it's something not mainstream political.
"The venom of Tim's attacks on Cammo incidentally on this issue tell you something when you see all these liberal interventionists being similarly poisonous about Milibands... "
I think you make a fair point and it's clear how angry this is making people on both sides. What I find depressing is that over 70% of the population are on Miliband's side (I'm not sure Tim is) yet through his ineptitude he hasn't managed to capitalize one jot.
As for Aaronovich though I like him a lot as a journalist he was one of the few who was more gung-ho than even Blair about invading Iraq and also one of his most vociferous defenders of its 'success' even when a blind man on a camel could see it was a failure. I think he's just a natural born invader of Arab countries
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-magazine-monitor-23962379
I'd also add that if individuals are pro-wind and happy to pay more, make it opt-in. Those who want to pay more and get 'sustainable' energy from windfarms can do so, and those who don't want to can get cheaper electricity from other sources.
It's no hardship for the likes of Davey, Cameron and Miliband to pay a few hundred pounds more each year, but it's far more significant for those on average wages and a serious issue for the poor.
The House of Commons made its choice against the advice of the Prime Minister. He accepts that decision.
All the rest from you is froth and drivel. Get over it.
Rolls Royce cars don't have engines which rip themselves apart.
A disgrace.
The next scandal will be him installing a microwave in there.
The man is a scoundrel
This must be the top total trivia tale from Cheshire in a long time.
'"The venom of Tim's attacks on Cammo incidentally on this issue tell you something when you see all these liberal interventionists being similarly poisonous about Milibands... "
Does anyone apart from Tim rate Ed?
Ed's Syria triumph is beginning to resemble one of his mentor Gordon's budgets - loud cheers followed by an unravelling...
Just give yourself a break "tim" and try to limit your own embarrassing contributions.
Labour : 1.85
Con : 2.2
+0.37 difference.
"60 per cent of people said it is more important to provide cheap power than to cut carbon emissions during times of economic difficulty. "
http://www.utilityweek.co.uk/news/news_story.asp?id=199209&channel=0&title=Cheap+power+is+top+priority+for+consumers
I'm not convinced he overperformed while in the job but seems now to have found his place as a passionate champion of the poor and underpriveleged.
If, by luck or judgement, he can also carve out a place for himself which sets him against civil service bad practices he will have done everyone and the country a favour.
Andrew Hawkins @Andrew_ComRes 2m
ComRes/BBC R5Live poll finds 55% who are prepared to pay more for "greener, cleaner" energy http://ht.ly/oA1Q2
Which all just shows the limitations of polling.. depending on the wording and emphasis of the question asked. Yes Prime Minster got it spot on.
I promise not to be on holiday or in a sound proofed room !!
For instance, William Waldegrave was a Fellow of All Souls, but I doubt he would have been a great PM
I think the real problem is that he is not willing to say clearly that he repudiates Labour's recent history - from his position on the left - partly because he may fear that this is not an election winning strategy. So the impression is given that he is on the left - by comparison with Blair for instance - but he does not really set out a left-wing/social democrat alternative from Labour. Hence the charge of being policy-lite etc.
He may be a good PM; he may be biding his time, who knows. It's worth remembering that even Thatcher came to power relatively policy-lite and with a lot of doubts about her style and leadership skills and with most of her party sceptical about her abilities. She didn't fully become "Thatcher" until later.
The real risk for Labour, it seems to me, will be the the gap between the expectations of those voting for them and what they can actually do when in power.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2412099/Sheppey-crash-100-vehicles-pile-misty-conditions-Kent.html
It certainly was very foggy in the area this morning, but still.
Too many people from the island drive like lunatics down that carriageway. And particularly across that bridge. This should be a wake up call. Probably won't be though.
Verily, things can only get better.
Ooh, meeeowww.
Dartmoor, which currently holds 630 Category C inmates, was opened in 1809 to house thousands of prisoners from the Napoleonic wars. At one point the prison held 6,000 inmates, including American sailors from the 1812 War. Among its most famous inmates were Frank “the Mad Axeman” Mitchell, whom the Kray brothers helped to escape from the prison, and the Irish Republicans Michael Davitt and Eamon de Valera, who went on to become Prime Minister and President of the Irish Republic. http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/politics/article3860342.ece
As you say, there are strong majorities in favour of renewables.
Equally, I'm sure if you polled it there would be strong opposition to rising energy bills
So either: (a) the general public lacks the information to make a judgement (b) they are bipolar or (c) they don't connect the dots in a single issue poll