Almost 30 per cent of Glaswegians who watched the BBC soap had adopted ways of speaking more usually heard within the sound of Bow bells.
Linguists funded by the Economic and Social Research Council looked at how EastEnders is altering features of the Scottish accent.
They found that two particular ways of pronunciation typically associated with London English were becoming increasingly apparent in the Glaswegian dialect among those who regularly watched the programme.
The speakers tended to use "f" instead of "th" in words such as "think" (fink) and "tooth" (toof) and a vowel sound like that in "good" in place of "l" in words such as "people".
These changes provide the first evidence that viewing habits accelerate changes in language, said the authors.
I don't think Balls is the problem, in fact in some ways he's the most impressive of the Labour front bench. Even if Yvette were a better choice (I'm unconvinced - she always sounds like a malignant speak-your-weight machine to me), Labour's problem on the economy isn't the messenger, it's the message. Since most of their support comes from people who want to deny reality, a position which first Gordon Brown and then Ed Miliband have actively encouraged, what can they do? There are only two real possibilities: tell the truth now, and lose a large hunk of support, or try to keep up the pretence, hope to sneak into power, and then face the music after the election. In practice, they've tended to drift towards the latter position with occasional snaps back to pay at least token respect to reality, which is really the worst of both worlds.
For those, like me, who believe UKIP has peaked and is unlikely to win the most votes in next year's Euro elections, there's currently a potentially rewarding opportunity to back both the major parties in combination to produce a useful return:
Back Labour to win most Euro votes at 15/8 with Hills, staking 65.7% Back the Tories to win most Euro votes at 9/2 with Ladbrokes, staking 34.3%
Should one or other win, this bet returns a profit of 89% on the combined stakes,
As ever, do your own research.
I think there's a good chance the Conservatives will be pushed into third at the EU Parliament elections.
Labour 30.8% (-4.5) Conservative 26.9 (+9.6) Progress 16.3 (-6.7) Christian Democrats 5.6 (=) Centre Party 5.4 (-0.8) Liberal 5.3 (+1.4) Socialist Left 4.1 (-2.1) Green 2.8 (+2.4)
Seats Labour 55 (-9) Conservative 48 (+18) Progress 29 (-12) Christian Democrats 10 (=) Centre 10 (-1) Liberal 9 (+7) Socialist Left 7 (-4) Greens 1 (+1)
Difficult to make generalistations but all those countries with ageing populations and low immigration are way down.
That is funny Tim. You are of course right it is difficult to make generalizations. As shown by the fact that the one you make is utterly wrong.
The top four countries for happiness on that index all have populations that are aging and three of the four have lower percentages of immigrant populations than the UK (which is down at 22nd in the happiness rankings).
So as you say, your generalization is garbage.
That survey has the 'happiness' of Japan below Saudi Arabia. Know where I would rather live if I was a woman...
If there were a by-election in Ribble Valley, could UKIP do their party trick of coming second again? The LDs may well lose a chunk of support from 3rd place and the voters haven't exactly been flocking to Labour in places like this.
Disclaimer: I make no claim about the truth or otherwise of the allegations against Nigel Evans which may trigger such a by-election. I have no knowledge to add about those.
"Abbott’s constant repetition of a few key messages – Scrap the carbon tax; Stop the boats carrying illegal immigrants; and Build more roads – sent political journalists to sleep but they were killer messages identified by Textor’s opinion polling. "
Similar to the Tories in the past with non white immigrants and now with Eastern Europeans. Build a party based on despising large percentages of the population and thats what happens
Yes - anecdote alert - I have two constituents, prosperous second generation immigrants, who have told me that they and their large families actively, strongly prefer Tory economic and tax policy. They vote Labour mainly because they think most Tories dislike them on sight. If there was an immigrant-friendly (not even immigration-friendly, just nice to those already here) low-tax party they'd be off in a millisecond.
Generally speaking I think the Tory middle ranks hit the "scorn" button far too often, and it's a main reason why they're disliked as a party. Cameron is aware of that and mostly avoids it except when he's peeved. But it's always easy to find a back-bencher or junior minister who thinks much of the population is basically a bit crap. People's self-image (rightly or wrongly) is that they're doing their best in often difficult circs, and they don't like to be sneered at.
If there were a by-election in Ribble Valley, could UKIP do their party trick of coming second again? The LDs may well lose a chunk of support from 3rd place and the voters haven't exactly been flocking to Labour in places like this.
Disclaimer: I make no claim about the truth or otherwise of the allegations against Nigel Evans which may trigger such a by-election. I have no knowledge to add about those.
As I recall, Sean Fear tipped a Ribble Valley by-election as UKIP's first Westminster win.
Difficult to make generalistations but all those countries with ageing populations and low immigration are way down.
That is funny Tim. You are of course right it is difficult to make generalizations. As shown by the fact that the one you make is utterly wrong.
The top four countries for happiness on that index all have populations that are aging and three of the four have lower percentages of immigrant populations than the UK (which is down at 22nd in the happiness rankings).
So as you say, your generalization is garbage.
The most obvious generalisation is that places with clean water, electricity, high living standards, comparatively honest government head the list, while places that have the opposite are at the bottom of the list.
UKIP may have peaked for now but they will get lots more coverage next year and have always peaked in Euro election year in every election cycle they have been around for.
I notice you are using UKIP projections to try to rubbish JackW's ARSE this time. Is that because using the SNP projection backfired on you so spectacularly last time?
If there were a by-election in Ribble Valley, could UKIP do their party trick of coming second again? The LDs may well lose a chunk of support from 3rd place and the voters haven't exactly been flocking to Labour in places like this.
Disclaimer: I make no claim about the truth or otherwise of the allegations against Nigel Evans which may trigger such a by-election. I have no knowledge to add about those.
It's decent territory for UKIP, they got over double their national average last time and there's lots of disgruntled traditional Tory types. Candidate selection would be key, the bloke who stood last time left the party I think to stand as an independent in the local elections so they'll need a new candidate.
The recent council by election in Littlemoor ward 1st August had a LD gain from Conservative with Steve Rush ex UKIP Independent 2nd and the Conservatives a very poor 3rd . From what information I have there is no chance of a reconciliation between Steve Rush and UKIP .
I do think OGH undervalues experience. Reeves may look good on paper but politically she's still a baby. Perhaps in 10 years we can discuss her suitability for high office. This reliance on younger and younger people really does drive home the dearth of talent that Blair left behind in his Party. I suppose people like Balls and Cooper could be considered middle-aged in political terms now and I agree Balls is a serious problem. However Cooper is married to him and that doesn't make it too easy for her either. However she wasn't a part of the Brownite inner circle and that has to be a bonus for her. She might just be the best option. However EdM is hardly brimming with alternatives which probably explains why Balls is still where he is.
It's stories like this and Labour paying no CT either that makes them look like hypocrites. Let's see how EdM squares the circle - you can't rubbish another corp entity for playing inside the rules to mitigate their tax exposure - then do it yourself.
EdM is full of contradictions that many are growing weary of on his own side.
"Conservative research found that Unite paid no tax in the last two years by being able to exploit an obscure accounting loophole.
This loophole meant that the union was able to offset millions of pounds in profits from a £51.6 million portfolio of stocks and shares against ‘provident benefits’ for members.
Unite generated an investment income of £5,787,000 in the past two years from their portfolio, but paid £0 Corporation Tax.
I thought Tories were meant to be the party of business. Can they and their supporters really have such little understanding of corporation tax as this?
I notice you are using UKIP projections to try to rubbish JackW's ARSE this time. Is that because using the SNP projection backfired on you so spectacularly last time?
Not really. I still think that if the SNP gain four then the LDs will go below forty.
Come on, tim, it's ok to admit it when you get something completely wrong. I mean you realised your error far sooner than Stuart did.
"How about posting for us the 7 SNP top target seats and the swings required, might put Jack Ws silliness into context for those who don't understand Scotlands electoral geography."
It's stories like this and Labour paying no CT either that makes them look like hypocrites. Let's see how EdM squares the circle - you can't rubbish another corp entity for playing inside the rules to mitigate their tax exposure - then do it yourself.
EdM is full of contradictions that many are growing weary of on his own side.
"Conservative research found that Unite paid no tax in the last two years by being able to exploit an obscure accounting loophole.
This loophole meant that the union was able to offset millions of pounds in profits from a £51.6 million portfolio of stocks and shares against ‘provident benefits’ for members.
Unite generated an investment income of £5,787,000 in the past two years from their portfolio, but paid £0 Corporation Tax.
I thought Tories were meant to be the party of business. Can they and their supporters really have such little understanding of corporation tax as this?
Their hatred of trade unions trumps all logic, same with the immigrant/benefit scroungers stories they swallow due to their loathing.
This is just ignorant. What he seems to be saying is that even a large increase in European fracking might be offset by the greater demand for energy. But the prices would still of course be lower than they otherwise would have been.
The strong impression I get is that Mr Davey is an obstruction to the development of fracking in the UK as well as a strong advocate for green subsidies. Both of these policies undermine the government policy of the march of the makers. Not all manufacturing has the kind of margins that allows this to be overlooked like Jaguar.
The failure of Vince to do much about the administrative burden on business has been a major disappointment but this will seriously damage our growth, employment and welfare in 5-10 years time. He really should be moved.
It's stories like this and Labour paying no CT either that makes them look like hypocrites. Let's see how EdM squares the circle - you can't rubbish another corp entity for playing inside the rules to mitigate their tax exposure - then do it yourself.
EdM is full of contradictions that many are growing weary of on his own side.
"Conservative research found that Unite paid no tax in the last two years by being able to exploit an obscure accounting loophole.
This loophole meant that the union was able to offset millions of pounds in profits from a £51.6 million portfolio of stocks and shares against ‘provident benefits’ for members.
Unite generated an investment income of £5,787,000 in the past two years from their portfolio, but paid £0 Corporation Tax.
I thought Tories were meant to be the party of business. Can they and their supporters really have such little understanding of corporation tax as this?
Their hatred of trade unions trumps all logic, same with the immigrant/benefit scroungers stories they swallow due to their loathing.
That a real Rachel Reeves of a post.
Immigrant cat. Unite tax avoidance.
Case closed
sorry I fell asleep in the middle of that, what were you saying ?
@NickPalmer: You're right that some Tories do give the impression of sneering at people, a major fault in a political party. Labour do and have done the same. It's not a party political point; there just seems to be a view amongst the political class that voters are something to be endured and a bit of nuisance. Why on earth do they think that will make people vote for them?
I think part of it comes from viewing people as categories: immigrants / bankers / trade unionists / etc which makes it easier to hurl abuse and generalities. It's a trait to be deplored.
It's stories like this and Labour paying no CT either that makes them look like hypocrites. Let's see how EdM squares the circle - you can't rubbish another corp entity for playing inside the rules to mitigate their tax exposure - then do it yourself.
EdM is full of contradictions that many are growing weary of on his own side.
"Conservative research found that Unite paid no tax in the last two years by being able to exploit an obscure accounting loophole.
This loophole meant that the union was able to offset millions of pounds in profits from a £51.6 million portfolio of stocks and shares against ‘provident benefits’ for members.
Unite generated an investment income of £5,787,000 in the past two years from their portfolio, but paid £0 Corporation Tax.
I thought Tories were meant to be the party of business. Can they and their supporters really have such little understanding of corporation tax as this?
Their hatred of trade unions trumps all logic, same with the immigrant/benefit scroungers stories they swallow due to their loathing.
Speeches to the TUC by Labour leaders - from 2002 - sound familiar ?
"I sometimes think that there is a kind of word fatigue about chemical and biological weapons. We're not talking about some mild variants of everyday chemicals, but anthrax, sarin and mustard gas - weapons that can cause hurt and agony on a mass scale beyond the comprehension of most decent people."
"People say: but containment has worked. Only up to a point. In truth, sanctions are eroding"
"Given that history, I say to you: to allow him to use the weapons he has or get the weapons he wants, would be an act of gross irresponsibility and we should not countenance it."
"Because I say to you in all earnestness: if we do not deal with the threat from this international outlaw and his barbaric regime, it may not erupt and engulf us this month or next; perhaps not even this year or the next. But it will at some point.
And I do not want it on my conscience that we knew the threat, saw it coming and did nothing."
''UKIP may have peaked for now but they will get lots more coverage next year and have always peaked in Euro election year in every election cycle they have been around for. ''
I've seen the tories odds to win the EU elections touted on here, and I'm starting to get tempted.
There are plenty of press noises the Germans will offer Dave some big concessions.
Mr. Booth, point of order: it was Brown, not Blair, who ran any potential rival out of town.
It's not really a question of Brownite rivals. I mean Cook, Reid Clarke? They're yesterday's men. When Blair left office the only semi-impressive young acolyte he had was David Miliband. A serious dearth of talent amongst the younger generation that saw him rely on Reid, make Beckett Foreign Secretary and bring back Blunkett.
Chortle - Ed says he would be investing in this country's infrastructure if in Govt. Sort of forgetting all the infrastructure decisions Labour ducked over 13 years. Credibility fail.
There are plenty of press noises the Germans will offer Dave some big concessions.
Are the other concessions going to be like the one you posted before where you remove the one-per-country principle from Commission appointments to make the EU less like a group of nation states and more like a single country?
@stefanstern: Cameron "oozes contempt for trade unions through every pore" says Ed Mili #tuc13
Should shore up the PB Tory vote
Thought it was Ed doing that, he's the one having the fist fight with TUs today.
Ed doesn't want the Labour Party dominated by the unions. Cameron just doesn't like them full stop. Is that too subtle for you?
Fraid so, I'd say a bloke with Oxford PPE has no more time for TUs than the other bloke. The our millionaire is nicer than your millionaire mantra has a bit of a problem for the rest of us.
@stefanstern: Cameron "oozes contempt for trade unions through every pore" says Ed Mili #tuc13
Should shore up the PB Tory vote
Thought it was Ed doing that, he's the one having the fist fight with TUs today.
Ed doesn't want the Labour Party dominated by the unions. Cameron just doesn't like them full stop. Is that too subtle for you?
Fraid so, I'd say a bloke with Oxford PPE has no more time for TUs than the other bloke. The our millionaire is nicer than your millionaire mantra has a bit of a problem for the rest of us.
The Tories are making it very easy to believe that Miliband has far more time for trade union members than their leadership. Just look at the tax-dodging claims, the ending of check-off, the restrictions on activities in the lobbying bill.
Only caught the end of Ed (ed. not yet surely??) about zero hours contracts. Another one that got away from the Coalition and should have been addressed by now really.
His audience seemed somewhat disengaged and the applause at the end was tepid. Is anyone in a position to give a better summary? What did he say about the Union link?
@stefanstern: Cameron "oozes contempt for trade unions through every pore" says Ed Mili #tuc13
Should shore up the PB Tory vote
Thought it was Ed doing that, he's the one having the fist fight with TUs today.
Ed doesn't want the Labour Party dominated by the unions. Cameron just doesn't like them full stop. Is that too subtle for you?
Fraid so, I'd say a bloke with Oxford PPE has no more time for TUs than the other bloke. The our millionaire is nicer than your millionaire mantra has a bit of a problem for the rest of us.
The Tories are making it very easy to believe that Miliband has far more time for trade union members than their leadership. Just look at the tax-dodging claims, the ending of check-off, the restrictions on activities in the lobbying bill.
Er what do you expect Neil when many of the major TUs are affiliated politically ? The corrollary is Miliband's making it very easy to believe Labour hate employers or anyone who works in a London bank.
Well, it is and it isn't. We should 'frac' because it will lower our trade deficit, and provide jobs and tax revenues.
However: we are part of the global gas market in a way that the US isn't. There is no way to get a CH4 molecule produced in Texas outside of the country. It is, in the parlance of the energy industry, stranded gas.
On the other hand, we pay world market prices for our gas. Europe - as a whole - is a major importer of natural gas, through both pipelines and through LNG.
If iGas or Cuadrilla produce gas in Cheshire, they will sell it to the European buyer willing to pay the highest price. They will not sell it at a discount to the citizens of St Albans. (And, in fact, iGas and Cuadrilla would not even be drilling for gas if they thought they would get paid less than $12 or so per mcf - that's 3-4x the US price.)
It is also worth noting that US gas prices will rise over time. There are over 100 new gas-fired power stations being built in the US, new oil sands projects in Canada are increasingly gas hungry (SAGD), the petrochemical industry around Houston is in full-scale expansion mode, and most importantly, the US and Canada will both build LNG export terminals in the next five years. As a result, the US will become part of the world gas market, and a driller in Oklohoma will have the choice of whether to sell to Tepco in Japan or Constellation Energy in the US.
At a basic economic level, frac'ed gas will displace the most expensive import - LNG, which is currently around $18/mcf. When it has got through that, then - and only then - would the price decline, as the price is set at the margin. This is possible on a 15 year view; it is not possible on a 5 to 10 year view.
Only caught the end of Ed (ed. not yet surely??) about zero hours contracts. Another one that got away from the Coalition and should have been addressed by now really.
His audience seemed somewhat disengaged and the applause at the end was tepid. Is anyone in a position to give a better summary? What did he say about the Union link?
As nothing is certain here, you are of course quite entitled to believe Dave will get no change out of Europe in his attempts at renegotiation.
But I am also quite entitled, based on the current reports, to believe otherwise.
It's not just that the reports are short on detail it's that when we finally got an actual example of something that might be conceded it turned out to be something the federalists have always wanted and the nation-state people oppose...
@stefanstern: Cameron "oozes contempt for trade unions through every pore" says Ed Mili #tuc13
Should shore up the PB Tory vote
Thought it was Ed doing that, he's the one having the fist fight with TUs today.
Ed doesn't want the Labour Party dominated by the unions. Cameron just doesn't like them full stop. Is that too subtle for you?
Fraid so, I'd say a bloke with Oxford PPE has no more time for TUs than the other bloke. The our millionaire is nicer than your millionaire mantra has a bit of a problem for the rest of us.
The Tories are making it very easy to believe that Miliband has far more time for trade union members than their leadership. Just look at the tax-dodging claims, the ending of check-off, the restrictions on activities in the lobbying bill.
Er what do you expect Neil when many of the major TUs are affiliated politically ? The corrollary is Miliband's making it very easy to believe Labour hate employers or anyone who works in a London bank.
I suppose the problem for the Tories is that there arent 6.5 million employers or bankers out there.
And check-off was ended (at a ridiculous cost to the taxpayer) for 3 non-affiliated trade unions.
Milliband has not leart anything of late.. that was a desperate speech given in an appallingly lit forum . Is anyone in charge of these events. The TUC with all its millions seemingly cannot afford a lighting system that actually lights the stage where people are ...errmmm.. giving speeches. Maybe they like dimly lit rooms.
when we finally got an actual example of something that might be conceded it turned out to be something the federalists have always wanted and the nation-state people oppose...
Of course that could be the case EiT but I don;t think it will be.
I accept that we have invested in LNG in a way that the US has not but LNG is very expensive and it seems highly likely, going on the US experience, that fracked gas could substantially undercut it.
The introduction of a substantial new source will bring down UK and indeed global prices. Unlike oil the very cheap production costs of the middle east are offset by the costs of the LNG process. This is a market we should be competitive in with significant advantages for energy hungry manufacturing here.
Of course the benefits you refer to of improving our balance of payments, security of supply and employment are not to be sniffed at either.
I can't help feeling that the opposition to this is driven by the desperation to reduce our carbon footprint. The opponents really don't want cheap carbon based energy. But I do and I strongly suspect that a very large majority do too. We really need to get on with it.
@stefanstern: Cameron "oozes contempt for trade unions through every pore" says Ed Mili #tuc13
Should shore up the PB Tory vote
Thought it was Ed doing that, he's the one having the fist fight with TUs today.
Ed doesn't want the Labour Party dominated by the unions. Cameron just doesn't like them full stop. Is that too subtle for you?
Fraid so, I'd say a bloke with Oxford PPE has no more time for TUs than the other bloke. The our millionaire is nicer than your millionaire mantra has a bit of a problem for the rest of us.
The Tories are making it very easy to believe that Miliband has far more time for trade union members than their leadership. Just look at the tax-dodging claims, the ending of check-off, the restrictions on activities in the lobbying bill.
Er what do you expect Neil when many of the major TUs are affiliated politically ? The corrollary is Miliband's making it very easy to believe Labour hate employers or anyone who works in a London bank.
I suppose the problem for the Tories is that there arent 6.5 million employers or bankers out there.
And check-off was ended (at a ridiculous cost to the taxpayer) for 3 non-affiliated trade unions.
Why's that a problem ? I've been in a TU (TGWU ) and it had bugger all effect on my political views, the TU effect is at the margins. Public sector workers aren't going to vote Cameron in droves if he starts french kissing Mark Serwotka.
As for the raw figures there are over 4.2 million people self employed in the UK, add in the employers on Boards etc. and I can't see the employers and bankers being that far away in numbers. A real mixed bunch of course, but then so are TUs.
Is anyone seriously saying that the UK shouldn't produce something because the price we can get for it on the European market is too high?
I know we can't expect a particularly high standard of economic literacy, but that really does beggar belief.
If the argument for fracking is that it will earn us* valuable foreign currency to continue to pay for our imports of food and smartphones, that is one thing, and logically coherent.
However, the main argument for fracking up until now has been that it will lead to a large reduction in household gas and electricity bills - but this is unlikely to be the case because our production will not make a large difference to the gas market that we are part of.
* And the crucial issue here is that while proceeds from fracking will appear in the national accounts, the benefits will not be shared as equally as reductions in fuel bills, but some people will suffer consequences due to the large use of water involved, and the contamination of water supplies.
But there are 20 million working class white people.
And very many work in non-unionised private sector jobs with salaries and pension arrangements that would send those in the public sector into orbit....
The unions don;t represent huge numbers of workers, and of those they nominally represent, 20% can be a8sed to vote.
Is anyone seriously saying that the UK shouldn't produce something because the price we can get for it on the European market is too high?
I know we can't expect a particularly high standard of economic literacy, but that really does beggar belief.
Of course we should produce it, but it won't lower prices, that's a fantasy.
They may not fall Tim, fracked gas is not that cheap, but they will certainly be lower than they will be if we don't produce it.
What the idiot Davey said was that north sea gas had not reduced UK prices. Complete tosh for exactly the same reason. In fact even more so since there was not so much LNG infrastructure in place at the time.
@NickPalmer: You're right that some Tories do give the impression of sneering at people, a major fault in a political party. Labour do and have done the same. It's not a party political point; there just seems to be a view amongst the political class that voters are something to be endured and a bit of nuisance. Why on earth do they think that will make people vote for them?
I think part of it comes from viewing people as categories: immigrants / bankers / trade unionists / etc which makes it easier to hurl abuse and generalities. It's a trait to be deplored.
Yes, seanT is right that it's a deformation professionelle, and one reason why MPs get on privately pretty well - they see themselves as people really interested in the subject dependent on people whose interest is sporadic and erratic, like having a boss who blows in every 5 years and either promotes or sacks you on a whim. I think Tories are more prone to this than others, perhaps because they're more used to having bright, engaged managers in finance etc., but you're right that it's a general issue.
That said, there's more to people than intelligence.I like canvassing because people are generally pleasant. Meeting a lot of people and chatting to them about current affairs is my idea of a really good time. If they haven't been that interested before, sometimes they are willing to give it some thought during the chat, and if not there's always the next house. We've got 12 hours of canvassing scheduled this weekend and it's something to look forward to.
Enjoyed Ed's speech whilst driving, no nasty noise in the background to distract from what he was saying and the relaxing delivery helped pass the time as he talked to his navel.
I accept that we have invested in LNG in a way that the US has not but LNG is very expensive and it seems highly likely, going on the US experience, that fracked gas could substantially undercut it.
The introduction of a substantial new source will bring down UK and indeed global prices. Unlike oil the very cheap production costs of the middle east are offset by the costs of the LNG process. This is a market we should be competitive in with significant advantages for energy hungry manufacturing here.
Of course the benefits you refer to of improving our balance of payments, security of supply and employment are not to be sniffed at either.
I can't help feeling that the opposition to this is driven by the desperation to reduce our carbon footprint. The opponents really don't want cheap carbon based energy. But I do and I strongly suspect that a very large majority do too. We really need to get on with it.
The opposition to fracking is almost nothing to do with carbon footprints per se, its driven by people who are financially or emotionally invested in renewables and green politics: the builders of windmills and the promoters of windmills.
Their nice comfy subsidised future is seriously imperilled (even the EU Commission is voicing serious doubts about pricey green energy) - and so they are panicking.
In the end the economics will decide. Europe cannot afford to pay energy bills four times higher than those of China and the USA.
You may be right to be cynical about their real motives but their argument that we need these windmills is based on our supposed need to reduce our carbon footprint.
What I have always found truly bizarre about these globalists is that they seem to think that if we "show a lead" here and simply import high energy manufacturing from China where the energy production is far more polluting we are doing something for the planet.
The reverse is true. Energy based on burning methane in a modern western plant with strict pollution controls is so much better for this planet than the burning of coal in China with sulphates pouring out in an unregulated way that the ecological case is simply unanswerable. Frack and burn for the good of the planet. Seriously.
Is anyone seriously saying that the UK shouldn't produce something because the price we can get for it on the European market is too high?
I know we can't expect a particularly high standard of economic literacy, but that really does beggar belief.
Of course we should produce it, but it won't lower prices, that's a fantasy.
Of course it will lower prices - reduced cost of production will do that. It's just that the effect will be diluted across the world market so will be substantially less than the impact in the US market, will probably be too small for the average retail consumer to notice and will most likely get lost in the changes that happen all the time as a result of a multidue of factors
Nick Sutton @suttonnick .@BBCNormanS: "If this was meant to be a defining moment, then well it somewhat passed me by, it just didn't have that feel" #tuc13
Nick Sutton @suttonnick .@BBCNormanS: "If this was meant to be a defining moment, then well it somewhat passed me by, it just didn't have that feel" #tuc13
The defining moment is rightly reserved for the Conference.This was about selling a difficult set of reforms to the trade union members.
Paul Richards @Labourpaul 'No more free schools' is a terrible slogan. Like 'no more Right to Buy'. Worst kind of statist 'we know best'. Tories will have field day.
I accept that we have invested in LNG in a way that the US has not but LNG is very expensive and it seems highly likely, going on the US experience, that fracked gas could substantially undercut it.
The introduction of a substantial new source will bring down UK and indeed global prices. Unlike oil the very cheap production costs of the middle east are offset by the costs of the LNG process. This is a market we should be competitive in with significant advantages for energy hungry manufacturing here.
You may be right to be cynical about their real motives but their argument that we need these windmills is based on our supposed need to reduce our carbon footprint.
What I have always found truly bizarre about these globalists is that they seem to think that if we "show a lead" here and simply import high energy manufacturing from China where the energy production is far more polluting we are doing something for the planet.
The reverse is true. Energy based on burning methane in a modern western plant with strict pollution controls is so much better for this planet than the burning of coal in China with sulphates pouring out in an unregulated way that the ecological case is simply unanswerable. Frack and burn for the good of the planet. Seriously.
Green energy is a means of redistributing income from poor people to rich people.
I've seen more tweets about Labour demanding a written apology from Ian Katz than I have about what EdM actually said in his speech.
They've managed to create a Streisand Effect story and eclipsed their own main PR event of the week.
Epic - trebles all round. Who is running this bunch of numpties? Really?
I think it's very nice of Labour to highlight that Rachel Reeves is a Snoozerella who's being outperformed by Osborne. From a straight political perspective though I'd wonder why they'd want to do that.
"Instead, we were treated to a bizarre historical excursion back to the 19th century, when even Conservatives – such as Lord Stanley and Benjamin Disraeli – respected the working man and the rights of organised labour (really?).
Unlike horrid, stinky David Cameron, who "writes you off, he writes your members off, he oozes contempt for trade unionists from every pore of his being". There followed a laboured attempt to compare Cameron to Mitt Romney."
If there were a by-election in Ribble Valley, could UKIP do their party trick of coming second again? The LDs may well lose a chunk of support from 3rd place and the voters haven't exactly been flocking to Labour in places like this.
Disclaimer: I make no claim about the truth or otherwise of the allegations against Nigel Evans which may trigger such a by-election. I have no knowledge to add about those.
As I recall, Sean Fear tipped a Ribble Valley by-election as UKIP's first Westminster win.
Fracking is not about price, it is about continuity and security of UK energy needs..
The 2 are the same. If we can supply our own energy needs at a certain cost we set a ceiling for what we are prepared to pay others. If we don't have that ceiling they will take advantage and not just in price.
@NickPalmer: You're right that some Tories do give the impression of sneering at people, a major fault in a political party. Labour do and have done the same. It's not a party political point; there just seems to be a view amongst the political class that voters are something to be endured and a bit of nuisance. Why on earth do they think that will make people vote for them?
I think part of it comes from viewing people as categories: immigrants / bankers / trade unionists / etc which makes it easier to hurl abuse and generalities. It's a trait to be deplored.
Weirdly, I enjoyed canvassing as well (though I wouldn't want to do it every weekend) it was eye-opening, unexpectedly entertaining, and yes, nice to meet people you wouldn't normally encounter, and chat with them - even if 35% of them were apparently insane.
By the way, apologies for being too sharp with you last night. Blame a mixture of wine, too much caffeine (damn that Nespresso), and psychic stress from intense writing, 12 hours a day (finishing a book).
I also wonder if this Telegraph blogging lark is good for my soul. I am now being paid to be polemical, provocative and aggressive (and I was hardly a shrinking violet before). As my punchiness is rewarded and cultivated it gets more extreme - and this maybe spills over into daily interactions: another deformation professionnelle.
However it's mainly the Nespresso wot did it.
Wow! A seanT apology?! Whatever next - before today I would have said a Tory majority post 2015 was as likely... ;-)
Is anyone seriously saying that the UK shouldn't produce something because the price we can get for it on the European market is too high?
I know we can't expect a particularly high standard of economic literacy, but that really does beggar belief.
Of course we should produce it, but it won't lower prices, that's a fantasy.
Of course it will lower prices - reduced cost of production will do that. It's just that the effect will be diluted across the world market so will be substantially less than the impact in the US market, will probably be too small for the average retail consumer to notice and will most likely get lost in the changes that happen all the time as a result of a multidue of factors
Well technically you or I deciding to walk somewhere rather than drive lowers prices by an infinitesimal amount but I'm not sure I'd want to read a lot of guff from James Delingpole about how that walk will redefine Britains energy market.
Well, techically, you and I have f*** all to do with it. Competition reduces prices to the marginal cost of production. (In a perfectly competitive open market plus all the other caveats that economists like)
@NickPalmer: You're right that some Tories do give the impression of sneering at people, a major fault in a political party. Labour do and have done the same. It's not a party political point; there just seems to be a view amongst the political class that voters are something to be endured and a bit of nuisance. Why on earth do they think that will make people vote for them?
I think part of it comes from viewing people as categories: immigrants / bankers / trade unionists / etc which makes it easier to hurl abuse and generalities. It's a trait to be deplored.
Weirdly, I enjoyed canvassing as well (though I wouldn't want to do it every weekend) it was eye-opening, unexpectedly entertaining, and yes, nice to meet people you wouldn't normally encounter, and chat with them - even if 35% of them were apparently insane.
By the way, apologies for being too sharp with you last night. Blame a mixture of wine, too much caffeine (damn that Nespresso), and psychic stress from intense writing, 12 hours a day (finishing a book).
I also wonder if this Telegraph blogging lark is good for my soul. I am now being paid to be polemical, provocative and aggressive (and I was hardly a shrinking violet before). As my punchiness is rewarded and cultivated it gets more extreme - and this maybe spills over into daily interactions: another deformation professionnelle.
If there were a by-election in Ribble Valley, could UKIP do their party trick of coming second again? The LDs may well lose a chunk of support from 3rd place and the voters haven't exactly been flocking to Labour in places like this.
Disclaimer: I make no claim about the truth or otherwise of the allegations against Nigel Evans which may trigger such a by-election. I have no knowledge to add about those.
As I recall, Sean Fear tipped a Ribble Valley by-election as UKIP's first Westminster win.
UKIP would be in with a chance (particularly given the circumstances of any by-election) but one can't write off Labour either.
The local UKIP branch seem to have had a problem earlier this year. Have to hope they've recovered.
"...I am Simon Kerins, the UKIP candidate for Ribble Valley North East. Unfortunately, for various reasons I am the party's sole Ribble Valley representative in tomorrow's elections. "
Most interesting thing in Milibands speech wasn't the union stuff, that was always overblown, he'll put his reforms through, he's no choice now. It was the stuff on housing that wasn't in the text, following Ed Balls recognition of past mistakes on housebuilding last night that points to a big divide with the Tories.
Except that housebuilding is now taking off and will be at very high levels by the election. Housebuilding continues to lead the growth in construction statistically. Anecdotally, I saw a conveyancer with a smile on his face yesterday. First time in years.
Comments
Almost 30 per cent of Glaswegians who watched the BBC soap had adopted ways of speaking more usually heard within the sound of Bow bells.
Linguists funded by the Economic and Social Research Council looked at how EastEnders is altering features of the Scottish accent.
They found that two particular ways of pronunciation typically associated with London English were becoming increasingly apparent in the Glaswegian dialect among those who regularly watched the programme.
The speakers tended to use "f" instead of "th" in words such as "think" (fink) and "tooth" (toof) and a vowel sound like that in "good" in place of "l" in words such as "people".
These changes provide the first evidence that viewing habits accelerate changes in language, said the authors.
Labour 30.8% (-4.5)
Conservative 26.9 (+9.6)
Progress 16.3 (-6.7)
Christian Democrats 5.6 (=)
Centre Party 5.4 (-0.8)
Liberal 5.3 (+1.4)
Socialist Left 4.1 (-2.1)
Green 2.8 (+2.4)
Seats
Labour 55 (-9)
Conservative 48 (+18)
Progress 29 (-12)
Christian Democrats 10 (=)
Centre 10 (-1)
Liberal 9 (+7)
Socialist Left 7 (-4)
Greens 1 (+1)
Disclaimer: I make no claim about the truth or otherwise of the allegations against Nigel Evans which may trigger such a by-election. I have no knowledge to add about those.
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/majority_conservatism/2013/09/modern-politics-golden-rule-ignore-media-commentators-and-focus-on-your-key-messages.html
Generally speaking I think the Tory middle ranks hit the "scorn" button far too often, and it's a main reason why they're disliked as a party. Cameron is aware of that and mostly avoids it except when he's peeved. But it's always easy to find a back-bencher or junior minister who thinks much of the population is basically a bit crap. People's self-image (rightly or wrongly) is that they're doing their best in often difficult circs, and they don't like to be sneered at.
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/2015guide/ribblevalley/
Coalition delivering on university education.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-24024767
'UKIP 5 seats, UKIP 0 seats, round and round it goes,where it lands nobody knows.'
JackW & Rod had the most accurate predictions for the last GE,you didn't,get over it..
Has Mr Evans been charged? Is there a court date?
I notice you are using UKIP projections to try to rubbish JackW's ARSE this time. Is that because using the SNP projection backfired on you so spectacularly last time?
"How about posting for us the 7 SNP top target seats and the swings required, might put Jack Ws silliness into context for those who don't understand Scotlands electoral geography."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/10296274/Fracking-wont-lower-energy-bills-says-Davey.html
This is just ignorant. What he seems to be saying is that even a large increase in European fracking might be offset by the greater demand for energy. But the prices would still of course be lower than they otherwise would have been.
The strong impression I get is that Mr Davey is an obstruction to the development of fracking in the UK as well as a strong advocate for green subsidies. Both of these policies undermine the government policy of the march of the makers. Not all manufacturing has the kind of margins that allows this to be overlooked like Jaguar.
The failure of Vince to do much about the administrative burden on business has been a major disappointment but this will seriously damage our growth, employment and welfare in 5-10 years time. He really should be moved.
Running out of time for a court case and then b/e before May 2015...
I think part of it comes from viewing people as categories: immigrants / bankers / trade unionists / etc which makes it easier to hurl abuse and generalities. It's a trait to be deplored.
"I sometimes think that there is a kind of word fatigue about chemical and biological weapons. We're not talking about some mild variants of everyday chemicals, but anthrax, sarin and mustard gas - weapons that can cause hurt and agony on a mass scale beyond the comprehension of most decent people."
"People say: but containment has worked. Only up to a point. In truth, sanctions are eroding"
"Given that history, I say to you: to allow him to use the weapons he has or get the weapons he wants, would be an act of gross irresponsibility and we should not countenance it."
"Because I say to you in all earnestness: if we do not deal with the threat from this international outlaw and his barbaric regime, it may not erupt and engulf us this month or next; perhaps not even this year or the next. But it will at some point.
And I do not want it on my conscience that we knew the threat, saw it coming and did nothing."
I've seen the tories odds to win the EU elections touted on here, and I'm starting to get tempted.
There are plenty of press noises the Germans will offer Dave some big concessions.
Giving Dave the platform he needs to respond, for sure.
Ed sees Dave as a bit like that f8ckwit cartoonist in the Guardian sees him.
You correctly point out out I am short on detail. However, the press reports are undeniably there
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/10293343/Angela-Merkel-victory-could-help-David-Cameron-in-Europe.html
As nothing is certain here, you are of course quite entitled to believe Dave will get no change out of Europe in his attempts at renegotiation.
But I am also quite entitled, based on the current reports, to believe otherwise.
His audience seemed somewhat disengaged and the applause at the end was tepid. Is anyone in a position to give a better summary? What did he say about the Union link?
However: we are part of the global gas market in a way that the US isn't. There is no way to get a CH4 molecule produced in Texas outside of the country. It is, in the parlance of the energy industry, stranded gas.
On the other hand, we pay world market prices for our gas. Europe - as a whole - is a major importer of natural gas, through both pipelines and through LNG.
If iGas or Cuadrilla produce gas in Cheshire, they will sell it to the European buyer willing to pay the highest price. They will not sell it at a discount to the citizens of St Albans. (And, in fact, iGas and Cuadrilla would not even be drilling for gas if they thought they would get paid less than $12 or so per mcf - that's 3-4x the US price.)
It is also worth noting that US gas prices will rise over time. There are over 100 new gas-fired power stations being built in the US, new oil sands projects in Canada are increasingly gas hungry (SAGD), the petrochemical industry around Houston is in full-scale expansion mode, and most importantly, the US and Canada will both build LNG export terminals in the next five years. As a result, the US will become part of the world gas market, and a driller in Oklohoma will have the choice of whether to sell to Tepco in Japan or Constellation Energy in the US.
At a basic economic level, frac'ed gas will displace the most expensive import - LNG, which is currently around $18/mcf. When it has got through that, then - and only then - would the price decline, as the price is set at the margin. This is possible on a 15 year view; it is not possible on a 5 to 10 year view.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/the-spectator/2013/09/ed-milibands-speech-to-the-tuc-full-text/
I thought he delivered it well.
And check-off was ended (at a ridiculous cost to the taxpayer) for 3 non-affiliated trade unions.
Is there anything that would lower energy prices?
Is anyone in charge of these events.
The TUC with all its millions seemingly cannot afford a lighting system that actually lights the stage where people are ...errmmm.. giving speeches.
Maybe they like dimly lit rooms.
I know we can't expect a particularly high standard of economic literacy, but that really does beggar belief.
Of course that could be the case EiT but I don;t think it will be.
I accept that we have invested in LNG in a way that the US has not but LNG is very expensive and it seems highly likely, going on the US experience, that fracked gas could substantially undercut it.
The introduction of a substantial new source will bring down UK and indeed global prices. Unlike oil the very cheap production costs of the middle east are offset by the costs of the LNG process. This is a market we should be competitive in with significant advantages for energy hungry manufacturing here.
Of course the benefits you refer to of improving our balance of payments, security of supply and employment are not to be sniffed at either.
I can't help feeling that the opposition to this is driven by the desperation to reduce our carbon footprint. The opponents really don't want cheap carbon based energy. But I do and I strongly suspect that a very large majority do too. We really need to get on with it.
Ed doesn't speak Geordie. Aside to TUC Gen Sec after audience Q; "What did he say?"
As for the raw figures there are over 4.2 million people self employed in the UK, add in the employers on Boards etc. and I can't see the employers and bankers being that far away in numbers. A real mixed bunch of course, but then so are TUs.
However, the main argument for fracking up until now has been that it will lead to a large reduction in household gas and electricity bills - but this is unlikely to be the case because our production will not make a large difference to the gas market that we are part of.
* And the crucial issue here is that while proceeds from fracking will appear in the national accounts, the benefits will not be shared as equally as reductions in fuel bills, but some people will suffer consequences due to the large use of water involved, and the contamination of water supplies.
And very many work in non-unionised private sector jobs with salaries and pension arrangements that would send those in the public sector into orbit....
The unions don;t represent huge numbers of workers, and of those they nominally represent, 20% can be a8sed to vote.
Biggest cheer so at TUC for delegate accusing Ed Miliband of having policies that are "contradictory and confusing" #tuc
What the idiot Davey said was that north sea gas had not reduced UK prices. Complete tosh for exactly the same reason. In fact even more so since there was not so much LNG infrastructure in place at the time.
That said, there's more to people than intelligence.I like canvassing because people are generally pleasant. Meeting a lot of people and chatting to them about current affairs is my idea of a really good time. If they haven't been that interested before, sometimes they are willing to give it some thought during the chat, and if not there's always the next house. We've got 12 hours of canvassing scheduled this weekend and it's something to look forward to.
Only Bill Roache has done something similar.
What I have always found truly bizarre about these globalists is that they seem to think that if we "show a lead" here and simply import high energy manufacturing from China where the energy production is far more polluting we are doing something for the planet.
The reverse is true. Energy based on burning methane in a modern western plant with strict pollution controls is so much better for this planet than the burning of coal in China with sulphates pouring out in an unregulated way that the ecological case is simply unanswerable. Frack and burn for the good of the planet. Seriously.
.@BBCNormanS: "If this was meant to be a defining moment, then well it somewhat passed me by, it just didn't have that feel" #tuc13
Hard to believe but he's starting to look like an even worse leader than Brown.
He was excellent in the Q&A.
They've managed to create a Streisand Effect story and eclipsed their own main PR event of the week.
Epic - trebles all round. Who is running this bunch of numpties? Really?
'No more free schools' is a terrible slogan. Like 'no more Right to Buy'. Worst kind of statist 'we know best'. Tories will have field day.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/robertcolvile/100235244/the-speech-to-the-tuc-was-ed-milibands-big-moment-he-flunked-it-dismally/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
Amateurs!
Unlike horrid, stinky David Cameron, who "writes you off, he writes your members off, he oozes contempt for trade unionists from every pore of his being". There followed a laboured attempt to compare Cameron to Mitt Romney."
Did Pork write the speech ??
Higher supply (Fracking)
Should lower prices. If the market is 'free'. If it doesn't that is a reflection on the market so to speak.
But lower demand and higher supply certainly doesn't push prices UP !
"...I am Simon Kerins, the UKIP candidate for Ribble Valley North East. Unfortunately, for various reasons I am the party's sole Ribble Valley representative in tomorrow's elections. "
https://en-gb.facebook.com/pages/Ribble-Valley-UKIP-UK-Independence-Party/134771716588108