BTW, I'll do it for £59,000. I've got no experience or particular knowledge, but I love the subject and it'd be fun. Best of all, I'd get to go down loads of tunnels. ;-)
I'll do it for less.
The business case shows a poor cost benefit ratio. Costs are going to rise, and by the time it arrives something better will have come along.
David can pay me 0.0000000001% of the £50 Billion I've saved it as a thanks at any time.
The Tory line is very easy on this. "We don't think Ed and Labour have thought through the consequences on investment and jobs in the energy sector" or "Ed is putting Britain's energy security at risk to win votes". No more, no less.
And you think scaremongering will work ? Good luck .
This chap seems to:
Energy Secretary Ed Davey, a Lib Dem, said it risked "the lights going out".
BTW, I'll do it for £59,000. I've got no experience or particular knowledge, but I love the subject and it'd be fun. Best of all, I'd get to go down loads of tunnels. ;-)
I'll do it for less.
The business case shows a poor cost benefit ratio. Costs are going to rise, and by the time it arrives something better will have come along.
David can pay me 0.0000000001% of the £50 Billion I've saved it as a thanks at any time.
a) I don't agree the costs are going to rise that much, if at all, as long as the NIMBY's don't get their way. Things are now fairly well defined. b) We can always wait for something better. It rarely arrives. Let's not build any roads and wait for the new hovercar they've been talking about since the 1950s. c) The CBR isn't poor, although we await the latest estimate with baited breath. d) There are costs to not doing HS2; not going ahead could actively harm the economy if you believe that passenger and freight traffic will continue to increase as it has since the 1990s.
Tom Newton Dunn @tnewtondunn It is interesting that Labour feels it must exclude @Nigel_Farage from TV debates - suggests they as vulnerable as Tories to UKIP.
Excluding UKIP will increase their popularity IMO. The debates will be between three people with the same metropolitan views.
Tom Newton Dunn @tnewtondunn It is interesting that Labour feels it must exclude @Nigel_Farage from TV debates - suggests they as vulnerable as Tories to UKIP.
Excluding UKIP will increase their popularity IMO. The debates will be between three people with the same metropolitan views.
I agree with that and pretty dumb of LAB
The more UKIP is promoted the more it undermines the Tories and the better ut us for the red team
ReD's freeze on power prices is all part of Labour's dishonest approach to government. It will please the troops but it won't do anything for lower prices in the long term or energy sufficiency. Just like edukashun when they kidded everyone that spending a load of money would improve standards but ended up trashing education in this country. Real problems require real solutions, honesty and some pain (or at a minimum effort) for some people.
BTW, I'll do it for £59,000. I've got no experience or particular knowledge, but I love the subject and it'd be fun. Best of all, I'd get to go down loads of tunnels. ;-)
I'll do it for less.
The business case shows a poor cost benefit ratio. Costs are going to rise, and by the time it arrives something better will have come along.
David can pay me 0.0000000001% of the £50 Billion I've saved it as a thanks at any time.
a) I don't agree the costs are going to rise that much, if at all, as long as the NIMBY's don't get their way. Things are now fairly well defined. b) We can always wait for something better. It rarely arrives. Let's not build any roads and wait for the new hovercar they've been talking about since the 1950s. c) The CBR isn't poor, although we await the latest estimate with baited breath. d) There are costs to not doing HS2; not going ahead could actively harm the economy if you believe that passenger and freight traffic will continue to increase as it has since the 1990s.
Tom Newton Dunn @tnewtondunn It is interesting that Labour feels it must exclude @Nigel_Farage from TV debates - suggests they as vulnerable as Tories to UKIP.
Excluding UKIP will increase their popularity IMO. The debates will be between three people with the same metropolitan views.
I agree with that and pretty dumb of LAB
The more UKIP is promoted the more it undermines the Tories and the better ut us for the red team
Tom Newton Dunn @tnewtondunn It is interesting that Labour feels it must exclude @Nigel_Farage from TV debates - suggests they as vulnerable as Tories to UKIP.
Excluding UKIP will increase their popularity IMO. The debates will be between three people with the same metropolitan views.
I agree with that and pretty dumb of LAB
The more UKIP is promoted the more it undermines the Tories and the better ut us for the red team
I can't see the problem with including UKIP, as well as maybe the Greens, and the SNP.
Miliband has corrrectly identified the cost of living as a serious issue.
But... 1. Many of the CoL issues are the way they are because of decisions or lack of decisions from Labour's last time in government 2. The proposed solutions to CoL challenges are Maoist and show that the blob has NOT learned
Ed's shaping up to make Hollande look like a champion of growth and good governance.
Tom Newton Dunn @tnewtondunn It is interesting that Labour feels it must exclude @Nigel_Farage from TV debates - suggests they as vulnerable as Tories to UKIP.
Excluding UKIP will increase their popularity IMO. The debates will be between three people with the same metropolitan views.
I agree with that and pretty dumb of LAB
The more UKIP is promoted the more it undermines the Tories and the better ut us for the red team
I can't see the problem with including UKIP, as well as maybe the Greens, and the SNP.
If we have debates at all next time, I expect one of the debates will include leaders of various minor parties.
ReD's freeze on power prices is all part of Labour's dishonest approach to government. It will please the troops but it won't do anything for lower prices in the long term or energy sufficiency. Just like edukashun when they kidded everyone that spending a load of money would improve standards but ended up trashing education in this country. Real problems require real solutions, honesty and some pain (or at a minimum effort) for some people.
Not sure it's dishonest; it's billed as reducing energy bills for 20 months, if enacted it will reduce energy bills for 20 months. I don't remember him saying "by freezing bills for a period we will lower long-term prices and improve energy sufficiency".
As for the education point - many people thought that their education (or their childrens') was improved to some degree by, for example, being carried out in repaired or rebuilt schools, rather than the crumbling ruins that were in use by the early 90s. Nothing up to the standards of the Coalition's free school dinners policies, but at least we can say Labour made a start down that kind of interventionist road by reducing class sizes, for example.
ReD's freeze on power prices is all part of Labour's dishonest approach to government. It will please the troops but it won't do anything for lower prices in the long term or energy sufficiency. Just like edukashun when they kidded everyone that spending a load of money would improve standards but ended up trashing education in this country. Real problems require real solutions, honesty and some pain (or at a minimum effort) for some people.
Not sure it's dishonest; it's billed as reducing energy bills for 20 months, if enacted it will reduce energy bills for 20 months. I don't remember him saying "by freezing bills for a period we will lower long-term prices and improve energy sufficiency".
As for the education point - many people thought that their education (or their childrens') was improved to some degree by, for example, being carried out in repaired or rebuilt schools, rather than the crumbling ruins that were in use by the early 90s. Nothing up to the standards of the Coalition's free school dinners policies, but at least we can say Labour made a start down that kind of interventionist road by reducing class sizes, for example.
Will it 'reduce' bills? I thought it would stop them going up.
They more or less have a week to think something up to steal the limelight from the policy. Be interesting to see what they come up with.
Nonsense. They have 20 months to point out the obvious, that Ed Miliband is a complete twerp whose idea of a policy is to ask focus groups what freebies they'd like and then say he'll give it to them, irrespective of the consequences (in this case killing off desperately-needed investment), or the practicality of actually delivering.
If you really think voters are that stupid, then good luck.
Not stupid,bloody angry with these rip off energy companies in they never ending bill rises.
A lot is down to the environmental charges that governments have laid on top of bills.
(Nick Palmer's disingenuous email to his prospective constituents missed this out when he compared wholesale prices to total bills). Attacking that seems to be the most fertile - and will also appeal to UKIP voters. I doubt that many people for whom climate change is a vote-deciding issue are natural Tories
ReD's freeze on power prices is all part of Labour's dishonest approach to government. It will please the troops but it won't do anything for lower prices in the long term or energy sufficiency. Just like edukashun when they kidded everyone that spending a load of money would improve standards but ended up trashing education in this country. Real problems require real solutions, honesty and some pain (or at a minimum effort) for some people.
Not sure it's dishonest; it's billed as reducing energy bills for 20 months, if enacted it will reduce energy bills for 20 months. I don't remember him saying "by freezing bills for a period we will lower long-term prices and improve energy sufficiency".
As for the education point - many people thought that their education (or their childrens') was improved to some degree by, for example, being carried out in repaired or rebuilt schools, rather than the crumbling ruins that were in use by the early 90s. Nothing up to the standards of the Coalition's free school dinners policies, but at least we can say Labour made a start down that kind of interventionist road by reducing class sizes, for example.
Will it 'reduce' bills? I thought it would stop them going up.
Yeah, fair point: "reduce the amount charged on utility bills relative to the amount that would have been charged over the same period without intervention". Am I allowed that one?
BTW, I'll do it for £59,000. I've got no experience or particular knowledge, but I love the subject and it'd be fun. Best of all, I'd get to go down loads of tunnels. ;-)
I'll do it for less.
The business case shows a poor cost benefit ratio. Costs are going to rise, and by the time it arrives something better will have come along.
David can pay me 0.0000000001% of the £50 Billion I've saved it as a thanks at any time.
a) I don't agree the costs are going to rise that much, if at all, as long as the NIMBY's don't get their way. Things are now fairly well defined. b) We can always wait for something better. It rarely arrives. Let's not build any roads and wait for the new hovercar they've been talking about since the 1950s. c) The CBR isn't poor, although we await the latest estimate with baited breath. d) There are costs to not doing HS2; not going ahead could actively harm the economy if you believe that passenger and freight traffic will continue to increase as it has since the 1990s.
Hyperloop technology.
LMFAO. That's even worse than Maglev. At least Maglev's can carry largish numbers of people, has been tried, the problems are understood, and has been tested.
Let Musk spend the next thirty years and billions of dollars developing it, and *if* it works (which I doubt it will with current technology), we'll use it if it's cost-effective.
Does anyone know who decides the dates for the party conferences, or more importantly, which one goes last? Surely, if you go last, you get the advantage of ripping the other two parties latest policies apart.
I was wondering that as well. Tradition, perhaps? Am I right in saying the Conservatives are always last?
There must be some arrangement: otherwise there would be absolute chaos, and the media wouldn't want to be in five places at once.
Reverse alphabetical order, with UKIP breaking the rules because they are not like the other parties?
In the week when Ed M tries to move the narrative of Ed and the little guy v The Tories and big business with the bankers, some gifts just keep giving.
In the week when Ed M tries to move the narrative of Ed and the little guy v The Tories and big business with the bankers, some gifts just keep giving.
Setting aside whether its a good or bad decision by Osborne (I have no idea), it doesn't look good, given Milliband creating the "Tories only help rich people" meme.
Well done in ditching the Hodges fixation, by the way.
"Party leaders also dismissed the idea of renationalising the railways after the conference backed a motion by the Transport Salaried Staffs Association calling for this. An official said: “Renationalisation is not our policy. Conference is entitled to its view. We are going to do the right thing. We are not going to spend money we do not have.” (FT)
Indeed, it seems that some people want to have their cake, have someone else pick up the bill, eat it and lost weight. We shall see how Ed Miliband's diet range of double chocolate gateaux (free! paid for by a bank bonus levy!) goes down.
Mr. Nabavi, that sounds like a rather sad situation.
In the week when Ed M tries to move the narrative of Ed and the little guy v The Tories and big business with the bankers, some gifts just keep giving.
Setting aside whether its a good or bad decision by Osborne (I have no idea), it doesn't look good, given Milliband creating the "Tories only help rich people" meme.
Well done in ditching the Hodges fixation, by the way.
Don't worry, it will be back once they start repeatedly quoting the one eyed loon again.
Mr. Rag, it's hard to quote Brown now, as he seems to have forgotten to turn up to Parliament or make any speeches since he was finally prised out of the bunker.
In the week when Ed M tries to move the narrative of Ed and the little guy v The Tories and big business with the bankers, some gifts just keep giving.
Setting aside whether its a good or bad decision by Osborne (I have no idea), it doesn't look good, given Milliband creating the "Tories only help rich people" meme.
Well done in ditching the Hodges fixation, by the way.
Don't worry, it will be back once they start repeatedly quoting the one eyed loon again.
That's uncalled for. Your gang used to to wet themselves with righteous anger, whenever that nutter Gordon Brown's visual disability was mentioned in a derogatory way.
Mr Dancer, you make a good case for my new voting methodology, which is that people have x votes to cast at the next general election, where x = that voter's IQ multiplied by the income tax they paid since last election.
Mr Dancer, you make a good case for my new voting methodology, which is that people have x votes to cast at the next general election, where x = that voter's IQ multiplied by the income tax they paid since last election.
Radical, but nothing else will save us from doom.
(well, maybe a fleet of Death Stars....)
No representation without taxation?
I suppose that's one explanation for Osborne increasing the Personal Allowance. He intends to restrict the franchise to people paying income tax...
In the week when Ed M tries to move the narrative of Ed and the little guy v The Tories and big business with the bankers, some gifts just keep giving.
Setting aside whether its a good or bad decision by Osborne (I have no idea), it doesn't look good, given Milliband creating the "Tories only help rich people" meme.
Well done in ditching the Hodges fixation, by the way.
Don't worry, it will be back once they start repeatedly quoting the one eyed loon again.
That's uncalled for. Your gang used to to wet themselves with righteous anger, whenever that nutter Gordon Brown's visual disability was mentioned in a derogatory way.
Ok, I make an apology to all loons out there for mentioning them with Dan Hodges.
The "big six" - British Gas, EDF, E.On, npower, Scottish Power, SSE - made total net profits of: 2009: £2.15bn
2010: £2.22bn
2011: £3.87bn
2012: £3.74bn.
Blimey, that does put it in perspective.
£200bn investment needed, massive political risk from a political party and leader who seem to have not the faintest clue about how anything in the world works, yet even without that the margins are slender.
As I have been saying for months, the financial markets have been underestimating the political risk of 2015. Ed has woken them up to the danger earlier than I expected.
The rational thing to do is to invest outside the UK, both for individuals and for the boards of the utility companies. It's no coincidence that the utilities share which fell the most today was SSE, the one most almost exclusively dependent on the UK market.
The "big six" - British Gas, EDF, E.On, npower, Scottish Power, SSE - made total net profits of: 2009: £2.15bn
2010: £2.22bn
2011: £3.87bn
2012: £3.74bn
And of course, those profits just go into an Olympic-sized swimming pool of grubby fifty pound notes that is for the exclusive use of fat-cat industrialists to dive into, before a day of grinding down the poor at t'mill.
Why do you hate pensioners so much that you would deprive them of their pensions?
Perhaps you would rather there was no money to distribute. Is your idea of a functioning economy one where British Leyland is held out as a model of what should be achieved?
The "big six" - British Gas, EDF, E.On, npower, Scottish Power, SSE - made total net profits of: 2009: £2.15bn
2010: £2.22bn
2011: £3.87bn
2012: £3.74bn
They will swing the public the Coalition/energy companies way.
How much turnover, and how much investment over the same period?
Look at the whole picture rather than a small bit of it. BTW, do you think profit is evil?
Just as an aside, if EdM really wants to go down this route, the trick is to regulate mark-ups rather than prices (takes away the wholesale price argument). You then have the question on how to incentivise investment & it would seem to be the way to do so is to pay out a debt-like return on agreed capital investment (rather than a ROIC measure that the regulartor tries to use and gets wrong at the moment) plus a build fee (with the companies keeping a disproportionate share of any cost savings below contract price) and an annual management fee.
Not, to be clear, that I think any of this is a good idea...
The "big six" - British Gas, EDF, E.On, npower, Scottish Power, SSE - made total net profits of: 2009: £2.15bn
2010: £2.22bn
2011: £3.87bn
2012: £3.74bn
And of course, those profits just go into an Olympic-sized swimming pool of grubby fifty pound notes that is for the exclusive use of fat-cat industrialists to dive into, before a day of grinding down the poor at t'mill.
Why do you hate pensioners so much that you would deprive them of their pensions?
Perhaps you would rather there was no money to distribute. Is your idea of a functioning economy one where British Leyland is held out as a model of what should be achieved?
As an aside, this really scr*ws the charitable trusts. A lot of them have income fund targets, but are constrained to be ex tobacco and ex defence by their mandates. Banks are no longer big dividend payers - now you can't rely on utilities either... you're stuck on pharma and oil...
The rational thing to do is to invest outside the UK, both for individuals and for the boards of the utility companies. It's no coincidence that the utilities share which fell the most today was SSE, the one most almost exclusively dependent on the UK market.
This needs to be looked at coupled to Ed's determination to increase Corporation Tax for larger companies. One of the things that Osborne has had little credit for is getting the G8/G20 to focus on making corporations pay tax SOMEWHERE - and where might that be? Well, possibly in the UK - now that Osborne has given the UK the lowest corporation taxes.
Ed would squash that advantage with his determination to play JCR politics. He really is that dumb.
I can't believe Tories are defending the energy companies. They've gone mad. Clearly knocked badly off balance by this move from Miliband, I'm sure they'll compose themselves before conference.
As an aside, on Ed's speech, apart from the policy stuff (which I'm sure we all agree was politically astute), I thought it was presentationally quite poor compared with last year.
The jokes were poor and cheesy chat showy, the "better than this" riff really grated after the 1000th repetition, and the panto stuff was toe-curling.
Yet the "consensus" from "commentators" was that it was better, presentationally, than last year.
"It's no coincidence that the utilities share which fell the most today was SSE, the one most almost exclusively dependent on the UK market.". Do you mean that bastion of integrity, SSE.
Mr. Roberts (Phil?), welcome [perhaps back] to pb.
I'm not sure we'd all agree that the state confiscating land is necessarily astute.
Slightly surprised you disliked the style (at least compared to last year). I only saw a tiny bit. Miliband seemed confident, at ease, but overused 'friends'. The clip I saw on the news backs up your view of the 'better than this' line.
The "big six" - British Gas, EDF, E.On, npower, Scottish Power, SSE - made total net profits of: 2009: £2.15bn
2010: £2.22bn
2011: £3.87bn
2012: £3.74bn
Isn't it dreadful that companies make profits? Pay dividends? Generate corporation tax revenues? Provide employment? Contribute towards economic growth.
Let's get real on domestic energy prices. The UK is not suffering under the yoke of massive energy prices. We are right in the middle of the European average. Do we all want to pay less? Yes - but trying to claim massive over-pricing is quite frankly ludicrous.
This policy will require legislation - which will no doubt be challenged in the courts. It is designed simply for headlines and to appease the left. It is, as many people have pointed out, economically illiterate.
We have an impending crisis in our generation capacity - that needs investment. Price regulation of the energy sector has not delivered lower prices in the long term in any country that has tried it in the past.
Miliband's role in setting the current energy regulatory regime means that everything he says on the subject is tainted by his failure to act in the best interest of consumers when he actually had the power to effect change. He has burdened us all with a price hikes due to his green levies.
The current prices for Gas and Electricity are very much the fault of the last Labour regime. The coalition should and could have done more - but Miliband was at the heart of setting the cutting systems.
No amount of gesture politics will distract from that. Superficial as ever from Miliband Jr.
JosiasJessop - You did ask. I give you Ian Liddell-Grainger "And that's puzzling because, while it was clearly a gesture by the Pro-badger Tendency, I thought most of them were in the habit of lying in bed until the pubs open, or until the postman arrives with the benefit cheque (or do such things get paid straight into their accounts these days?)
"Either way, since they are all malingerers and scroungers there is no real incentive to leap out of bed as soon as the dawn chorus strikes up."
Ouch! That's a pretty devastating summary - Miliband wrecking investment by destroying the current 'independent, transparent and predictable nature of UK regulation' so that it becomes like Russia's.
if there is a strong expectation in the industry that the Labour party will win the next election, then companies are likely to cut back on investment due to perceived weakening of the operating environment.
Well done Ed. Even from opposition you can screw up the UK.
Tom Newton Dunn @tnewtondunn It is interesting that Labour feels it must exclude @Nigel_Farage from TV debates - suggests they as vulnerable as Tories to UKIP.
Excluding UKIP will increase their popularity IMO. The debates will be between three people with the same metropolitan views.
I agree with that and pretty dumb of LAB
The more UKIP is promoted the more it undermines the Tories and the better it is for the red team
UKIP seem to be targeting Labour voters. Perhaps Labour's leadership have less confidence than you, that UKIP will take more support from the Conservatives than from Labour.
JosiasJessop - You did ask. I give you Ian Liddell-Grainger ""And that's puzzling because, while it was clearly a gesture by the Pro-badger Tendency, I thought most of them were in the habit of lying in bed until the pubs open, or until the postman arrives with the benefit cheque (or do such things get paid straight into their accounts these days?)
"Either way, since they are all malingerers and scroungers there is no real incentive to leap out of bed as soon as the dawn chorus strikes up."
Okay, that's one, and one I've never heard of before, and I utterly disagree with his language.
Any more? Front benchers, perhaps?
We can all find cases of MPs from all parties saying bad things. But if that's the only case you can find, it seems that Labour have been using the word 'scrounger' much more than Conservatives. Are you a little ashamed? :-)
Ouch! That's a pretty devastating summary - Miliband wrecking investment by destroying the current 'independent, transparent and predictable nature of UK regulation' so that it becomes like Russia's.
if there is a strong expectation in the industry that the Labour party will win the next election, then companies are likely to cut back on investment due to perceived weakening of the operating environment.
Well done Ed. Even from opposition you can screw up the UK.
This laughable scaremongering is collectible material - to be reproduced perhaps at some point in the future.
The "big six" - British Gas, EDF, E.On, npower, Scottish Power, SSE - made total net profits of: 2009: £2.15bn
2010: £2.22bn
2011: £3.87bn
2012: £3.74bn
Isn't it dreadful that companies make profits? Pay dividends? Generate corporation tax revenues? Provide employment? Contribute towards economic growth.
Let's get real on domestic energy prices. The UK is not suffering under the yoke of massive energy prices. We are right in the middle of the European average. Do we all want to pay less? Yes - but trying to claim massive over-pricing is quite frankly ludicrous.
Are you guys for real? This is stupendous theatre.
JosiasJessop - You did ask. I give you Ian Liddell-Grainger ""And that's puzzling because, while it was clearly a gesture by the Pro-badger Tendency, I thought most of them were in the habit of lying in bed until the pubs open, or until the postman arrives with the benefit cheque (or do such things get paid straight into their accounts these days?)
"Either way, since they are all malingerers and scroungers there is no real incentive to leap out of bed as soon as the dawn chorus strikes up."
Okay, that's one, and one I've never heard of before, and I utterly disagree with his language.
Any more? Front benchers, perhaps?
We can all find cases of MPs from all parties saying bad things. But if that's the only case you can find, it seems that Labour have been using the word 'scrounger' much more than Conservatives. Are you a little ashamed? :-)
You only have to look on here most weeks to see Conservative supporters attacking what they call "benefit scroungers".
Mr Dancer, you make a good case for my new voting methodology, which is that people have x votes to cast at the next general election, where x = that voter's IQ multiplied by the income tax they paid since last election.
Radical, but nothing else will save us from doom.
(well, maybe a fleet of Death Stars....)
If you applied that formula to RedRag you would get a #DIV/0! error.
This laughable scaremongering is collectible material - to be reproduced perhaps at some point in the future.
Here are some for your collection. May I suggest that it might be sensible to think about the possibility that these guys might know what they're talking about (I haven't included any industry representatives in this summary)?
- Fitch Ratings: "companies likely to cut back on investment"
- David Casale, who is planning to launch a not-for-profit energy business said, "If this looks anything like becoming policy in the UK we will pull out."
- “The proposed energy price freeze will deter much-needed investment and is at odds with Labour’s pledge to decarbonize the economy and create a million green jobs,” said John Cridland, director general of the CBI, the nation’s main business lobbying group.
- “These significant proposed changes may create a whole new level of uncertainty,” said Tony Ward, head of power and utilities at the consulting firm Ernst & Young LLP. “Each of the changes proposed will require massive change in their own right, and collectively will lead to a reassessment of the risks of operating in the energy market.”
- “Price controls only add greater uncertainty to companies who we need to take the financial risks of energy investment,” said Simon Walker, director general of the Institute of Directors
- “We are concerned about the impact that Ed Miliband’s proposal would have on investment in Britain’s ramshackle energy Infrastructure,” said John Longworth, director general of the British Chambers of Commerce.
- “The big question is: how can Labour square a major reform of the consumer energy market and a freeze on energy bills with the urgent need for investment in low-carbon generation?” asked Nina Skorupska, chief executive officer of the REA. “We cannot afford another investment hiatus."
- Energy Secretary Ed Davey said: "Fixing prices in this way risks blackouts, jeopardises jobs and puts investment in clean, green technology in doubt"
Mr Dancer, you make a good case for my new voting methodology, which is that people have x votes to cast at the next general election, where x = that voter's IQ multiplied by the income tax they paid since last election.
Radical, but nothing else will save us from doom.
(well, maybe a fleet of Death Stars....)
If you applied that formula to RedRag you would get a #DIV/0! error.
Mr. Mark, that would lead to anyone with an income under £10k having no vote...
Terrible idea. Low income often means terraced house and easy leafleting. High income have great long driveways with steps and often awkward letterboxes.
This laughable scaremongering is collectible material - to be reproduced perhaps at some point in the future.
Here are some for your collection. May I suggest that it might be sensible to think about the possibility that these guys might know what they're talking about (I haven't included any industry representatives in this summary)?
- Fitch Ratings: "companies likely to cut back on investment"
- David Casale, who is planning to launch a not-for-profit energy business said, "If this looks anything like becoming policy in the UK we will pull out."
- “The proposed energy price freeze will deter much-needed investment and is at odds with Labour’s pledge to decarbonize the economy and create a million green jobs,” said John Cridland, director general of the CBI, the nation’s main business lobbying group.
- “These significant proposed changes may create a whole new level of uncertainty,” said Tony Ward, head of power and utilities at the consulting firm Ernst & Young LLP. “Each of the changes proposed will require massive change in their own right, and collectively will lead to a reassessment of the risks of operating in the energy market.”
- “Price controls only add greater uncertainty to companies who we need to take the financial risks of energy investment,” said Simon Walker, director general of the Institute of Directors
- “We are concerned about the impact that Ed Miliband’s proposal would have on investment in Britain’s ramshackle energy Infrastructure,” said John Longworth, director general of the British Chambers of Commerce.
- “The big question is: how can Labour square a major reform of the consumer energy market and a freeze on energy bills with the urgent need for investment in low-carbon generation?” asked Nina Skorupska, chief executive officer of the REA. “We cannot afford another investment hiatus."
- Energy Secretary Ed Davey said: "Fixing prices in this way risks blackouts, jeopardises jobs and puts investment in clean, green technology in doubt"
Andrew Lloyd Webber: "if Labour gets in I'll leave Britain" CBI: "a minimum wage will cause mass unemployment"
JosiasJessop - You did ask. I give you Ian Liddell-Grainger ""And that's puzzling because, while it was clearly a gesture by the Pro-badger Tendency, I thought most of them were in the habit of lying in bed until the pubs open, or until the postman arrives with the benefit cheque (or do such things get paid straight into their accounts these days?)
"Either way, since they are all malingerers and scroungers there is no real incentive to leap out of bed as soon as the dawn chorus strikes up."
Okay, that's one, and one I've never heard of before, and I utterly disagree with his language.
Any more? Front benchers, perhaps?
We can all find cases of MPs from all parties saying bad things. But if that's the only case you can find, it seems that Labour have been using the word 'scrounger' much more than Conservatives. Are you a little ashamed? :-)
You only have to look on here most weeks to see Conservative supporters attacking what they call "benefit scroungers".
Really? How many in the last month?
So you found one Conservative backbench MP who has used the term, and you try to paint the whole party with that brush? How pathetic is that?
However, I bet you a fair few Labour supporters would use the term as well.
Wonder if Red Ed's disasterous policy and marginal constituency vote loser will have any effect on the Yougov for tomorrow. We will know if it is a negative effect by abour 20:30 tonight if @Tomnewtondunn tweets "interesting poll". No tweeting from Tom can only mean one thing.
Mr Dancer, you make a good case for my new voting methodology, which is that people have x votes to cast at the next general election, where x = that voter's IQ multiplied by the income tax they paid since last election.
Radical, but nothing else will save us from doom.
(well, maybe a fleet of Death Stars....)
If you applied that formula to RedRag you would get a #DIV/0! error.
Nasty Party reverting to type.
I'm pretty sure Avery's not a member of the Labour Party.
Mr Dancer, you make a good case for my new voting methodology, which is that people have x votes to cast at the next general election, where x = that voter's IQ multiplied by the income tax they paid since last election.
Radical, but nothing else will save us from doom.
(well, maybe a fleet of Death Stars....)
If you applied that formula to RedRag you would get a #DIV/0! error.
Nasty Party reverting to type.
I'm pretty sure Avery's not a member of the Labour Party.
This link manages to get Tory Party, Nasty Party and Scroungers all together.....a warning from Lynton Crosby of all people.
JosiasJessop - "One Tory minister told The Independent: "We've not got the language right at Conservative HQ and the Treasury. Some people who lose their jobs and many people on tax credits, are strivers not scroungers. Young people looking hard for their first job are not skivers; there is a danger we may make them feel like parasites, and that we look like the nasty party."
< Are you guys for real? This is stupendous theatre.
Very much for real - do the research and you will see that the prices of domestic energy are less than Germany, Italy, Spain, Belgium and many more countries.
Wonder if Red Ed's disasterous policy and marginal constituency vote loser will have any effect on the Yougov for tomorrow. We will know if it is a negative effect by abour 20:30 tonight if @Tomnewtondunn tweets "interesting poll". No tweeting from Tom can only mean one thing.
Well the Labour lead did tumble 30% the day of Ed's speech, RedRag.
Wonder if Red Ed's disasterous policy and marginal constituency vote loser will have any effect on the Yougov for tomorrow. We will know if it is a negative effect by abour 20:30 tonight if @Tomnewtondunn tweets "interesting poll". No tweeting from Tom can only mean one thing.
Well the Labour lead did tumble 30% the day of Ed's speech, RedRag.
A very nasty fall.
I doubt he would he survive a second.
Not long to find out. Though looking at all the negative posts on here, surely your prediction of an imminent crossover of a lead in the polls from Labour to Conservative the other day will be true, eh.
Mr Dancer, you make a good case for my new voting methodology, which is that people have x votes to cast at the next general election, where x = that voter's IQ multiplied by the income tax they paid since last election.
Radical, but nothing else will save us from doom.
(well, maybe a fleet of Death Stars....)
If you applied that formula to RedRag you would get a #DIV/0! error.
Nasty Party reverting to type.
I'm pretty sure Avery's not a member of the Labour Party.
This link manages to get Tory Party, Nasty Party and Scroungers all together.....a warning from Lynton Crosby of all people.
Note no-one actually called them scroungers; the quotation marks in the first paragraph aren't a quote.
You really must do better.
To summarise: we have Labour saying that the Conservatives call a certain demographic 'scroungers', when they have not. In effect, it's Labour who are painting them, and blaming the Conservatives. In fact, the Conservatives have been trying to help that very group (see my earlier links).
Labour: the true Nasty Party. The party of McBride. The party of Brown. The party of infighting and hatred.
Mr Dancer, you make a good case for my new voting methodology, which is that people have x votes to cast at the next general election, where x = that voter's IQ multiplied by the income tax they paid since last election.
Radical, but nothing else will save us from doom.
(well, maybe a fleet of Death Stars....)
If you applied that formula to RedRag you would get a #DIV/0! error.
Nasty Party reverting to type.
I'm pretty sure Avery's not a member of the Labour Party.
This link manages to get Tory Party, Nasty Party and Scroungers all together.....a warning from Lynton Crosby of all people.
Note no-one actually called them scroungers; the quotation marks in the first paragraph aren't a quote.
You really must do better.
To summarise: we have Labour saying that the Conservatives call a certain demographic 'scroungers', when they have not. In effect, it's Labour who are painting them, and blaming the Conservatives. In fact, the Conservatives have been trying to help that very group (see my earlier links).
Labour: the true Nasty Party. The party of McBride. The party of Brown. The party of infighting and hatred.
"One Tory minister told The Independent: "We've not got the language right at Conservative HQ and the Treasury. Some people who lose their jobs and many people on tax credits, are strivers not scroungers. Young people looking hard for their first job are not skivers; there is a danger we may make them feel like parasites, and that we look like the nasty party."
Mr Dancer, you make a good case for my new voting methodology, which is that people have x votes to cast at the next general election, where x = that voter's IQ multiplied by the income tax they paid since last election.
Radical, but nothing else will save us from doom.
(well, maybe a fleet of Death Stars....)
If you applied that formula to RedRag you would get a #DIV/0! error.
Nasty Party reverting to type.
I'm pretty sure Avery's not a member of the Labour Party.
This link manages to get Tory Party, Nasty Party and Scroungers all together.....a warning from Lynton Crosby of all people.
Note no-one actually called them scroungers; the quotation marks in the first paragraph aren't a quote.
You really must do better.
To summarise: we have Labour saying that the Conservatives call a certain demographic 'scroungers', when they have not. In effect, it's Labour who are painting them, and blaming the Conservatives. In fact, the Conservatives have been trying to help that very group (see my earlier links).
Labour: the true Nasty Party. The party of McBride. The party of Brown. The party of infighting and hatred.
"One Tory minister told The Independent: "We've not got the language right at Conservative HQ and the Treasury. Some people who lose their jobs and many people on tax credits, are strivers not scroungers. Young people looking hard for their first job are not skivers; there is a danger we may make them feel like parasites, and that we look like the nasty party."
'Wonder if Red Ed's disasterous policy and marginal constituency vote loser will have any effect on the Yougov for tomorrow. We will know if it is a negative effect by abour 20:30 tonight if @Tomnewtondunn tweets "interesting poll". No tweeting from Tom can only mean one thing'
Mr Dancer, you make a good case for my new voting methodology, which is that people have x votes to cast at the next general election, where x = that voter's IQ multiplied by the income tax they paid since last election.
Radical, but nothing else will save us from doom.
(well, maybe a fleet of Death Stars....)
If you applied that formula to RedRag you would get a #DIV/0! error.
Nasty Party reverting to type.
I'm pretty sure Avery's not a member of the Labour Party.
This link manages to get Tory Party, Nasty Party and Scroungers all together.....a warning from Lynton Crosby of all people.
Note no-one actually called them scroungers; the quotation marks in the first paragraph aren't a quote.
You really must do better.
To summarise: we have Labour saying that the Conservatives call a certain demographic 'scroungers', when they have not. In effect, it's Labour who are painting them, and blaming the Conservatives. In fact, the Conservatives have been trying to help that very group (see my earlier links).
Labour: the true Nasty Party. The party of McBride. The party of Brown. The party of infighting and hatred.
"One Tory minister told The Independent: "We've not got the language right at Conservative HQ and the Treasury. Some people who lose their jobs and many people on tax credits, are strivers not scroungers. Young people looking hard for their first job are not skivers; there is a danger we may make them feel like parasites, and that we look like the nasty party."
He's saying they're *not* scroungers, ffs!
Who do you think he is saying has been calling them it when he says "We've not got the language right at Conservative HQ and the Treasury......there is a danger we may make them feel like parasites, and that we look like the nasty party"...Labour? Yes he has not said it, but he is obviously saying people in Tory HQ and the Treasury are.
Wonder if Red Ed's disasterous policy and marginal constituency vote loser will have any effect on the Yougov for tomorrow. We will know if it is a negative effect by abour 20:30 tonight if @Tomnewtondunn tweets "interesting poll". No tweeting from Tom can only mean one thing.
Well the Labour lead did tumble 30% the day of Ed's speech, RedRag.
A very nasty fall.
I doubt he would he survive a second.
Not long to find out. Though looking at all the negative posts on here, surely your prediction of an imminent crossover of a lead in the polls from Labour to Conservative the other day will be true, eh.
Tom has more important things on his mind EdRag:
Tom Newton Dunn @tnewtondunn 4h Former Labour trade minister (Digby) Lord Jones describes @Ed_Miliband's enforced energy price freeze as "very worrying"
Tom Newton Dunn @tnewtondunn 4h What does EDF think of @Ed_Miliband's energy bills freeze? We need to hear from External Comms Dir Andrew Brown - Gordon's brother.
Ouch! That's a pretty devastating summary - Miliband wrecking investment by destroying the current 'independent, transparent and predictable nature of UK regulation' so that it becomes like Russia's.
if there is a strong expectation in the industry that the Labour party will win the next election, then companies are likely to cut back on investment due to perceived weakening of the operating environment.
Well done Ed. Even from opposition you can screw up the UK.
This laughable scaremongering is collectible material - to be reproduced perhaps at some point in the future.
It is very funny. Tories have lost their marbles, simply because they know how potentially dangerous this is for them. Miliband has completely scattered them.
Who do you think he is saying has been calling them it when he says "We've not got the language right at Conservative HQ and the Treasury......there is a danger we may make them feel like parasites, and that we look like the nasty party"...Labour? Yes he has not said it, but he is obviously saying people in Tory HQ and the Treasury are.
They didn't get the language right because they allowed Labour to misrepresent their language.
But let's forget about words and look at actions. This coalition government is really trying to help out that particular demographic, to the tunes of over half a billion pounds:
That's real action and real money on the problem. All done by a coalition Conservative / Lib Dem government. Not a Labour government (although some Labour councils debuted it).
Ouch! That's a pretty devastating summary - Miliband wrecking investment by destroying the current 'independent, transparent and predictable nature of UK regulation' so that it becomes like Russia's.
if there is a strong expectation in the industry that the Labour party will win the next election, then companies are likely to cut back on investment due to perceived weakening of the operating environment.
Well done Ed. Even from opposition you can screw up the UK.
This laughable scaremongering is collectible material - to be reproduced perhaps at some point in the future.
It is very funny. Tories have lost their marbles, simply because they know how potentially dangerous this is for them. Miliband has completely scattered them.
Here comes another #DIV/0! error.
Marquee Mark, have you put aside a stock of spare votes which can be given to those with special needs?
Comments
The business case shows a poor cost benefit ratio. Costs are going to rise, and by the time it arrives something better will have come along.
David can pay me 0.0000000001% of the £50 Billion I've saved it as a thanks at any time.
Is good politics from Miliband on the subject of the debates.
Energy Secretary Ed Davey, a Lib Dem, said it risked "the lights going out".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24235688
b) We can always wait for something better. It rarely arrives. Let's not build any roads and wait for the new hovercar they've been talking about since the 1950s.
c) The CBR isn't poor, although we await the latest estimate with baited breath.
d) There are costs to not doing HS2; not going ahead could actively harm the economy if you believe that passenger and freight traffic will continue to increase as it has since the 1990s.
I've added to the header so newly issued polling data from YouGov on the same issue
The more UKIP is promoted the more it undermines the Tories and the better ut us for the red team
Real problems require real solutions, honesty and some pain (or at a minimum effort) for some people.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/24204742
Is that half a Freudian slip, Mike?!
But...
1. Many of the CoL issues are the way they are because of decisions or lack of decisions from Labour's last time in government
2. The proposed solutions to CoL challenges are Maoist and show that the blob has NOT learned
Ed's shaping up to make Hollande look like a champion of growth and good governance.
Truly excellent, very funny, poignant, and possibly NSFW if your company has strict policies:
"Women: it's your fault."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=8hC0Ng_ajpY
He's attending the New Labour wake.
The UK's energy policy is already Maoist, in that it is driven completely by climate change dogma.
energy must be produced in the 'correct' way - according to dictat - regardless of practicalities or price.
And that is why we have a potential huge catastrophe on our hands.
As for the education point - many people thought that their education (or their childrens') was improved to some degree by, for example, being carried out in repaired or rebuilt schools, rather than the crumbling ruins that were in use by the early 90s. Nothing up to the standards of the Coalition's free school dinners policies, but at least we can say Labour made a start down that kind of interventionist road by reducing class sizes, for example.
(Nick Palmer's disingenuous email to his prospective constituents missed this out when he compared wholesale prices to total bills). Attacking that seems to be the most fertile - and will also appeal to UKIP voters. I doubt that many people for whom climate change is a vote-deciding issue are natural Tories
Hyperloop has loads of practical problems that may not even be found at testing stage. Transrapid used to say Maglev was perfectly safe, before 23 people died.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Lathen_maglev_train_accident
Let Musk spend the next thirty years and billions of dollars developing it, and *if* it works (which I doubt it will with current technology), we'll use it if it's cost-effective.
http://www.politicshome.com/uk/story/37448/
http://twitter.com/ITVLauraK/statuses/382865975630000128
http://www.comres.co.uk/polls/BBC_Radio_5live_Energy_Day_Public_Poll_September_2013.pdf
That wonderful entity "The public" has decided that:
1) The Gov't is not green enough when it comes to energy, and wants more windfarms and solar power.
2) Does not think the price of energy is reasonable, and energy companies are seen as unreasonable, and want energy to be renationalised.
3) Wants to burn more fossil fuels.
4) Is split on Nuclear, but doesn't want it in their backyard.
"The public" lives in la-la land, which is precisely why Labour's energy policies could well turn out to be winners.
Well done in ditching the Hodges fixation, by the way.
An official said: “Renationalisation is not our policy. Conference is entitled to its view. We are going to do the right thing. We are not going to spend money we do not have.” (FT)
Excellent post.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-24238619
Indeed, it seems that some people want to have their cake, have someone else pick up the bill, eat it and lost weight. We shall see how Ed Miliband's diet range of double chocolate gateaux (free! paid for by a bank bonus levy!) goes down.
Mr. Nabavi, that sounds like a rather sad situation.
(Dunno. Be delicious if it did though!)
Radical, but nothing else will save us from doom.
(well, maybe a fleet of Death Stars....)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24235688
Love the stats.
The "big six" - British Gas, EDF, E.On, npower, Scottish Power, SSE - made total net profits of:
2009: £2.15bn
2010: £2.22bn
2011: £3.87bn
2012: £3.74bn
They will swing the public the Coalition/energy companies way.
I suppose that's one explanation for Osborne increasing the Personal Allowance. He intends to restrict the franchise to people paying income tax...
Look at the whole picture rather than a small bit of it. BTW, do you think profit is evil?
£200bn investment needed, massive political risk from a political party and leader who seem to have not the faintest clue about how anything in the world works, yet even without that the margins are slender.
As I have been saying for months, the financial markets have been underestimating the political risk of 2015. Ed has woken them up to the danger earlier than I expected.
The rational thing to do is to invest outside the UK, both for individuals and for the boards of the utility companies. It's no coincidence that the utilities share which fell the most today was SSE, the one most almost exclusively dependent on the UK market.
Why do you hate pensioners so much that you would deprive them of their pensions?
Perhaps you would rather there was no money to distribute. Is your idea of a functioning economy one where British Leyland is held out as a model of what should be achieved?
Not, to be clear, that I think any of this is a good idea...
BTW, how many Conservative politicians have actually uttered 'scroungers'? I'd be interested in direct quotations ...
BTW2: I have previously praised the following scheme on here. Introduced by this government, extending schemes, from memory, debuted by Labour councils. It was extended in June with another £200 million of funds.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/200-million-payment-by-results-scheme-to-help-troubled-families
The tragic case studies in the following document are worth a read:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/6151/2183663.pdf
Fitch Ratings @FitchRatings
#UK Utility #Tariff Freeze Would Undermine Investment ow.ly/pcPii
Ed would squash that advantage with his determination to play JCR politics. He really is that dumb.
As an aside, on Ed's speech, apart from the policy stuff (which I'm sure we all agree was politically astute), I thought it was presentationally quite poor compared with last year.
The jokes were poor and cheesy chat showy, the "better than this" riff really grated after the 1000th repetition, and the panto stuff was toe-curling.
Yet the "consensus" from "commentators" was that it was better, presentationally, than last year.
If it is, it probably shouldn't be.
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/bills/article-2310016/11-000-claim-compensation-SSE-mis-selling-fine-energy-giant-predicts-1-5million-paid-back.html
I'm not sure we'd all agree that the state confiscating land is necessarily astute.
Slightly surprised you disliked the style (at least compared to last year). I only saw a tiny bit. Miliband seemed confident, at ease, but overused 'friends'. The clip I saw on the news backs up your view of the 'better than this' line.
Let's get real on domestic energy prices. The UK is not suffering under the yoke of massive energy prices. We are right in the middle of the European average. Do we all want to pay less? Yes - but trying to claim massive over-pricing is quite frankly ludicrous.
This policy will require legislation - which will no doubt be challenged in the courts. It is designed simply for headlines and to appease the left. It is, as many people have pointed out, economically illiterate.
We have an impending crisis in our generation capacity - that needs investment. Price regulation of the energy sector has not delivered lower prices in the long term in any country that has tried it in the past.
Miliband's role in setting the current energy regulatory regime means that everything he says on the subject is tainted by his failure to act in the best interest of consumers when he actually had the power to effect change. He has burdened us all with a price hikes due to his green levies.
The current prices for Gas and Electricity are very much the fault of the last Labour regime. The coalition should and could have done more - but Miliband was at the heart of setting the cutting systems.
No amount of gesture politics will distract from that. Superficial as ever from Miliband Jr.
http://www.theengineer.co.uk/energy-and-environment/opinion/labour-energy-proposals-anger-industry/1017168.article?cmpdate=Wednesday Agenda: Labour energy proposals anger industry&cmpid=tenews_11168
It ain't good for Ed.
"Either way, since they are all malingerers and scroungers there is no real incentive to leap out of bed as soon as the dawn chorus strikes up."
What a banker that bet was!
if there is a strong expectation in the industry that the Labour party will win the next election, then companies are likely to cut back on investment due to perceived weakening of the operating environment.
Well done Ed. Even from opposition you can screw up the UK.
One that I tipped ahem
http://youtu.be/RWLuykXWmbM
Any more? Front benchers, perhaps?
We can all find cases of MPs from all parties saying bad things. But if that's the only case you can find, it seems that Labour have been using the word 'scrounger' much more than Conservatives. Are you a little ashamed? :-)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/9490712/Energy-companies-overcharge-customers-by-600m.html
A map of where #Centrica employs people, notice how many marginal Constituencies
centrica.com/index.asp?page…
job loss threat could hurt #Labour
- Fitch Ratings: "companies likely to cut back on investment"
- David Casale, who is planning to launch a not-for-profit energy business said, "If this looks anything like becoming policy in the UK we will pull out."
- “The proposed energy price freeze will deter much-needed investment and is at odds with Labour’s pledge to decarbonize the economy and create a million green jobs,” said John Cridland, director general of the CBI, the nation’s main business lobbying group.
- “These significant proposed changes may create a whole new level of uncertainty,” said Tony Ward, head of power and utilities at the consulting firm Ernst & Young LLP. “Each of the changes proposed will require massive change in their own right, and collectively will lead to a reassessment of the risks of operating in the energy market.”
- “Price controls only add greater uncertainty to companies who we need to take the financial risks of energy investment,” said Simon Walker, director general of the Institute of Directors
- “We are concerned about the impact that Ed Miliband’s proposal would have on investment in Britain’s ramshackle energy Infrastructure,” said John Longworth, director general of the British Chambers of Commerce.
- “The big question is: how can Labour square a major reform of the consumer energy market and a freeze on energy bills with the urgent need for investment in low-carbon generation?” asked Nina Skorupska, chief executive officer of the REA. “We cannot afford another investment hiatus."
- Energy Secretary Ed Davey said: "Fixing prices in this way risks blackouts, jeopardises jobs and puts investment in clean, green technology in doubt"
CBI: "a minimum wage will cause mass unemployment"
So you found one Conservative backbench MP who has used the term, and you try to paint the whole party with that brush? How pathetic is that?
However, I bet you a fair few Labour supporters would use the term as well.
Are all Labour supporters and MPs anti-redhead after Harriet Harman's stupidly insensitive 'ginger rodent' jobs (which was scripted, so several people must have thought it was a good idea):
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1325107/Harriet-Harman-brands-Treasury-chief-Danny-Alexander-ginger-rodent-extraordinary-outburst.html
That's the sum total of your horizon, and ed's.
tomorrow's yougov.
You should bleeding well stop. Period.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tories-fear-return-of-nasty-party-in-attacks-on-welfare-scroungers-8442950.html
Scary.
He actually thinks destroying investment in UK energy capacity for the next 4 years is a good thing.
Batshit crazy.
http://orderorder.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/energy.jpg
Yes, there are problems with the energy sector. But who set up the regulatory system under which they are operating? The Labour Party.
Yes, the coalition needs to do more in this area - but Labour are the ones who presided over the largest increase in energy prices in recent times.
I know it is hard when you have to follow a party line - but the facts are not quite as Miliband would have you believe.
A very nasty fall.
I doubt he would he survive a second.
You really must do better.
To summarise: we have Labour saying that the Conservatives call a certain demographic 'scroungers', when they have not. In effect, it's Labour who are painting them, and blaming the Conservatives. In fact, the Conservatives have been trying to help that very group (see my earlier links).
Labour: the true Nasty Party. The party of McBride. The party of Brown. The party of infighting and hatred.
'Wonder if Red Ed's disasterous policy and marginal constituency vote loser will have any effect on the Yougov for tomorrow. We will know if it is a negative effect by abour 20:30 tonight if @Tomnewtondunn tweets "interesting poll". No tweeting from Tom can only mean one thing'
Would you like £120 ?.
Tom Newton Dunn @tnewtondunn 4h
Former Labour trade minister (Digby) Lord Jones describes @Ed_Miliband's enforced energy price freeze as "very worrying"
Tom Newton Dunn @tnewtondunn 4h
What does EDF think of @Ed_Miliband's energy bills freeze? We need to hear from External Comms Dir Andrew Brown - Gordon's brother.
But let's forget about words and look at actions. This coalition government is really trying to help out that particular demographic, to the tunes of over half a billion pounds:
https://www.gov.uk/government/policies/helping-troubled-families-turn-their-lives-around
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/14000-troubled-families-turned-around
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18391034
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23027664
And a description of the problem:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/6151/2183663.pdf
That's real action and real money on the problem. All done by a coalition Conservative / Lib Dem government. Not a Labour government (although some Labour councils debuted it).
You must be so ashamed.
Marquee Mark, have you put aside a stock of spare votes which can be given to those with special needs?