58 MPs removed from the opposition benches would indeed help the Tories greatly . However the sight of English Tories for party advantage backing the Yes campaign could send Scottish voters to the No camp. As I am the kind of old fashioned Tory who is foremost a unionist that would be ironic.
But the greater problem would be that we could have Scotsmen on both sides of the negotiating table.
Still, let's hope No wins and we don't end up with that immoral, indefensible situation. [If Yes wins I'd expect the SNP north of the border and Conservatives south of it to benefit greatly].
On a side note, Labour's devolution plan to kill nationalism stone dead is working terribly well, isn't it?
What would be even more funny is for YES to win, then Labour to win both in Scotland and at Westminster.
So you would have labour negotiating with labour on the settlement plans for independence... hijinks abound!
I think the energy price issue is interesting - I have friends in Spain where it is much more expensive than the UK. It also used to have govt controls and now everyone has to pay additional charges to cover the cost of the earlier govt subsidies. I realise there is a perception that it's expensive in the UK but I think that reflects the residual dependency culture prevalent here - it may take decades to change that.
The perception of energy being expensive is relative to what it used to cost in the UK.
Of course but do people ready believe that we are the only ones paying a lot for electricity and are they aware that we pay much less than many in Europe?
I think you're confusing your economic beliefs with reality....
Nicely argued, Polruan (as always).
But there is not "more than one mainstream view on these things". There is a mainstream or 'consensus' view and one of more conflicting minority views. Allowing of course for much variation within each side of the debate.
Take, for example, the need for fiscal consolidation or 'austerity' as a policy response to the financial shock of 2007-9. This is the orthodox position of the leading trans-national economic agencies (IMF, OECD), of central banks and of governments, both individually and collectively through the G7/G8/G20 etc. There remain differences between each but there is broad consensus on the overall need for fiscal consolidation to be implemented.
Of course, there are economists who argue against the dominant consensus, just as there are exceptions endorsed by those forming the consensus: Abe's stimulation of the Japanese economy has been sanctioned but only in so far as it is experimental and worth tesing given the particular economic problems of Japan.
So I am sure you will find, if you look hard enough, an economist who might still propose the implementation of price controls as a means of better distributing value to consumers. And there will be countries and sectors within countries where governments still impose price controls. But these will be exceptions to the consensus orthodoxy.
It is therefore reasonable to conclude that Miliband will be aware of this, just as Abe is aware that his current ramping up of debt in Japan is running counter to prevailing wisdom.
So why doesn't Miliband, like Abe, admit that he is swimming against the tide and put forward public argument for taking on this additional risk or explain why he thinks his unfashionable and widely criticised policy is right in the particular circumstances of the UK energy sector?
OK Miliband may not be "lying" but his approach hardly smacks of political honesty.
'Items 1-3 all lead to the same question: you've been in power for three years now, when will the power generation capability that you've enabled in that time come on stream? If there's no good answer to that question, why would anyone believe that more of the same ("stability") will solve the problem?'
Why would they believe a party that had 13 years to sort out the power generation needs more than a party that had had 3 years?
The YouGov polling showed the majority of voters don't even believe Ed's energy prize freeze
I think the energy price issue is interesting - I have friends in Spain where it is much more expensive than the UK. It also used to have govt controls and now everyone has to pay additional charges to cover the cost of the earlier govt subsidies. I realise there is a perception that it's expensive in the UK but I think that reflects the residual dependency culture prevalent here - it may take decades to change that.
The perception of energy being expensive is relative to what it used to cost in the UK.
Of course but do people ready believe that we are the only ones paying a lot for electricity and are they aware that we pay much less than many in Europe?
They probably just want the %age of their income that goes to utility bills to reduce.
Oh indeed of course. However, few people seriously expect our fuel prices to compare with the USA. The land of the free has many things wrong with it but cheap energy is not one of them.
Question - I have seen excellent posters and gamblers split amongst Lab Maj and NOM Maj - But Is there anyone here who is actually BETTING on a Conservative majority ?
My position on the main result is currently:
Lab Maj +265 NOM, Lab Most Seats +629 NOM, Con Most Seats +457 Con Maj +562
That excludes some bets on individual constituencies and bets on other markets such as SNP and LibDem seat totals. You do have to be a bit careful to take into account the correlations between all the various bets to make sure you're not more exposed to any particular scenario than you might think at first sight.
And if there is a tie between Lab and Con (and how is Speaker counted?) your position is?
That's a good argument, and one that I don't think can be easily refuted. Whether it's a good policy or not ( I don't know, either way), Milliband's energy price freeze is bound to be popular, after all, who doesn't moan about the cost of running a house? At the least, it makes Milliband appear that he knows what make the public tick, never a bad thing for the LOTO.
That seems to highlight the most effective response though.
1. Labour's failure - and EdM's failure as the cabinet minister responsible means that we don't have enough power generation capability in the country
2. We are taking steps to try and fix that as quickly as we can
3. To do that needs stable conditions: we need to convince companies to invest
4. EdM is just playing politics - putting the country's future at risk for personal gain
Items 1-3 all lead to the same question: you've been in power for three years now, when will the power generation capability that you've enabled in that time come on stream? If there's no good answer to that question, why would anyone believe that more of the same ("stability") will solve the problem?
Item 4 is the standard politician's reply to any proposal by their opponent which appears popular. Makes the current supporters happy, but doesn't really change anybody's mind.
Indeed - will be more effective once the EDF tarriff is agreed
That's a good argument, and one that I don't think can be easily refuted. Whether it's a good policy or not ( I don't know, either way), Milliband's energy price freeze is bound to be popular, after all, who doesn't moan about the cost of running a house? At the least, it makes Milliband appear that he knows what make the public tick, never a bad thing for the LOTO.
That seems to highlight the most effective response though.
1. Labour's failure - and EdM's failure as the cabinet minister responsible means that we don't have enough power generation capability in the country
2. We are taking steps to try and fix that as quickly as we can
3. To do that needs stable conditions: we need to convince companies to invest
4. EdM is just playing politics - putting the country's future at risk for personal gain
Items 1-3 all lead to the same question: you've been in power for three years now, when will the power generation capability that you've enabled in that time come on stream? If there's no good answer to that question, why would anyone believe that more of the same ("stability") will solve the problem?
Item 4 is the standard politician's reply to any proposal by their opponent which appears popular. Makes the current supporters happy, but doesn't really change anybody's mind.
Item 4 may not change anybody's mind but it could be the truth. We could do with more truth not cynical opportunism.
"In YouGov’s poll this morning for the Sun the Conservatives had 33 percent support, Labour 40 percent, the Liberal Democrats 9 percent and Ukip 11 percent. While it would be a gross exaggeration to say all of Ukip’s support comes from the Conservative party, they do gain a disproportionate amount of support from ex-Tories and it’s natural for people to add together that Conservative 33 percent and that Ukip 11 percent and think what might be.
The reality though may not be as simple as adding the two together. In yesterday’s poll we also asked people to imagine that Ukip and the Conservatives agreed a pact at the next general election where they would not stand against each other, with Ukip backing the Conservative candidate in most constituencies and the Conservatives backing the Ukip candidate in a small number of constituencies. We then asked how they’d vote under those circumstances. Once you’ve taken out the don’t knows and wouldn’t votes, the new Conservative/Ukip alliance would be on 35 percent of the vote (up just two points on their current support), Labour would be on 45 percent (up five points on their current support), the Liberal Democrats on 11 percent (up two points), 9 percent of people would vote for other parties (down eight points).
I think the most interesting part of that article is this:
"Amongst people who currently vote Ukip [only] 56 percent would vote for the new Conservative/Ukip Alliance. Many of the people voting Ukip are doing so because they are unhappy or disillusioned with the government or the Conservative party (or in many cases with *all* the mainstream parties)."
Thanks for engaging seriously with that. I expect that we would disagree on the level of consenus; my view would be that a degree of regulatory capture has enabled an apparent consensus to emerge that is in the interests of the powerful because (in part) the operation of that power has served to suppress and discredit opposing views. At an academic level, I don't believe there is a clearcut consensus.
Nevertheless, let's accept that there is a consensus around neo-liberal economics. Essentially, that says that it's over: people lost, and unaccountable consolidated groupings of capital, embodied in large corporations won. I don't like that consensus very much, and I don't think a politics which is made up of parties of slightly different shades of blue accepting that consensus is a politics in which the views of many people are represented.
When Labour goes all Blairite, I sympathise with the views of those who ask what Labour is for - if it's about saying "we accept the Tory narrative, but will just try and do it a bit more nicely while doing less harm to poor people" then there is no point to Labour. You can also see this phenomenon with the Lib Dems, whose agenda now seems to be to let the Tories follow a neo-lib agenda, but a bit more slowly and in a generally cuddly manner. And there's now no point to the Lib Dems, at least under current management, as a result.
So at the point where Miliband is prepared to stand up and give some sign that he wants to challenge that consensus; to stand against the ceaseless loosening of restrictions on corporations, then I think he's onto something. I'm not sure what the best narrative centred on people rather than money would look like, but we urgently need one. There will be all sorts of screams from those who believe that globalised marketisation is the only way, because they think that denying that is as stupid (and therefore irresponsible) as denying gravity, but that comes with the territory. I think it's a fight worth picking and it will be interested to see how it plays out.
As an interesting footnote, it's not about left vs right any more, it's about big vs small, capital vs people. I'd say this is what underlies the rise of UKIP, despite their fundamental incoherence on many issues: they have a classic old Conservative scepticism of anything big, including Europe and big business. It looks like this is where a good section of the electorate is, and Ed would be smart to play on that turf.
'Items 1-3 all lead to the same question: you've been in power for three years now, when will the power generation capability that you've enabled in that time come on stream? If there's no good answer to that question, why would anyone believe that more of the same ("stability") will solve the problem?'
Why would they believe a party that had 13 years to sort out the power generation needs more than a party that had had 3 years?
The YouGov polling showed the majority of voters don't even believe Ed's energy prize freeze
In general peope will not blame either the past Labour government or the current one for lack of power generation capacity . We have a privatised power supply industry and most people will blame the energy companies for taking too much of their money in profits and not puuting enough into new generation capacity . Many will conclude that the solution is to take back energy supply back into public control and not leave it in the hands of companies seeking to maximise their own profits .
The YouGov polling showed the majority of voters don't even believe Ed's energy prize freeze
The majority of voters don't believe any promise made by any party. And if you look back at the promises made by the coalition parties in their 2010 manifestos you can see why.
And if there is a tie between Lab and Con (and how is Speaker counted?) your position is?
I'd need to check the exact small print of the various bets making this my position on what would happen in the event of a tie. The Speaker is usually excluded.
"In YouGov’s poll this morning for the Sun the Conservatives had 33 percent support, Labour 40 percent, the Liberal Democrats 9 percent and Ukip 11 percent. While it would be a gross exaggeration to say all of Ukip’s support comes from the Conservative party, they do gain a disproportionate amount of support from ex-Tories and it’s natural for people to add together that Conservative 33 percent and that Ukip 11 percent and think what might be.
The reality though may not be as simple as adding the two together. In yesterday’s poll we also asked people to imagine that Ukip and the Conservatives agreed a pact at the next general election where they would not stand against each other, with Ukip backing the Conservative candidate in most constituencies and the Conservatives backing the Ukip candidate in a small number of constituencies. We then asked how they’d vote under those circumstances. Once you’ve taken out the don’t knows and wouldn’t votes, the new Conservative/Ukip alliance would be on 35 percent of the vote (up just two points on their current support), Labour would be on 45 percent (up five points on their current support), the Liberal Democrats on 11 percent (up two points), 9 percent of people would vote for other parties (down eight points).
I think the most interesting part of that article is this:
"Amongst people who currently vote Ukip [only] 56 percent would vote for the new Conservative/Ukip Alliance. Many of the people voting Ukip are doing so because they are unhappy or disillusioned with the government or the Conservative party (or in many cases with *all* the mainstream parties)."
I thought it was this myself - " 57 percent of Ukip voters say they will be more likely to vote Conservative if the economy improves, 40 percent if they thought it was the only way of stopping Ed Miliband being Prime Minister"
That's shows a level of pragmatism one doesn't tend to see in the DT comments.
That's a good argument, and one that I don't think can be easily refuted. Whether it's a good policy or not ( I don't know, either way), Milliband's energy price freeze is bound to be popular, after all, who doesn't moan about the cost of running a house? At the least, it makes Milliband appear that he knows what make the public tick, never a bad thing for the LOTO.
That seems to highlight the most effective response though.
1. Labour's failure - and EdM's failure as the cabinet minister responsible means that we don't have enough power generation capability in the country
2. We are taking steps to try and fix that as quickly as we can
3. To do that needs stable conditions: we need to convince companies to invest
4. EdM is just playing politics - putting the country's future at risk for personal gain
Items 1-3 all lead to the same question: you've been in power for three years now, when will the power generation capability that you've enabled in that time come on stream? If there's no good answer to that question, why would anyone believe that more of the same ("stability") will solve the problem?
Item 4 is the standard politician's reply to any proposal by their opponent which appears popular. Makes the current supporters happy, but doesn't really change anybody's mind.
It's harder to bring generation capacity on line now, mainly due to extra legislative burden introduced by the Labour government. That includes the obligation for coal power stations to have CCS. As discussed last night, that burden was introduced by Ed Miliband and prevented the building of the new Kingsnorth station amongst others.
It is also absolutely insane, as CCS is largely untried at a very large scale and massively expensive. Added with things like mass biomass, and the coalition are facing a massive problem.
I guess the Lib Dems would not want to drop many of these burdens (although they seem to be making the right noises about biomass). But despite this, the coalition has been moving forwards on nuclear, and accepts the need for more gas stations, such as South Hook.
However IANAE, and it would be good to get RCS's view on this, as he and I have disagreed on this sort of thing in the past ...
The YouGov polling showed the majority of voters don't even believe Ed's energy prize freeze
The majority of voters don't believe any promise made by any party. And if you look back at the promises made by the coalition parties in their 2010 manifestos you can see why.
That's the nature of coalition politics though. It's always going to be a post election horse trade to make an agreement.
I think the energy price issue is interesting - I have friends in Spain where it is much more expensive than the UK. It also used to have govt controls and now everyone has to pay additional charges to cover the cost of the earlier govt subsidies. I realise there is a perception that it's expensive in the UK but I think that reflects the residual dependency culture prevalent here - it may take decades to change that.
The perception of energy being expensive is relative to what it used to cost in the UK.
Of course but do people ready believe that we are the only ones paying a lot for electricity and are they aware that we pay much less than many in Europe?
They probably just want the %age of their income that goes to utility bills to reduce.
Oh indeed of course. However, few people seriously expect our fuel prices to compare with the USA. The land of the free has many things wrong with it but cheap energy is not one of them.
They do expect the government to not deliberately make things worse though. It's currently government policy to make energy more expensive in the UK.
"I have tabled a lot of questions to the Minister on the issue. In reply to one, he has said that by 2020 around 23% of household electricity bills will be as a result of climate change policy."
It's harder to bring generation capacity on line now, mainly due to extra legislative burden introduced by the Labour government. That includes the obligation for coal power stations to have CCS. As discussed last night, that burden was introduced by Ed Miliband and prevented the building of the new Kingsnorth station amongst others.
It's almost as if, in the last three years, this government hasn't noticed that no Parliament may bind its successors and as a result has failed to repeal that pointelss and pernicious legislative burden.
I think the energy price issue is interesting - I have friends in Spain where it is much more expensive than the UK. It also used to have govt controls and now everyone has to pay additional charges to cover the cost of the earlier govt subsidies. I realise there is a perception that it's expensive in the UK but I think that reflects the residual dependency culture prevalent here - it may take decades to change that.
The perception of energy being expensive is relative to what it used to cost in the UK.
Of course but do people ready believe that we are the only ones paying a lot for electricity and are they aware that we pay much less than many in Europe?
They probably just want the %age of their income that goes to utility bills to reduce.
Oh indeed of course. However, few people seriously expect our fuel prices to compare with the USA. The land of the free has many things wrong with it but cheap energy is not one of them.
They do expect the government to not deliberately make things worse though. It's currently government policy to make energy more expensive in the UK.
"I have tabled a lot of questions to the Minister on the issue. In reply to one, he has said that by 2020 around 23% of household electricity bills will be as a result of climate change policy."
Depends on how you define 'making things worse'. Would the risk of increasing climate change, and or not having enough investment for the energy gap be 'making things worse' as well?
'The majority of voters don't believe any promise made by any party. And if you look back at the promises made by the coalition parties in their 2010 manifestos you can see why'
The promises in the 2010 manifestos were as individual parties not a coalition.
"In YouGov’s poll this morning for the Sun the Conservatives had 33 percent support, Labour 40 percent, the Liberal Democrats 9 percent and Ukip 11 percent. While it would be a gross exaggeration to say all of Ukip’s support comes from the Conservative party, they do gain a disproportionate amount of support from ex-Tories and it’s natural for people to add together that Conservative 33 percent and that Ukip 11 percent and think what might be.
The reality though may not be as simple as adding the two together. In yesterday’s poll we also asked people to imagine that Ukip and the Conservatives agreed a pact at the next general election where they would not stand against each other, with Ukip backing the Conservative candidate in most constituencies and the Conservatives backing the Ukip candidate in a small number of constituencies. We then asked how they’d vote under those circumstances. Once you’ve taken out the don’t knows and wouldn’t votes, the new Conservative/Ukip alliance would be on 35 percent of the vote (up just two points on their current support), Labour would be on 45 percent (up five points on their current support), the Liberal Democrats on 11 percent (up two points), 9 percent of people would vote for other parties (down eight points).
I think the most interesting part of that article is this:
"Amongst people who currently vote Ukip [only] 56 percent would vote for the new Conservative/Ukip Alliance. Many of the people voting Ukip are doing so because they are unhappy or disillusioned with the government or the Conservative party (or in many cases with *all* the mainstream parties)."
Mr Farage often breaks down their Eastleigh vote, and attributes 10% of it to people who have either never voted before, or have not voted for many years.
The Economist @EconBritain Britain is currently growing faster, at around 3% a year, than most OECD countries ow.ly/pgDzZ
But not faster than all large OECD countries as I mistakenly stated a few days ago on PB.
Apparently the sneaky Japanese have revised their Q2 growth rate up from 0.6% to 0.9% leaving the UK in second place even after the upwards revision from 0.6% to 0.7%.
But then the UK hasn't increased its debt by 1.7% in a single quarter, nor does it have more than ¥1,000,000,000,000,000 (£6.71 trillion) in debt.
I think we are safer with Osborne than Abe though I note Mr. Brooke is now drinking Sake rather than cider.
O/T . The UKIP candidate for the Dunfermline by election has been reported to the police for possible electoral fraud . Apparently as a non executive board member of NHS Fife he is not allowed to stand for the Scottish Parliament .
Thanks to Henry once more for his authoritative work.
He has taken me back to the 70s,seeing Pink Floyd at Knebworth for "Dark Side of The Moon"-remember the Spitfire flying overhead.Whatever series of events that took me there is forgotten but that makes me one happy man.Happy trails. The Marcus Roberts blog is even more authoritative however.Most appropriate in the Con-Lab marginal I live in.There's an awful lot of fruit yet to be harvested for Labour.He confirms that these though are 80s fruit,management style,low-hanging. Anyone else need a postal vote?
It's harder to bring generation capacity on line now, mainly due to extra legislative burden introduced by the Labour government. That includes the obligation for coal power stations to have CCS. As discussed last night, that burden was introduced by Ed Miliband and prevented the building of the new Kingsnorth station amongst others.
It's almost as if, in the last three years, this government hasn't noticed that no Parliament may bind its successors and as a result has failed to repeal that pointelss and pernicious legislative burden.
[edited for typing like a muppet]
As I said, the Lib Dems would find it hard to repeal some of the legislation, although the right noises are being made about Biomass, in particular the energy companies having to show that the fuel source is sustainable, and capping of subsidies. But altering Biomass now will cost the energy companies that have invested in it a great deal. It's a shame that the government are not making the same noises about CCS. However ISTR they've made the planning process for new generation plants easier.
But Labour had thirteen years, and made matters much worse.
The biomass problem shows why stability in the energy markets is important, and not knee-jerk reactions to what luvvies say during plays in the West End ...
Does this article mean people will finally stop banging on about Thatcher to convince me to vote for or against someone? Because I certainly hope so, as I'm 26 and her time of officer was before any politica knowledge I have ever had, let alone truly young people.
The Economist @EconBritain Britain is currently growing faster, at around 3% a year, than most OECD countries ow.ly/pgDzZ
But not faster than all large OECD countries as I mistakenly stated a few days ago on PB.
Apparently the sneaky Japanese have revised their Q2 growth rate up from 0.6% to 0.9% leaving the UK in second place even after the upwards revision from 0.6% to 0.7%.
But then the UK hasn't increased its debt by 1.7% in a single quarter, nor does it have more than ¥1,000,000,000,000,000 (£6.71 trillion) in debt.
I think we are safer with Osborne than Abe though I note Mr. Brooke is now drinking Sake rather than cider.
Mr Pole one drinks in Saki for the excellence of his prose and his wit By contrast White Diamond George merely harangues the passers by in Westminster and demands more money to fill his empty coffers.
I think the energy price issue is interesting - I have friends in Spain where it is much more expensive than the UK. It also used to have govt controls and now everyone has to pay additional charges to cover the cost of the earlier govt subsidies. I realise there is a perception that it's expensive in the UK but I think that reflects the residual dependency culture prevalent here - it may take decades to change that.
The perception of energy being expensive is relative to what it used to cost in the UK.
Of course but do people ready believe that we are the only ones paying a lot for electricity and are they aware that we pay much less than many in Europe?
They probably just want the %age of their income that goes to utility bills to reduce.
Oh indeed of course. However, few people seriously expect our fuel prices to compare with the USA. The land of the free has many things wrong with it but cheap energy is not one of them.
They do expect the government to not deliberately make things worse though. It's currently government policy to make energy more expensive in the UK.
"I have tabled a lot of questions to the Minister on the issue. In reply to one, he has said that by 2020 around 23% of household electricity bills will be as a result of climate change policy."
I agree but unfortunately all the main parties are still beholden to the 'science' of global warming and apparently hold the extraordinarily stupid belief that somehow we can stop this on our own. The perspective of history on these matters will not be kind to any of our current political masters.
O/T . The UKIP candidate for the Dunfermline by election has been reported to the police for possible electoral fraud . Apparently as a non executive board member of NHS Fife he is not allowed to stand for the Scottish Parliament .
I am all for making fun of the kippers, Mark, but isn't it going a bit far to describe this as "fraud"?
O/T . The UKIP candidate for the Dunfermline by election has been reported to the police for possible electoral fraud . Apparently as a non executive board member of NHS Fife he is not allowed to stand for the Scottish Parliament .
I am all for making fun of the kippers, Mark, but isn't it going a bit far to describe this as "fraud"?
Yes I agree , it appears that since the nominations closed he has resigned from that post . It is quite reminiscent of the Bromley by election with umpteen jobs Bob technically having broken electoral law because one of them which was due to be abolished did not allow him to stand for parliament .
(lol Lansley) Exclusive: Competition rules hold back quality, says Nicholson 25 September, 2013 | By Dave West NHS England’s chief executive has said the government may need to change the law because competition rules are standing in the way of improvements to NHS services. Speaking at the HSJ Commissioning Summit last week, Sir David Nicholson cited a series of examples where he believed measures to drive up quality had been obstructed by the new rules, which came into effect under the 2012 Health and Social Care Act. He insisted the government had not intended the NHS’s reformed system of competition regulation to have the effect it was now having. “All of [the politicians who drew up the Health Act] wanted competition as a tool to improve quality for patients,” he said. “That’s what they intended to happen, and we haven’t got that.” Leader: Rapid resolution needed for service change impasse In one case, Sir David said a foundation trust chief executive had been told he could not “buddy” with a nearby trust − under plans announced last week to help struggling providers − because “it was anti-competitive”. He continued: “I’ve been somewhere [where] a trust has used competition law to protect themselves from having to stop doing cancer surgery, even though they don’t meet any of the guidelines [for the service]. “Trusts have said to me they have organised, they have been through a consultation, they were centralising a particular service and have been stopped by competition law. And I’ve heard a federated group of general practices have been stopped from coming together because of the threat of competition law. “All of these [proposed changes] make perfect sense from the point of view of quality for patients, yet that is what has happened.” “I know the secretary of state would be prepared to take legislation back [to Parliament] if that’s what needs to happen”. Sir David went on to describe “four tests” he believed politicians should meet to support the NHS − a reference to the “four tests” set out by the government in 2010, which NHS service change proposals must pass before they can proceed.
Does this article mean people will finally stop banging on about Thatcher to convince me to vote for or against someone?
Probably not. Tory economic and foreign policy (though not social policy) is still very much under Thatcher's spell. Almost all of today's Tories - even those too young to remember her - believe themselves to be her disciples and custodians of her legacy. Most UKIPers take the same view. Observe how they leap to defend the energy companies she privatised - this is an illustration of the power of her influence, even when it flies in the face of obvious political realities.
"...given that Austria is one of four countries effectively underwriting the various bailout packages underpinning the euro, the fact that around 30 per cent of voters back parties explicitly committed to break up the euro in some form, is pretty concerning."
Does this article mean people will finally stop banging on about Thatcher to convince me to vote for or against someone?
Probably not. Tory economic and foreign policy (though not social policy) is still very much under Thatcher's spell. Almost all of today's Tories - even those too young to remember her - believe themselves to be her disciples and custodians of her legacy. Most UKIPers take the same view. Observe how they leap to defend the energy companies she privatised - this is an illustration of the power of her influence, even when it flies in the face of obvious political realities.
I read Charles Moore's biography of Mrs Thatcher earlier this year. You could see the various factions of the Conservative Party of her time, still true today.
Mr Cameron would have been a 'Heathite', so an opponent of Mrs T.
I remember the 70s all too well. I wasn't very old, but the lessons stuck. The unions, I learned, are intrinsically bad. If you ever give power to the uneducated then the dire circumstances of that decade are the inevitable result. I'm bitter too about my education - despite the state spending vast sums on the system it was only by luck that I managed to realise that knowledge was a cornucopia of good things.
Noone really knew prior to the 70s just how bad the policies of the left in practice would be. Those policies and those themes nearly brought what had once been the greatest nation in the world to her knees. I doubt we'll really ever recover, but we should never forget that low point.
New voters however should make up their minds as they see it. I regard it as a little unfortunate that they will almost certainly not have been told of the pervasive failure of left wing ideas - "destroy by attention" is entirely absent from the curriculum, as in "build by inattention". The facts are withheld by state employees who actually pay to conspire in the programme of disinformation of the left. They do this because the left's ideology plays on peoples shortcomings. The fear of being found out to be faulty will propel most people to making 'insurance payments' of a far greater worth.
The conclusions from the 70s experience, which are surely valid today, shouldn't be forgotten.
it's not about left vs right any more, it's about big vs small, capital vs people. I'd say this is what underlies the rise of UKIP, despite their fundamental incoherence on many issues: they have a classic old Conservative scepticism of anything big, including Europe and big business. It looks like this is where a good section of the electorate is, and Ed would be smart to play on that turf.
I am uncomfortable with you broadening the scope of discussion to the [un]intended social consequences of a rather narrow economic policy being proposed by a party in opposition.
This is not to say that the issues you raise aren't central to current political debate and development: they are. But we need to address the 'energy price cap' proposal more narrowly if we are not to lose its detail in the mass of political colour making up the whole canvas.
Energy price rises are clearly of concern to voters and have a significant impact on household standards of living.
What we need from our politicians is an explanation of why prices have risen well above the rate of inflation. Such explanations need to be transparent and unbiased.
Take one major factor which (I believe) hasn't been discussed on PB so far: exchange rates.
Between January 2000 and January 2010 the real value of sterling fell by 25.3% when measured against a BIS basket of currencies.
Between January 2010 and June 2013 the real value of sterling has risen by 6.9% by the same measure.
Changes in the exchange rates will therefore have had a much more significant impact on household energy prices than any alleged ill effects of competition within the UK energy supply industry.
Yet Miliband has given the impression that consumers have solely suffered at the hands of evil profiteering capitalists operating in a badly regulated oligopolist industry.
And this is before government price intervention through environmental subsidies and policy goals are revealed and taken into account in the debate.
It is poltically dishonest, even if understandable as an electoral tactic, Polruan.
We are not going to solve all the unfair outcomes of 'neo-liberal' economic orthodoxy in the debate on energy price caps. But if we apply Ockham's razor to the issue of household energy costs, we might at least advance the debate and come closer to finding a solution to at least one issue concerning voters.
Climate change committee was going to mention the fact that hardly any warming has occurred in the last 15 years, but deleted references to it at the last moment.
Michael Crick @MichaelLCrick Congrats to my superb former Newsnight colleague Rhodri Jones, new home news ed of C4News, one of very best BBC prods I ever worked with
Lord Ashcroft @LordAshcroft If a banker gets a pound bonus the taxman gets 45p. If he doesn't Bank pays 23p in tax. So each pound of bonus not paid costs the taxman 22p
@DPJHodges: 40% of Ukip voters say they would consider voting Tory to stop Ed M. 57% if economy improves.
for a large part of the current UKIP demographic saying they will vote UKIP gives them a satisfying frisson of excitement in being "rebellious". We are talking the solid, middle, upper-middle classes who don't like the fact that everything is going to the dogs.
But be assured, come the day, most will return to the Tory fold as they realise the whole UKIP adventurette has been just a bit of fun and something to chat about at dinner parties (supper parties, even).
I give UKIP 3-5% come GE2015 with ironically the iSams of this world (Lab=>UKIP switchers) as the most committed.
Lord Ashcroft @LordAshcroft If a banker gets a pound bonus the taxman gets 45p. If he doesn't Bank pays 23p in tax. So each pound of bonus not paid costs the taxman 22p
It would have been even better if the *anker paid 50p.
I am uncomfortable with you broadening the scope of discussion to the [un]intended social consequences of a rather narrow economic policy being proposed by a party in opposition.
This is not to say that the issues you raise aren't central to current political debate and development: they are. But we need to address the 'energy price cap' proposal more narrowly if we are not to lose its detail in the mass of political colour making up the whole canvas.
Energy price rises are clearly of concern to voters and have a significant impact on household standards of living.
What we need from our politicians is an explanation of why prices have risen well above the rate of inflation. Such explanations need to be transparent and unbiased.
Take one major factor which (I believe) hasn't been discussed on PB so far: exchange rates.
Between January 2000 and January 2010 the real value of sterling fell by 25.3% when measured against a BIS basket of currencies.
Between January 2010 and June 2013 the real value of sterling has risen by 6.9% by the same measure.
Changes in the exchange rates will therefore have had a much more significant impact on household energy prices than any alleged ill effects of competition within the UK energy supply industry.
Yet Miliband has given the impression that consumers have solely suffered at the hands of evil profiteering capitalists operating in a badly regulated oligopolist industry.
And this is before government price intervention through environmental subsidies and policy goals are revealed and taken into account in the debate.
It is poltically dishonest, even if understandable as an electoral tactic, Polruan.
We are not going to solve all the unfair outcomes of 'neo-liberal' economic orthodoxy in the debate on energy price caps. But if we apply Ockham's razor to the issue of household energy costs, we might at least advance the debate and come closer to finding a solution to at least one issue concerning voters.
A quick update and correction to my BIS EER stats;
2001 Jan - 2010 Jan : Decrease of - 23.27% 2010 Jan - 2013 Aug Increase of + 4.24%
Updare uses latest data from Aug rather June 2013. Correction replaces wrongly transcribed 2010 Jan Index data.
Net effect is to narrow the spread and impact but without altering the significance of the argument.
Lord Ashcroft @LordAshcroft If a banker gets a pound bonus the taxman gets 45p. If he doesn't Bank pays 23p in tax. So each pound of bonus not paid costs the taxman 22p
Lord Ashcroft is being generous with suggesting that the taxman would get 22p - in my experience of international banking if that money was not earmarked for the bonuses in the uk then that portion would be offset or re-routed in a tax efficient way so that it was not liable to corporate tax and so the uk tax man would not see any of it.....
"...given that Austria is one of four countries effectively underwriting the various bailout packages underpinning the euro, the fact that around 30 per cent of voters back parties explicitly committed to break up the euro in some form, is pretty concerning."
Should be interesting, new party on the block, Team Stronach, financed by an 81-year old Canadian should make into the Nationalrat. Haider's old party has collapsed and probably won't. The Greens look to do very well. Possible that the grand coalition won't even have a majority...
"In YouGov’s poll this morning for the Sun the Conservatives had 33 percent support, Labour 40 percent, the Liberal Democrats 9 percent and Ukip 11 percent. While it would be a gross exaggeration to say all of Ukip’s support comes from the Conservative party, they do gain a disproportionate amount of support from ex-Tories and it’s natural for people to add together that Conservative 33 percent and that Ukip 11 percent and think what might be.
The reality though may not be as simple as adding the two together. In yesterday’s poll we also asked people to imagine that Ukip and the Conservatives agreed a pact at the next general election where they would not stand against each other, with Ukip backing the Conservative candidate in most constituencies and the Conservatives backing the Ukip candidate in a small number of constituencies. We then asked how they’d vote under those circumstances. Once you’ve taken out the don’t knows and wouldn’t votes, the new Conservative/Ukip alliance would be on 35 percent of the vote (up just two points on their current support), Labour would be on 45 percent (up five points on their current support), the Liberal Democrats on 11 percent (up two points), 9 percent of people would vote for other parties (down eight points).
O/T but wanted to let people know about our new exhibition - 31 Jan through 27 April at 2 Temple Place. It's a collaboration with the Museums of Cambridge. Below is from the press release so apologies for the marketing speak!
Discoveries is an exhibition about imagination and knowledge, about the pleasures of looking, and the power of objects to generate wonder as well as new ideas. Presenting singular objects and unearthing little-known treasures in the extraordinary interiors of Two Temple Place on London’s Embankment, Discoveries is the first major exhibition to bring together the fascinating collections of the eight University of Cambridge Museums.
...
The exhibition challenges and responds to the very notion of ‘discovery’ as it explores the limits as well as the frontiers of knowledge and the connections between visionary thinking and scientifically- observed vision. The ornate and atmospheric spaces of Two Temple Place are cabinets of curiosities, displaying objects that span millennia, from the majestic to the minuscule: Charles Darwin’s recently re-discovered Tinamou Egg, the only surviving egg from the HMS Beagle voyage, accidentally cracked by Darwin himself; a surprising juxtaposition of art works from the First Millennium BC to the present day; and rare zoological specimens such as a complete skeleton of a dodo.
Visitors are invited to experience the exhibits as peculiar objects with stories to be unravelled and to encounter the idea of museums, not just as repositories of things, but active places of learning and revelation. 19th Century religious prints attempt to counteract the progress of science by demonstrating the Earth as the centre of the universe, while Inuit snow goggles crafted from wood point the way towards today’s polarised version. Historic instruments sit alongside cutting edge technology — The Discovery telescope used in Victorian explorations to the North and South Poles, and which in 1984 was taken aboard the Space Shuttle ‘Discovery’ travelling some 2.5 million miles, keeps company with the ‘Triwizard Tournament’ Digital Optical module, a ground-breaking instrument at the forefront of 21st Century cosmological and astrophysical polar research.
It's harder to bring generation capacity on line now, mainly due to extra legislative burden introduced by the Labour government. That includes the obligation for coal power stations to have CCS. As discussed last night, that burden was introduced by Ed Miliband and prevented the building of the new Kingsnorth station amongst others.
It's almost as if, in the last three years, this government hasn't noticed that no Parliament may bind its successors and as a result has failed to repeal that pointelss and pernicious legislative burden.
[edited for typing like a muppet]
Repeal of the "pointless and pernicious legislation" would be opposed by the LibDums and therefore probably not possible.
"...given that Austria is one of four countries effectively underwriting the various bailout packages underpinning the euro, the fact that around 30 per cent of voters back parties explicitly committed to break up the euro in some form, is pretty concerning."
Should be interesting, new party on the block, Team Stronach, financed by an 81-year old Canadian should make into the Nationalrat. Haider's old party has collapsed and probably won't. The Greens look to do very well. Possible that the grand coalition won't even have a majority...
A three-tier PR system operates in Austria.
Sir Roderick, are the three tiers:
1. Chocolate sponge 2. Apricot jam 3. Chocolate icing
If so eat with a dollop of whipped cream and a glass of iced water.
Lord Ashcroft @LordAshcroft If a banker gets a pound bonus the taxman gets 45p. If he doesn't Bank pays 23p in tax. So each pound of bonus not paid costs the taxman 22p
Lord Ashcroft is being generous with suggesting that the taxman would get 22p - in my experience of international banking if that money was not earmarked for the bonuses in the uk then that portion would be offset or re-routed in a tax efficient way so that it was not liable to corporate tax and so the uk tax man would not see any of it.....
He's also forgetting the employer and employee National Insurance revenue for HMRC as well!!
Lord Ashcroft @LordAshcroft If a banker gets a pound bonus the taxman gets 45p. If he doesn't Bank pays 23p in tax. So each pound of bonus not paid costs the taxman 22p
It would have been even better if the *anker paid 50p.
Lord Ashcroft @LordAshcroft If a banker gets a pound bonus the taxman gets 45p. If he doesn't Bank pays 23p in tax. So each pound of bonus not paid costs the taxman 22p
Lord Ashcroft is being generous with suggesting that the taxman would get 22p - in my experience of international banking if that money was not earmarked for the bonuses in the uk then that portion would be offset or re-routed in a tax efficient way so that it was not liable to corporate tax and so the uk tax man would not see any of it.....
He's also forgetting the employer and employee National Insurance revenue for HMRC as well!!
Not forgetting as well the VAT on all the lovely things they spend the bonuses on, or the stamp duty when they upgrade to a bigger house, or the national insurance and income tax on the domestic staff they hire with the bonus and certainly not forgetting the capital gains tax on the sums they invest in their portfolios or the increased values of the properties they buy and sell. And finally the delights of a final creaming of the money by the tax man when the banker dies and gets hit with inheritance tax. So all in all the tax man and the average Brit does rather nicely from those bonuses.....
@DPJHodges: 40% of Ukip voters say they would consider voting Tory to stop Ed M. 57% if economy improves.
"The reason the LDs appear to be competitive now is that UKIP has risen sharply eating into the CON vote. If the blues find a way of winning back these lost voters then the yellows will be in trouble."
After all the provocative thetoric directed toward the EU, could it really after all come down to the economy improving?
Having Godfrey Bloom as a spokesman for your party is one thing...
"A once-prominent member* of the English Defence League (EDL) is on the run from police after being found guilty of a violent attempted robbery.
Guramit Singh Kalirai was sentenced to six-and-a-half years after a shop keeper was tied up and threatened with a knife in Hucknall, Nottinghamshire ."
1. Chocolate sponge 2. Apricot jam 3. Chocolate icing
If so eat with a dollop of whipped cream and a glass of iced water.
If only...
The system is a bit bizarre (and hard to find a definitive version in English). But here goes...
There are 183 seats in total, and the country is divided into 43 multi-member constituencies, grouped by the 9 states (Lander) and Vienna.
Tier I: to win a seat in a constituency a party must exceed the Hare quota for the state. Consequently, many constituency seats and even entire constituencies remained unfilled. At the constituency level, seats are filled by semi-open list. A candidate who receives >one sixth of his party's votes as personal votes jumps up the list order. It has rarely happened...
Tier II: at the state level, the Hare quota is applied again, and parties are allocated their state seat entitlement minus any seats they have won at the constituency level. There is again a semi-open list, with a twist. The preferential vote is by write-in... Don't think it's ever had any effect in changing list order.
Tier III: at the national level, overall seat entitlement is calculated by D'Hondt, with a 4% national threshold, or winning one seat in Tier I. Seats won in Tier I and Tier II are deducted from the national total. Overhang seats won in those tiers are kept. The national list is a closed list.
The overall proportions of seats won in each tier is not fixed, and varies depending on how the actual votes fall.
Having Godfrey Bloom as a spokesman for your party is one thing...
"A once-prominent member* of the English Defence League (EDL) is on the run from police after being found guilty of a violent attempted robbery.
Guramit Singh Kalirai was sentenced to six-and-a-half years after a shop keeper was tied up and threatened with a knife in Hucknall, Nottinghamshire ."
"Patrick O'Flynn @oflynnexpress 2h @Mancman10@Tom_Waterhouse from this point & with the Euros looming, 9% in GE15 would be disappointing for us [UKIP] Ian. We can do better.
1. Chocolate sponge 2. Apricot jam 3. Chocolate icing
If so eat with a dollop of whipped cream and a glass of iced water.
If only...
The system is a bit bizarre (and hard to find a definitive version in English). But here goes...
There are 183 seats in total, and the country is divided into 43 multi-member constituencies, grouped by the 9 states (Lander) and Vienna.
Tier I: to win a seat in a constituency a party must exceed the Hare quota for the state. Consequently, many constituency seats and even entire constituencies remained unfilled. At the constituency level, seats are filled by semi-open list. A candidate who receives >one sixth of his party's votes as personal votes jumps up the list order. It has rarely happened...
Tier II: at the state level, the Hare quota is applied again, and parties are allocated their state seat entitlement minus any seats they have won at the constituency level. There is again a semi-open list, with a twist. The preferential vote is by write-in... Don't think it's ever had any effect in changing list order.
Tier III: at the national level, overall seat entitlement is calculated by D'Hondt, with a 4% national threshold, or winning one seat in Tier I. Seats won in Tier I and Tier II are deducted from the national total. Overhang seats won in those tiers are kept. The national list is a closed list.
The overall proportions of seats won in each tier is not fixed, and varies depending on how the actual votes fall.
Comrades! This is your captain! It is an honour to speak to you today! And I'm honoured to be sailing with you on the maiden voyage of our Motherland's most recent achievement. And once more, we play our dangerous game. A game of chess... against our old adversary, the Conservative Party! For a hundred years, your fathers before you and your older brothers played this game... and played it well. But today, the game is different. WE have the advantage! It reminds me of the heady days of 1945 and Clement Atlee, when the world trembled at the sound of our Nationalisations. Now they will tremble again - at the sound of our silence. The order is: engage the Energy Policy Freeze! Comrades! Our own activists don't know our full potential! They will do everything possible to test us, but they will only test their own embarrassment. We will leave our activists behind! We will pass through the Conservative patrols, past their sonar nets, and lay off their largest parliamentary constituency, and listen to their braying and tittering... while we conduct Anti-Austerity debates! And when we are finished, the only sound they will hear is our laughter, while we sail to Brighton, where the sun is warm, and so is the... comradeship. A great day, comrades! We sail into history!
Having Godfrey Bloom as a spokesman for your party is one thing...
"A once-prominent member* of the English Defence League (EDL) is on the run from police after being found guilty of a violent attempted robbery.
Guramit Singh Kalirai was sentenced to six-and-a-half years after a shop keeper was tied up and threatened with a knife in Hucknall, Nottinghamshire ."
Having Godfrey Bloom as a spokesman for your party is one thing...
"A once-prominent member* of the English Defence League (EDL) is on the run from police after being found guilty of a violent attempted robbery.
Guramit Singh Kalirai was sentenced to six-and-a-half years after a shop keeper was tied up and threatened with a knife in Hucknall, Nottinghamshire ."
* I have read elsewhere as being quoted as co-founder of.
A Sikh??
Sounds like he has a few identity issues.
It could - could - be an anti-Muslim thing (The Sikh faith was founded historically as a reaction to the hegemony of the Muslim Mughal Empire in northern India).
If only we had a simple transparent system like that!
In practice it works as national D'Hondt with a 4% threshold.
The Tier stuff was an attempt to bring MPs (or some of them, at least) closer to their voters, a nod towards FPTP, if you like. Doesn't really work though...
Has any pb-er ever walked the Samaria gorge in Crete?
No, Comrade Sean!
But I have walked the full length of the A13 from Aldgate to Shoeburyness (albeit in its original 1922 route) in both directions. Not all at once, mind!
Has any pb-er ever walked the Samaria gorge in Crete? I have a chance to do it tomorrow, but a lot of websites say it is overrated, touristy, crowded, boring, 6 hours, yada yada
Others say it is mindblowing and beautiful.
Hmpft!
Come on Sean, surely you are the ultimate example of 'try everything once' ;-)
•Jeb Bush (R) 52% •Hillary Clinton (D) 38% •Paul Ryan (R) 50% •Hillary Clinton (D) 38% •Rand Paul (R) 49% •Hillary Clinton (D) 39% •Chris Christie (R) 47% •Hillary Clinton (D) 38% •Ted Cruz (R) 44% •Hillary Clinton (D) 41%
Actually my motto has always been Try Everything TWICE. i.e. if, the first time, you end up puking and screaming, it may just have been a bad batch, so go and do it again, to make sure.
Well I hope that the gorge does not induce vomiting and screaming!
Comrades! This is your captain! It is an honour to speak to you today! And I'm honoured to be sailing with you on the maiden voyage of our Motherland's most recent achievement. And once more, we play our dangerous game. A game of chess... against our old adversary, the Conservative Party! For a hundred years, your fathers before you and your older brothers played this game... and played it well. But today, the game is different. WE have the advantage! It reminds me of the heady days of 1945 and Clement Atlee, when the world trembled at the sound of our Nationalisations. Now they will tremble again - at the sound of our silence. The order is: engage the Energy Policy Freeze! Comrades! Our own activists don't know our full potential! They will do everything possible to test us, but they will only test their own embarrassment. We will leave our activists behind! We will pass through the Conservative patrols, past their sonar nets, and lay off their largest parliamentary constituency, and listen to their braying and tittering... while we conduct Anti-Austerity debates! And when we are finished, the only sound they will hear is our laughter, while we sail to Brighton, where the sun is warm, and so is the... comradeship. A great day, comrades! We sail into history!
Can I have all this in Russian. It doesn't make sense in English.
Comrades! This is your captain! It is an honour to speak to you today! And I'm honoured to be sailing with you on the maiden voyage of our Motherland's most recent achievement. And once more, we play our dangerous game. A game of chess... against our old adversary, the Conservative Party! For a hundred years, your fathers before you and your older brothers played this game... and played it well. But today, the game is different. WE have the advantage! It reminds me of the heady days of 1945 and Clement Atlee, when the world trembled at the sound of our Nationalisations. Now they will tremble again - at the sound of our silence. The order is: engage the Energy Policy Freeze! Comrades! Our own activists don't know our full potential! They will do everything possible to test us, but they will only test their own embarrassment. We will leave our activists behind! We will pass through the Conservative patrols, past their sonar nets, and lay off their largest parliamentary constituency, and listen to their braying and tittering... while we conduct Anti-Austerity debates! And when we are finished, the only sound they will hear is our laughter, while we sail to Brighton, where the sun is warm, and so is the... comradeship. A great day, comrades! We sail into history!
Can I have all this in Russian. It doesn't make sense in English.
Good evening, Comrade Godfrey!
Well, "The Hunt for Red October" in Russian is:
Охота за Красным Октябрем (Okhota za Krasny'im Oktyabrem)
Comments
So you would have labour negotiating with labour on the settlement plans for independence... hijinks abound!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_pricing#Global_electricity_price_comparison
They probably just want the %age of their income that goes to utility bills to reduce.
I think you're confusing your economic beliefs with reality....
Nicely argued, Polruan (as always).
But there is not "more than one mainstream view on these things". There is a mainstream or 'consensus' view and one of more conflicting minority views. Allowing of course for much variation within each side of the debate.
Take, for example, the need for fiscal consolidation or 'austerity' as a policy response to the financial shock of 2007-9. This is the orthodox position of the leading trans-national economic agencies (IMF, OECD), of central banks and of governments, both individually and collectively through the G7/G8/G20 etc. There remain differences between each but there is broad consensus on the overall need for fiscal consolidation to be implemented.
Of course, there are economists who argue against the dominant consensus, just as there are exceptions endorsed by those forming the consensus: Abe's stimulation of the Japanese economy has been sanctioned but only in so far as it is experimental and worth tesing given the particular economic problems of Japan.
So I am sure you will find, if you look hard enough, an economist who might still propose the implementation of price controls as a means of better distributing value to consumers. And there will be countries and sectors within countries where governments still impose price controls. But these will be exceptions to the consensus orthodoxy.
It is therefore reasonable to conclude that Miliband will be aware of this, just as Abe is aware that his current ramping up of debt in Japan is running counter to prevailing wisdom.
So why doesn't Miliband, like Abe, admit that he is swimming against the tide and put forward public argument for taking on this additional risk or explain why he thinks his unfashionable and widely criticised policy is right in the particular circumstances of the UK energy sector?
OK Miliband may not be "lying" but his approach hardly smacks of political honesty.
'Items 1-3 all lead to the same question: you've been in power for three years now, when will the power generation capability that you've enabled in that time come on stream? If there's no good answer to that question, why would anyone believe that more of the same ("stability") will solve the problem?'
Why would they believe a party that had 13 years to sort out the power generation needs more than a party that had had 3 years?
The YouGov polling showed the majority of voters don't even believe Ed's energy prize freeze
Britain is currently growing faster, at around 3% a year, than most OECD countries ow.ly/pgDzZ
http://wellcome-trust.msgfocus.com/q/13V2bvTkizVp8LA1lYfIQ/wv
If they do, then who knows what would happen in terms of electorate reform for rUK..
"Amongst people who currently vote Ukip [only] 56 percent would vote for the new Conservative/Ukip Alliance. Many of the people voting Ukip are doing so because they are unhappy or disillusioned with the government or the Conservative party (or in many cases with *all* the mainstream parties)."
Thanks for engaging seriously with that. I expect that we would disagree on the level of consenus; my view would be that a degree of regulatory capture has enabled an apparent consensus to emerge that is in the interests of the powerful because (in part) the operation of that power has served to suppress and discredit opposing views. At an academic level, I don't believe there is a clearcut consensus.
Nevertheless, let's accept that there is a consensus around neo-liberal economics. Essentially, that says that it's over: people lost, and unaccountable consolidated groupings of capital, embodied in large corporations won. I don't like that consensus very much, and I don't think a politics which is made up of parties of slightly different shades of blue accepting that consensus is a politics in which the views of many people are represented.
When Labour goes all Blairite, I sympathise with the views of those who ask what Labour is for - if it's about saying "we accept the Tory narrative, but will just try and do it a bit more nicely while doing less harm to poor people" then there is no point to Labour. You can also see this phenomenon with the Lib Dems, whose agenda now seems to be to let the Tories follow a neo-lib agenda, but a bit more slowly and in a generally cuddly manner. And there's now no point to the Lib Dems, at least under current management, as a result.
So at the point where Miliband is prepared to stand up and give some sign that he wants to challenge that consensus; to stand against the ceaseless loosening of restrictions on corporations, then I think he's onto something. I'm not sure what the best narrative centred on people rather than money would look like, but we urgently need one. There will be all sorts of screams from those who believe that globalised marketisation is the only way, because they think that denying that is as stupid (and therefore irresponsible) as denying gravity, but that comes with the territory. I think it's a fight worth picking and it will be interested to see how it plays out.
As an interesting footnote, it's not about left vs right any more, it's about big vs small, capital vs people. I'd say this is what underlies the rise of UKIP, despite their fundamental incoherence on many issues: they have a classic old Conservative scepticism of anything big, including Europe and big business. It looks like this is where a good section of the electorate is, and Ed would be smart to play on that turf.
That's shows a level of pragmatism one doesn't tend to see in the DT comments.
It is also absolutely insane, as CCS is largely untried at a very large scale and massively expensive. Added with things like mass biomass, and the coalition are facing a massive problem.
I guess the Lib Dems would not want to drop many of these burdens (although they seem to be making the right noises about biomass). But despite this, the coalition has been moving forwards on nuclear, and accepts the need for more gas stations, such as South Hook.
However IANAE, and it would be good to get RCS's view on this, as he and I have disagreed on this sort of thing in the past ...
No Top Down NHS reorganisation.
No increase in tuition fees.
Frozen energy prices for 2 years.
"I have tabled a lot of questions to the Minister on the issue. In reply to one, he has said that by 2020 around 23% of household electricity bills will be as a result of climate change policy."
http://www.thegwpf.org/mps-attack-impact-climate-change-act-families-industry/
[edited for typing like a muppet]
'The majority of voters don't believe any promise made by any party. And if you look back at the promises made by the coalition parties in their 2010 manifestos you can see why'
The promises in the 2010 manifestos were as individual parties not a coalition.
Apparently the sneaky Japanese have revised their Q2 growth rate up from 0.6% to 0.9% leaving the UK in second place even after the upwards revision from 0.6% to 0.7%.
But then the UK hasn't increased its debt by 1.7% in a single quarter, nor does it have more than ¥1,000,000,000,000,000 (£6.71 trillion) in debt.
I think we are safer with Osborne than Abe though I note Mr. Brooke is now drinking Sake rather than cider.
The UKIP candidate for the Dunfermline by election has been reported to the police for possible electoral fraud . Apparently as a non executive board member of NHS Fife he is not allowed to stand for the Scottish Parliament .
He has taken me back to the 70s,seeing Pink Floyd at Knebworth for "Dark Side of The Moon"-remember the Spitfire flying overhead.Whatever series of events that took me there is forgotten but that makes me one happy man.Happy trails.
The Marcus Roberts blog is even more authoritative however.Most appropriate in the Con-Lab marginal I live in.There's an awful lot of fruit yet to be harvested for Labour.He confirms that these though are 80s fruit,management style,low-hanging.
Anyone else need a postal vote?
But Labour had thirteen years, and made matters much worse.
The biomass problem shows why stability in the energy markets is important, and not knee-jerk reactions to what luvvies say during plays in the West End ...
Isn't Dark Side of The Moon the best album ever?
More back to the 70s please.
Exclusive: Competition rules hold back quality, says Nicholson
25 September, 2013 | By Dave West
NHS England’s chief executive has said the government may need to change the law because competition rules are standing in the way of improvements to NHS services.
Speaking at the HSJ Commissioning Summit last week, Sir David Nicholson cited a series of examples where he believed measures to drive up quality had been obstructed by the new rules, which came into effect under the 2012 Health and Social Care Act.
He insisted the government had not intended the NHS’s reformed system of competition regulation to have the effect it was now having.
“All of [the politicians who drew up the Health Act] wanted competition as a tool to improve quality for patients,” he said. “That’s what they intended to happen, and we haven’t got that.”
Leader: Rapid resolution needed for service change impasse
In one case, Sir David said a foundation trust chief executive had been told he could not “buddy” with a nearby trust − under plans announced last week to help struggling providers − because “it was anti-competitive”.
He continued: “I’ve been somewhere [where] a trust has used competition law to protect themselves from having to stop doing cancer surgery, even though they don’t meet any of the guidelines [for the service].
“Trusts have said to me they have organised, they have been through a consultation, they were centralising a particular service and have been stopped by competition law. And I’ve heard a federated group of general practices have been stopped from coming together because of the threat of competition law.
“All of these [proposed changes] make perfect sense from the point of view of quality for patients, yet that is what has happened.” “I know the secretary of state would be prepared to take legislation back [to Parliament] if that’s what needs to happen”.
Sir David went on to describe “four tests” he believed politicians should meet to support the NHS − a reference to the “four tests” set out by the government in 2010, which NHS service change proposals must pass before they can proceed.
"...given that Austria is one of four countries effectively underwriting the various bailout packages underpinning the euro, the fact that around 30 per cent of voters back parties explicitly committed to break up the euro in some form, is pretty concerning."
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/matspersson/100025634/a-stark-warning-for-the-eurozone-almost-one-third-of-austrians-could-vote-for-anti-euro-parties/
Mr Cameron would have been a 'Heathite', so an opponent of Mrs T.
Noone really knew prior to the 70s just how bad the policies of the left in practice would be. Those policies and those themes nearly brought what had once been the greatest nation in the world to her knees. I doubt we'll really ever recover, but we should never forget that low point.
New voters however should make up their minds as they see it. I regard it as a little unfortunate that they will almost certainly not have been told of the pervasive failure of left wing ideas - "destroy by attention" is entirely absent from the curriculum, as in "build by inattention". The facts are withheld by state employees who actually pay to conspire in the programme of disinformation of the left. They do this because the left's ideology plays on peoples shortcomings. The fear of being found out to be faulty will propel most people to making 'insurance payments' of a far greater worth.
The conclusions from the 70s experience, which are surely valid today, shouldn't be forgotten.
This is not to say that the issues you raise aren't central to current political debate and development: they are. But we need to address the 'energy price cap' proposal more narrowly if we are not to lose its detail in the mass of political colour making up the whole canvas.
Energy price rises are clearly of concern to voters and have a significant impact on household standards of living.
What we need from our politicians is an explanation of why prices have risen well above the rate of inflation. Such explanations need to be transparent and unbiased.
Take one major factor which (I believe) hasn't been discussed on PB so far: exchange rates.
Between January 2000 and January 2010 the real value of sterling fell by 25.3% when measured against a BIS basket of currencies.
Between January 2010 and June 2013 the real value of sterling has risen by 6.9% by the same measure.
Changes in the exchange rates will therefore have had a much more significant impact on household energy prices than any alleged ill effects of competition within the UK energy supply industry.
Yet Miliband has given the impression that consumers have solely suffered at the hands of evil profiteering capitalists operating in a badly regulated oligopolist industry.
And this is before government price intervention through environmental subsidies and policy goals are revealed and taken into account in the debate.
It is poltically dishonest, even if understandable as an electoral tactic, Polruan.
We are not going to solve all the unfair outcomes of 'neo-liberal' economic orthodoxy in the debate on energy price caps. But if we apply Ockham's razor to the issue of household energy costs, we might at least advance the debate and come closer to finding a solution to at least one issue concerning voters.
http://www.hl.co.uk/shares/stock-market-news/company--news/persimmon-to-cut-down-on-welsh-developments
Climate change committee was going to mention the fact that hardly any warming has occurred in the last 15 years, but deleted references to it at the last moment.
Michael Crick @MichaelLCrick
Congrats to my superb former Newsnight colleague Rhodri Jones, new home news ed of C4News, one of very best BBC prods I ever worked with
Lord Ashcroft @LordAshcroft
If a banker gets a pound bonus the taxman gets 45p. If he doesn't Bank pays 23p in tax. So each pound of bonus not paid costs the taxman 22p
But be assured, come the day, most will return to the Tory fold as they realise the whole UKIP adventurette has been just a bit of fun and something to chat about at dinner parties (supper parties, even).
I give UKIP 3-5% come GE2015 with ironically the iSams of this world (Lab=>UKIP switchers) as the most committed.
Vote share:
Con 30.5%
Lab 29.6%
UKIP 25.1%
Lib Dem 10.7%
Green 1.6%
Other 2.5%
Does anyone have a "life expectancy" vs MP chart? Basically, "live in a Labour Constituency and die early" type thing
2001 Jan - 2010 Jan : Decrease of - 23.27%
2010 Jan - 2013 Aug Increase of + 4.24%
Updare uses latest data from Aug rather June 2013.
Correction replaces wrongly transcribed 2010 Jan Index data.
Net effect is to narrow the spread and impact but without altering the significance of the argument.
A three-tier PR system operates in Austria.
Just asking, Robert.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2432626/Ed-Milibands-Marxist-father-real-reason-wants-drag-1970s-DOMINIC-SANDBROOK.html
Although I think EdM's ideal society is closer to Honecker's East Germany than Wilson's Britain.
No more Boom and Bust
1. Chocolate sponge
2. Apricot jam
3. Chocolate icing
If so eat with a dollop of whipped cream and a glass of iced water.
After all the provocative thetoric directed toward the EU, could it really after all come down to the economy improving?
"A once-prominent member* of the English Defence League (EDL) is on the run from police after being found guilty of a violent attempted robbery.
Guramit Singh Kalirai was sentenced to six-and-a-half years after a shop keeper was tied up and threatened with a knife in Hucknall, Nottinghamshire ."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-24302563
* I have read elsewhere as being quoted as co-founder of.
The system is a bit bizarre (and hard to find a definitive version in English). But here goes...
There are 183 seats in total, and the country is divided into 43 multi-member constituencies, grouped by the 9 states (Lander) and Vienna.
Tier I: to win a seat in a constituency a party must exceed the Hare quota for the state. Consequently, many constituency seats and even entire constituencies remained unfilled. At the constituency level, seats are filled by semi-open list. A candidate who receives >one sixth of his party's votes as personal votes jumps up the list order. It has rarely happened...
Tier II: at the state level, the Hare quota is applied again, and parties are allocated their state seat entitlement minus any seats they have won at the constituency level. There is again a semi-open list, with a twist. The preferential vote is by write-in... Don't think it's ever had any effect in changing list order.
Tier III: at the national level, overall seat entitlement is calculated by D'Hondt, with a 4% national threshold, or winning one seat in Tier I. Seats won in Tier I and Tier II are deducted from the national total. Overhang seats won in those tiers are kept. The national list is a closed list.
The overall proportions of seats won in each tier is not fixed, and varies depending on how the actual votes fall.
In 2008 it was:-
Tier I: 38%
Tier II: 43%
Tier III: 19%
@Mancman10 @Tom_Waterhouse from this point & with the Euros looming, 9% in GE15 would be disappointing for us [UKIP] Ian. We can do better.
twitter.com/oflynnexpress/status/383634670719496192
"...they will provide us with a platform for advance in the 11 months between the contests - just watch us use it."
Comrades! This is your captain! It is an honour to speak to you today! And I'm honoured to be sailing with you on the maiden voyage of our Motherland's most recent achievement. And once more, we play our dangerous game. A game of chess... against our old adversary, the Conservative Party! For a hundred years, your fathers before you and your older brothers played this game... and played it well. But today, the game is different. WE have the advantage! It reminds me of the heady days of 1945 and Clement Atlee, when the world trembled at the sound of our Nationalisations. Now they will tremble again - at the sound of our silence. The order is: engage the Energy Policy Freeze! Comrades! Our own activists don't know our full potential! They will do everything possible to test us, but they will only test their own embarrassment. We will leave our activists behind! We will pass through the Conservative patrols, past their sonar nets, and lay off their largest parliamentary constituency, and listen to their braying and tittering... while we conduct Anti-Austerity debates! And when we are finished, the only sound they will hear is our laughter, while we sail to Brighton, where the sun is warm, and so is the... comradeship. A great day, comrades! We sail into history!
You don't have to be White British to be Islamophobic
The Tier stuff was an attempt to bring MPs (or some of them, at least) closer to their voters, a nod towards FPTP, if you like. Doesn't really work though...
Woody Allen's new film "Blue Jasmine" starring Cate Blanchett is getting some pretty good reviews:
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/reviews/film-review-blue-jasmine--cate-blanchett-delivers-astounding-performance-as-fallen-park-avenue-princess-8842086.html
http://www.theguardian.com/film/2013/sep/19/blue-jasmine-review
http://islamizationwatch.blogspot.co.uk/2009/09/race-riot-flared-after-muslims-were.html
But I have walked the full length of the A13 from Aldgate to Shoeburyness (albeit in its original 1922 route) in both directions. Not all at once, mind!
•Jeb Bush (R) 52%
•Hillary Clinton (D) 38%
•Paul Ryan (R) 50%
•Hillary Clinton (D) 38%
•Rand Paul (R) 49%
•Hillary Clinton (D) 39%
•Chris Christie (R) 47%
•Hillary Clinton (D) 38%
•Ted Cruz (R) 44%
•Hillary Clinton (D) 41%
Well, "The Hunt for Red October" in Russian is:
Охота за Красным Октябрем (Okhota za Krasny'im Oktyabrem)