Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Alistair Carmichael at 40-1 is a great bet for next LD lead
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Alistair Carmichael at 40-1 is a great bet for next LD leader
The big surprise in last week’s re-shuffle was the sacking of Scottish Secretary, Michael Moore, and his replacement by the Lib Dem Chief Whip, Alistair Carmichael.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
1 hour 1 second
FPT Like like like :-) Also divert some money to practical fusion research not the white elephant of ITER
Of course the share price reflects profits but my question was how does a depressed share price prevent investment? If you don't understand the function of the stock market just say so instead of your continuous bluster
The nation is long overdue, 50 years as it happens, a Scottish noble as party leader. Bring forward Viscount Thurso is the cry !!
That's a brilliant quote.
With Chilton potentially being tossed overboard, it seems British drivers may become a bit scarcer as Di Resta is also uncertain of a seta next year:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/24575496
Moaning about the team may, in my view, be a factor in this. In the piece, his representative says [at the end]:
"He hasn't produced the results he would want to produce, but overall it is the team under-delivering on what it should have delivered."
You could argue that's true. But when you want a team to give you a seat for next year implying they're a bit shit isn't the way to endear oneself.
Summary of last night's polling:
@UKGENERALELECTIONS2015
17th October COUNCIL BY ELECTION RESULTS
LD GAIN 1 HOLD 2
LAB HOLD 2
CON HOLD 1 LOSE 1
I saw the greatest film of all time last night, and it was a Scottish film to boot.
Not Another Happy Ending.
It features Karen Gillan, who took her kit off in the film.
"Since her stint as Amy Pond in Doctor Who, Karen Gillan has acquired a devoted fan base. This lame romantic comedy, set in Glasgow, may test their loyalty to breaking point."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/filmreviews/10370429/Not-Another-Happy-Ending-review.html
I've never seen Carmichael before unless I've bumped into him on Sauchiehall Street. Doesn't look like a Lib Dem but then Chris Huhne doesn't look like an ex con
It's about market confidence. A high share price means high market confidence. The companies need to obtain credit to pay for these massive schemes - few companies have that much space cash. That debt that needs servicing, and there is an interest rate to be paid. If the company giving credit believes the health of the debtor is good, they will get a lower rate, as they can be confident it will be repaid.
If the company's health is poor, or the future is uncertain, the rate will be higher. All future investment projects are risky to some degree, and there will be best and worst cases. A small increase in the cost of servicing debt can overwhelm projected profit margins and make a project potentially loss-making. Therefore the project will not happen, as the risk has increased too much.
This could be avoided if the government were to guarantee the loans, as they do with Network Rail. But this has several downsides: it really needs to be on the government's books as it is a government liability (NR isn't thanks to Brown), and it gives the companies receiving the loans little reason to be efficient, as they have less risk. Indeed, it could be seen as free money.
If we go down that road, the government has to procure the debt themselves, and really screw the companies down on what is done. No more DBFO / PFI.
I can see that a Scottish leader in the aftermath of a No vote may save a few Scottish seats in 2015, particularly if a new face is wanted for that election.
If a Yes vote he may still be party leader, just in a foreign country!
He would make the LibDems look like a distant fringe party just as they were when Jo Grimind was their leader.
Ignore the sozzled Reverend saying "Death awaits you! You have made a covenant with death, and with Hell you are in agreement. You're all going to die! Don't you realise? Can't you see? You're all going to die! Die! Death awaits you all!"
And remember "You mean your only plan is to stand behind a few feet of mealie bags and wait for the attack?" Works.
OCH! IT'S GRUESOME!!!!
Perfect LD political leader material.
And Scotland's MPs may no longer be in Westminster after 2014/5
Because his idiocy has also damaged investment in energy.
But then again do we need other people building power stations when Osborne has decided that PFI deals with the Chinese government is the new strategy.
Can I assume that all those people who have previously condemned Gordon Brown's misuse of PFI also condemned Osborne ?
Wrong answer. Just stop blustering for once. We're not talking a corner shop.
There are occasions when a company can go to the market for finance through rights issues etc where a healthy share price is useful but it's clear you haven't the faintest idea of the relationship between infrastructure investment and share price
The LDs are exactly where they should and want to be - in government.
Was it 95%+ that gave the coalition a thumbs up at their post-2010 conference? Of course it was. They are in a fantastic position affecting policy and making a difference.
LD and Cons fantasists may wish it was otherwise and berate their parties for not being in power but both sides are doing as best they can within a coalition.
So for the LDs to want to change it all with a new leader and out of coalition is bonkers and effectively a yearning for a return to the outcast years.
http://www.denofgeek.com/movies/jurassic-world/27773/confirmed-bbcs-nick-robinson-not-in-jurassic-park-4
14 minutes 14 seconds
That said, as we all know, the next major military conflict will be an unforeseen one and as PRC does have nukes then in a quaintly old-fashioned way, they might represent a conventional nuclear threat at some point.
11 minutes 11 seconds
I can remember when Vince Cable used to be taken seriously, that's how old I am.
Betting PostBacked Ferrer to beat Verdasco 2-0 in the IF Stockholm Open at 2.62. Although they have a head-to-head of 9-7, Verdasco hasn't won since 2010. Ferrer's won the last 5 encounters, 4 of them 2-0, and he won all 3 (within those 5) Hard court matches 2-0.
Some have staged sit-ins, gone on hunger strike or even threatened to kill themselves if they are not allowed to cross the Channel.....
Ahmed and Ali told BBC Radio 5 live why they wanted to come to Britain: "Britain would provide us with shelter. France gives us nothing."
The deputy mayor of Calais, Philippe Mignonet, speaking to BBC Radio 5 live's Victoria Derbyshire programme, says Britain is a target for Syrian refugees because it is regarded as a "paradise" for people trying to start new lives.
He says mafia gangs are operating in his town and charge more than £10,000 (11,800 euros) per person to smuggle someone into Europe.
Mr Mignonet called for more support from the EU in dealing with the problem.....
France is one of 12 countries in Europe that have agreed to offer a limited number of Syrians the right to resettle.
The group in Calais have been told by French officials they would be able to claim asylum in France, with a 95% chance of success. Most, though, still seem determined to cross the Channel and are angry at how they have been treated in France."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-24573575
So why do they want to come to the UK? Generous benefits is the only answer and our ECHR favouring judges. The obvious remedy is in the hands of IDS and Mrs May but of course the LDs will try and block any such action as they are in favour of nigh unlimited immigration.
"I can remember when Vince Cable used to be taken seriously, that's how old I am."
The old one's are always the best!
You just don't get it.
I have explained it twice now. Instead of accusing me of blustering, why not provide a coherent explanation of your argument? Because you haven't provided one so far.
18th September 2014
Should Scotland Be An Independent Country ?
Yes 39.5% (-2.5) .. No 60.5% (+2.5)
Scotland remains part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
I'm not going to disagree with the top part of your post, but given nuclear power is about 70% more expensive that coal or gas, who do you think is going to buy this power?
Baseload electricity pricing in Europe is:
Nordpool (i.e. the Nordics) €39/MWh (i.e. £32-33)
France €53.60 (i.e. £45)
Germany €41.90 (i.e. £35)
Now, given that EDF and the Chinese won't build a nuclear plant unless they're offered £92 for 35 years, why would anyone with half a brain think that building a nuclear power plant a year, would give us cheap electricity to sell?
(And before I hear anyone bleating about bad negotiations, it's worth noting that there were plenty of bids in the £100-100/MWh range, it's just wasn't economic for most companies to bid below £100)
And there has been plenty of tension over Taiwan (not to say the Spratlys) of late.
It's not an unimaginable scenario for there to be critical tension over Taiwan while China maintains its push into the global markets and continues its capitalism-with-Chinese-characteristics progress.
So it is a perfectly coherent position to welcome China into the brotherhood of capitalist nations on the one hand and fear they may "have a moment" territorially on the other.
Baseload electricity pricing in Europe is:
Nordpool (i.e. the Nordics) €39/MWh (i.e. £32-33)
France €53.60 (i.e. £45)
Germany €41.90 (i.e. £35)
Now, given that EDF and the Chinese won't build a nuclear plant unless they're offered £92 for 35 years, why would anyone with half a brain think that building a nuclear power plant a year, would give us cheap electricity to sell?
(And before I hear anyone bleating about bad negotiations, it's worth noting that there were plenty of bids in the £100-100/MWh range, it's just wasn't economic for most companies to bid below £100)
Whilst you are on, I asked a question the other day about relative prices over time. I assume the cost of gas/oil/coal is the main price driver in power generation, whilst in nuclear it is the construction costs.
As the price of gas/oil/coal will probably only increase over the 25-30 year lifespan of a new plant, is there a point when the nuclear power will be cheaper than the alternatives?
Or are there other costs which increase for nuclear, in line with oil/gas/coal? It would be interesting to see how the cost of nuclear power increased between (say) 1970 and 2000, in comparison to gas and coal.
"So why do they want to come to the UK? Generous benefits is the only answer and our ECHR favouring judges. The obvious remedy is in the hands of IDS and Mrs May but of course the LDs will try and block any such action as they are in favour of nigh unlimited immigration."
You're a compassionate soul aren't you? Why not use water cannons on them. That'll chase them back to Syria
Meanwhile, very quiet on here this morning. Surprised there is so little comment on Greg Barker's incisive analysis of the energy price rises.
All very odd.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/9490712/Energy-companies-overcharge-customers-by-600m.html
Err...
- "... to out-smart Salmond"
Planet Earth calling Mr. Smithson...
- "... is why he’s been given the job"
Nope. Not so.
- "... a big personality"
You do know that Salmond has bettered * real * "big personalities": John Smith, Donald Dewar, Jim Murphy etc. Carmichael is not even in the ballpark.
This thread makes me think that Mike really has lost it. Both in terms of betting tips, and in terms of political astuteness.
Just explain precisely why they want to trek across Europe to reach the UK. What is wrong with settling in Greece, Italy, Germany or France?
Watts Up With That @wattsupwiththat
Michael Mann’s boss at Penn State – Dean William Easterling – falsely claims to be a Nobel laureate on his CV. fakenobellaureates.com
The split of roughly 10-20-30-20-10 centred on, well, the centre, with 10% awkward buggers who won't say, seems like the sort of thing that might be stable over time, while party ID seems problematic when your opinion poll is hoping to capture changes in opinion, and past-vote recall seems to be misremembered. What do people think?
Best prices:
LAB 1/3 (Betway, BetVictor)
SNP 4/1 (Hills)
LD 89/1 (Betfair)
CON 200/1 (Hills)
Wish for these big long odds tips, "Site will be updated at 11:00 AM" or some such with the tip... I know its not a pure tipping site, but it is frustrating to miss out on great value like this. He is now 14-1. I don't think that is value.
But Nicol Stephen? Tavish Scott ? Willie Rennie? Michael Moore? Jo Swinson? Alistair Carmichael? None of them come even close to cutting the mustard.
The SLDs have, by far, the weakest front-bench of the 4 principal parties. Which is really saying something. Have a look at the rabble representing SLab and Scon!
Assuming Clegg remains leader until the 2015 GE, and that the Lib Dems are not in government following that election, then Carmichael will have the advantages of: retaining his Westminster seat, being a former Cabinet minister, being Scottish Secretary at the time of a "No" vote on Scottish independence (assuming there is not an AV-style swing in voting intention on this referendum), not being as old as Cable.
That's a pretty impressive list for 40-1.
Department of Energy and Climate Change minister Greg Barker has stated that energy company profits, frequently criticised by many, are necessary to fund new power generation plants in future.
His comments were published as further speculation emerged that additional rises in energy prices would soon be announced.
Among these, British Gas is expected to raise its household energy prices by up to 8 per cent.
Mr Barker told the Daily Mail: “I think overall we have got the lowest electricity prices in Europe and the fourth lowest gas prices.”
Reforms to the Energy Bill and tariffs had increased competition and would see consumers “get a better deal”, he said.
http://www.hvnplus.co.uk/news/government-backs-energy-company-profits/8653363.article
"The principle that Ed Miliband is articulating is much more damaging and goes beyond the question of how we deal with the Big Six [energy companies] specifically and their impact on consumer bills. We are all concerned about the impact of energy bills on the cost of living, but the way Miliband has responded to that in the long-term, and also in fact in the quite near-term, will have a profound impact in driving up the cost of energy."
Barker claimed that the political uncertainty Miliband had created would lock out competition, raise the cost of capital and drive away foreign investors, making it harder to attract the investment needed into the sector.
"The one thing we have been trying to do is deliver transparency, longevity and certainty and Ed has smashed it to smithereens," he said.
http://www.greenwisebusiness.co.uk/news/greg-barker-attacks-labours-energy-price-freeze-plan-4112.aspx#.UmDy_VPWr0c
30 seats? Carmichael wouldn't have a hope in hell.
40 seats? Carmichael still wouldn't have a hope in hell.
50 seats? Carmichael would have less chance than Charlie Kennedy, who would also be one of the remaining 12 LD MPs. And we all know that Kennedy will never be LD leader again.
60 seats? OK, fair enough, with only two LD MPs left, Carmichael might be in with a shout. He'd be value at 5/1 in such a scenario.
(Note: Shadsy reckons that the Lib Dems will only lose about 25 MPs at the next UK GE. Shadsy is rarely in the wrong ballpark.)
It's a measure of desperation that some have been casting around for options and landed on Carmichael after mere days in a job he himself said was unnecessary. Farron is still a far more realistic choice and maintains enough distance from the coalition to not be seen as a continuity Clegg candidate should enough panicking lib dem MPs decide that they might be able to save their skins with a change of leader to boost the lib dems electoral fortunes just before the general election. But if the question is might Carmichael be a better bet than wee Danny then sure, fill your boots.
This goes on and on.
Pathetic really.
There are certain things that David Cameron, as leader of the Yes campaign, has done really well. Like appointing Alastair Darling as his man in the northern province.
Not everything that Labour or the Tories do is desparate. In fact, much of Project Fear is very calculating and clearly planned.
It is just the weak Lib Dem flank of the Bitter Together outfit that is desperate. Carmichael is just the latest of the many straws the drowning men are clutching at. The icy seafloor awaits.
OK, so that's going to mightily P1$$ off every eco-freak on the planet, but as a solution to getting the 'nasties' out of everyone's way for 10,000+ yrs, that'll do nicely.
And who knows WHAT world we'll have in 12,000 ad?
The solution to most infrastructure problems is to do what's practical, beneficial and profitable today (rather than what's politically expedient) and allow tomorrow's problems to take care of themselves - as long as 'today' means 10yrs or so, not the next GE date.
Oh - and keep the accountants out of things until the engineers have drawn up details plans and specifications, so that the bean-counters don't produce a cut-down, cut-price, long-term liability of a solution.
I assume we no longer need nuclear stations to generate plutonium for Trident, since Sizewell B can do that alone?
I too noted that Moore's chances looked less than stellar before the reshuffle and so it proved but that hardly means his replacement is automatically a sure thing among other more established contenders like Farron.
In as much as you can extrapolate that much from the very small turnouts and distinctly local aspects of a council by-election on it's own, then Levens on South Lakeland (Lib Dem defence) last night seems reasonable proof that Farron still has a very solid base of activists around him which will be of crucial importance for any possible lib dem leadership contender who might fancy their chances. That has slightly more value than the few pundits that are extrapolating a possible Carmichael leadership after only a few days in job he himself considers superfluous. Though yes, his seat looks distinctly more safe than quite a few other lib dem MPs so if that is now the most important metric for lib dem leadership ambitions then I have no qualms at all in calling that desperate.
Hopefully your boxer shorts department stretches past two !!
I'm going to answer your question tangentially, if that's OK.
Any power plant has three costs:
- fuel
- operating expense / maintenance
- capital cost (i.e. construction)
In the case of a gas plant, two elements are low - construction cost, and operating expenses. A modern CCGT from Siemens or GE is low maintenance, and requires very few people to run. What is expensive (right now) is natural gas.
With coal, construction costs are slightly higher, not least because of the need to install expensive scrubbers to limit mercury and other emissions. In addition, there tend to be more employees at a coal fired power plant, and greater general maintenance costs. (Coal requires moving around, and there's dust and ash - things that simply are not the case with gas). On the positive side, in the UK, you pay about 60% less per raw joule of fuel (although this is tempered somewhat by the fact that coal plants are intrinsically single-cycle and generate about 20% less electricity per unit of energy).
Nuclear has enormous capital costs. Flamanville Unit 3 (which is admittedly first of a kind) is going cost more than $11bn for a 1.6GW plant (that's approximately 10-12x the cost of a similarly specced modern CCGT). Maintenance and operating expenses are also high, partly because bombarding metal with radiation causes it to become brittle over time (and because the dangers of leaks are significantly worse than with a coal or gas plant). Fuel, on the other hand, is pretty inexpensive right now.
Wind is almost all capital cost. You build a windmill. You spend a small amount on maintenance and that's it.
Solar is even more all capex. There is next to no maintenance, beyond passing a damp cloth over the panels from time to time, and replacing the inverter every ten to fifteen years.
Now: could nuclear become cheaper on a 20 year view? Well, I'd argue the opposite is likely. Firstly, the cost of uranium has been held down by the Atoms for Peace programme which involved recycling fissionable material from nuclear weapons. That is nearing an end, and means there will be a disconnect between mined uranium and used uranium. Secondly, many of the world's most productive uranium mines are nearing the end of their life, and the Cigar Lake mine, which is meant to fill the shortfall, is running years behind schedule. Thirdly and finally, don't forget decommissioning and fuel recycling costs start to ramp as a nuclear plant nears middle age.
Goodness. Are labour trying to out-fop the tories?
Thanks for that comprehensive answer: it's different to the one I expected.
There must be long-term forecasts for gas prices? How are these seen as increasing or decreasing over (say) the next twenty years, if forecasts can in any way be accurate that far ahead.
Is there any way of knowing the unit cost of electricity provided from (say) Sizewell B, the most recently-built reactor in the UK?
As for this latest amusing claim of a lib dem resurgence off the back of a scant few local election results. Well I think we can file that away with all the other lib dem resurgences Clegg predicted after the slightly more substantial hammerings they take at every May set of local elections. A claim which he will no doubt repeat after next May as well.
Labour MP speaks out on Unite.
http://ericjoyce.co.uk/2013/10/united-in-calamity/
"Unite’s over-riding problem is that its leadership has chosen to put politics, pseudo-ideology and career self-interest above the interests of Unite members. Unite has completely lost it focus; it’s raison d’etre even.
Unite is now powerless over workers pay and conditions in Grangemouth and unable to shift the dominant public perception that at the top it is a corrupted organisation whose highly-paid senior officials come first and whose members come la
Hilarious when he talked about 'young lads from Bermondsey or....er.....Brixton'
(note to PA: find out some more areas where poor people live....the hon TH).
zero
Without government subsidies (both explicit, like a price floor for 35 years, or implicit, like cheap funding or free insurance), nuclear power plants simply don't get built.
As an aside, nuclear decommissioning costs have actually been rather less than people expected. In the US, typical costs have been 20-25% below budget levels, although I'd be wary of reading too much into that as the sample size is small.
Overall: I could easily seen them getting mid-teens (c 16%) but would be surprised if they will lose more than about 10-15 seats. Happy to admit this is just gut feel based as haven't been through all the seats in detail, so I am sure you could convinced me otherwise on the seat total if not the vote share.
Not a good result, but not a calamity either as they will still be a highly relevant party.
LOL
Poor wee Danny. He could personally stand at the petrol pumps handing out fivers all day and it won't change his yellow tory image problem. Priceless.
Given the green dogma that has affected all three main parties, he has no other choice.
Like all mainstream politicians, he has taken a giant can of green emulsion and painted himself into a corner.
Politicians are all desperate to prevent the public from knowing their culpability in this matter.
It would only take some genius to work out what energy prices would be if we went back to 100% coal for the secret to be out.
Do your research. Harper let slip last night on QT it costs 15 grand to throw out every illegal immigrant.
Texts are way much cheaper.
What forecast for gas would you like? I can find you five or six people, who will give you wildly different answers :-)
Personally, I suspect the (imported) price of gas in the UK is going to fall from $10-15 (depending on whether it is Norwegian long-term contracts or spot LNG cargoes, is going to drop to $6-10 on a fifteen year view. This is based on three factors
- We will see gas exports out of North America, and there is a ton of new LNG coming out of Australia and East Africa
- Floating LNG will open up discoveries and regions that were previously uneconomic
- We will begin to exploit tight and shale gas in Europe and North Africa
This view tends to make me very sceptical of building lots of new nuclear. Pretty much the only reasons I can see to spend the money on nuclear at £92/MWh is (a) because we worry about importing fuel from abroad (although uranium is imported too); or (b) because we want to put a big premium on diversity of supply.
You can just see it coming can't you? The taxpayer taking a gargantuan bath on nuclear as the price of other forms of energy drops through the floor. And all to pose as saving the polar bear, a task where we have no influence as a tiny pontificating speck on the globe.
Our politicians shouldn't be let near a market stall, let along government.
Owned that is, until 2006 when the Labour government of Blair and Brown flogged it to Toshiba.
' The sale surprised many industry experts who questioned the wisdom of BNFL selling one of the world's largest producers of nuclear reactors shortly before the market for nuclear power was expected to grow substantially'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westinghouse_Electric_Company
National Lottery: In It to Win It, BBC1
Dale Winton: David and Ed Miliband are members of which political party? Labour, Conservative or Liberal Democrats?
Contestant: This is a pure guess: Lib Dems.
Pointless, BBC1
Alexander Armstrong: Who was the former Tiller Girl who became the first female speaker of the House of Commons?
Contestant: Er, Margaret Thatcher?
Armstrong: What “F” is what MPs do in the chamber to try to delay a bill?
Contestant: Fight.
(Previous comment deleted.)
I think there is a reasonable premium to pay for diversity of supply (who knows where gas prices will be on a 10, 20 or 30 year basis). There is also value in maintaining a highly technical skill base in the UK, and in the lack of pollutants vs coal. Moreover, the lack of a need for storage facilities is also helpful, as is the contribution to baseload
As part of the energy supply, I don't have a real issue with paying up for one type. The issue really arises when, for political reasons, governments want an ever increasing portion of energy to come from the most expensive and unreliable source.
I'm surprised you see gas decreasing in price so much, as my assumption had been the opposite. However, you've given some good evidence for your view, so I'm going to have to alter my view.
Darn you! ;-)
However, I think it's too early to knock nuclear out of the running. Diversity of supply is important IMHO. In addition, a great deal less uranium is needed, and can be much more easily stockpiled ahead of time.
And we should frack on.
With a new more labour friendly leader at the helm instead of Clegg? Possible but the longer Clegg taints the lib dem brand the less utility that move has and the shorter and less substantial the honeymoon period a new lib dem leader would enjoy.
The lib dems have an ever diminishing chance of getting a hung parliament with every MP they lose. A fact few people seem to want to acknowledge, particularly those spinning for Clegg.
Perhaps a better approach would be to say Labour has no seats in the south expect in the bits where it does.
Tomorrow, the north is not in the north, expect for the bits that vote Tory.
[That's been the reason we've had nuclear since 1950's, but politicians keep quiet about that UK design requirement. Other designs are/were available but which did not produce the plutonium needed, so we had designs with a higher down-time (and consequently higher cost per kw/hr) to produce our Cold War weaponry needs.
I don't knock or criticise any government, ever, for doing this - just for not being honest enough to say so!]
Ed Davey's cold feet on fracking shows the lib dems are quite happy to make energy as expensive as possible for as many people as possible.