Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The CON European leader is in UKIP’s sights
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The CON European leader is in UKIP’s sights
Many expect UKIP to do well in next year’s European elections. The bookmakers have the purple party at 7/4 to get the most MEPs, with Labour the 4/5 favourite and Conservatives on 4/1. The purple party can look forward to plenty of media coverage and the recent conference embarrassments involving Godfrey Bloom don’t appear to have had much wider impact with their support.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
I wonder where those votes will go....
Isn't that as important as UKIP vs Con?
Surely, if Labour doesn't get 2 seats then it leaves (most likely) 1 for UKIP and 1 for the Tories?
I really can't see Labour winning two of the seats. If anything I see Labour voters staying at home as outside Tyne & Wear and Hartlepool no council elections are taking place that day.
2009 % Lab 25 Con 19.8 LD 17.6 UKIP 15.4
So with Labour at 30%....third placed party should be lower than 15%
Lab at 32, third place lower than 16
Lab at 35, thid place below 17.5
So Callanan will be the only incumbent standing.
Judith Kirton-Darling leads Labour list. And she assured to go to Strasbourg. Paul Brannen has the second spot on Labour list.
LD list is ahead by Angelika Schneider
UKIP General Secretary Jonathan Arnott tops UKIP list. He's from Sheffield.
Happy Friday to all on PB. I've just managed to get tickets to a "secret" Nick Cave gig in November so I'm nearly as smug as... well, no, tbh nowhere near as smug as SeanT (congratulations, by the way).
Obviously it's mischief making to attribute much of jumpergate to Cameron, it's a straightforward screw-up in the Number 10 machine. What should concern those who would like a Conservative majority is quite how amateurish the machine still appears to be. Reading the discussion, and Ed Davey's earlier comments, the obvious answer would have been something like "of course we expect people are sensible enough to wear warmer clothing when they're struggling to afford to heat their homes, but we know that energy prices are a challenge and that's why the Government are doing [insert policy plug and cheap dig at Ed's impact on energy prices]"
The only explanations for failing to do that are either a) being monumentally crap at press; b) not having an energy policy so trying to avoid talking about the issue with a rather stupid diversionary comment (and not recognising the consequences - see under (a) above) or c) being so out of touch with the idea of not being able to afford heating that you genuinely think that the pain people are suffering is having to turn the thermostat down to about 18 degrees, rather than not having the heating on at all, and in the middle of the winter having to wear coats in gloves inside all the time. Which is more where it's at with fuel poverty.
So the press/twitter has a nice silly Friday story to make the government look stupid, give some awkward questions to whichever minister has to do the weekend shows, and give yet more positive publicity to Ed's (popular) price freeze plan. It's not fair, mature or sensible but you'd have thought that Cameron would have come to terms with the world he has to do business in by now.
Oh, and FWIW, I quite liked tim's badgers/jumpers/goalposts gag... I guess it's just me.
@TGOHF
A bigger disappointment for the voters - 1074 voted Con & Ukip and GOT Labour who polled 646.
Ukip are Labour's biggest friend.
------------------
Absolutely wrong TG, and au contraire! The Conservatives are Labours biggest friend.
Expect Ed Miliband to call for Marks & Spencer to freeze price of jumpers and cardigans. #jumpergate
;-)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Arnott
- Assuming LibDems lose 35% of their vote, directly shifting to Labour
- All other Labour changes net each other out
- Labour vote is: 183,600
- Therefore third largest party is maximum of 91,800
- Therefore Tories need to lose c. 20% of their vote, assuming most to UKIP,
Doesn't seem very likely?
This is, of course, remarkably similar to the deals the government did with wind farm operators. People who built wind farms did so on the basis of 15 (or is it 18, I forget) year power purchase agreements - i.e. contracts. It is perfectly possible to stop issuing new contracts; it is not possible to invalidate existing ones.
So, when UKIP says they will stop green subsidies, they (presumably) mean they will not guarantee the price of electricity generated from new wind farms.
However, it is UKIP policy to invest in nuclear power. As no-one will build a nuclear plant in Britain unless guaranteed at least £93/MWh, this will cause bills to rise. (I find it mildly amusing that we are guaranteeing a floor for nuclear that is almost exactly the same as the price we offer for wind, but there we go.)
Labour 34.1% Con 18.6 LD 17.8 UKIP 12.2 BNP 6.4
UKIP 124
Con 106
LD 59
Green 49
BNP 30
Best guess assuming similar turnout level
norman smith @BBCNormanS 2m
I'm expecting significant announcement on energy bills from @nicolasturgeon at #snp13
https://twitter.com/johnprescott/status/391191804432764928/photo/1
"Cold reception at home? Don't shag your diary secretary".
*However*, it is not quite as clear as all that: the latest gas plant is typically 97-99% available (because they require very little maintenance), coal is a less (because of slow turn-off, turn-on cycles and greater maintenance need). Nuclear is designed to be 90% available, but typical availability is more likely to be 80-85%. Worse than that, if there's a problem at one reactor, you often have to take out similar ones for maintenance at the same time, so - while the problem is nowhere near as severe as with wind - you do need reliable (usually gas) backup power with nuclear too.
Greens doing an open online primary
http://europeangreens.eu/news/green-primary-easy
The Socialists seem to be doing a primary but letting the parties choose whether it's open or closed.Not sure what everyone will be doing. But it sounds like it'll be a not-very-inspiring shoo-in for Martin Schultz.
Not sure what the EPP will be doing.
Seems to me a mix of coal, gas, nuclear and a little windmill in notting hill is the right combination
http://www.slideshare.net/IpsosMORI/scottish-government-approval-rating-increases?ref=http://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/3283/Scottish-Government-approval-rating-increases.aspx
Never heard of him.
Troughers enjoying themselves in Brussels restaurants should not be confused with real politicians doing a real job. And that includes Nigel Mirage.
I don't think I will be waiting up for this one.
but with 10 MEPs up for grabs in the NW it's much more open and I'd be interested in predictions there. Smaller parties have much more chance of sneaking in on a low vote when there are this many to be elected - as the BNP did last time.
It's a much fairer voting system than FPTP, but would be better still if the regions were vaguely equally sized.
Just seen Verdasco pulled out, so the Ferrer 2-0 tip neither wins nor loses. Oh well.
UKIP did so well in the South Shields by-election that Labour's share of the vote actually fell, which is unusual for an opposition party in mid-term.
If UKIP do well in the North-East in the Euros then that will also act to limit the increase in Labour's share of the vote, so it's hard to see beyond one seat each for Labour, UKIP and Conservative, with no-one particularly noticing the order.
http://www.fbu.org.uk/?p=7583#more-7583
Are you really of the opinion that we should offer nothing but standard and first class on British trains even if additional options could raise additional revenues?
Be interesting to see if that involves removal/reduction of VAT, green levies or some other mechanism. Just commanding that it be so is incredible, but given the rate of VAT and green-related charges that could make bills 5% lower than they would otherwise be.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1377051/Ed-Miliband-happy-pose-council-estate-seen-travelling-class.html
(Includes a photo of Dave especially for tim)
@BBCNormanS: SNP say will fund energy saving measures - axed from fuel bills - through EU Emissions Trading scheme #snp13 #indyref
They better get moving on some legal advice about actually being a member of the EU then...
Not sure how that is reconciled with the SNP's tremendous enthusiasm for green energy such as wind and tidal power. Are the subsidies for these simply to come from general taxation? Oh why not? Maybe they will copy Labour and have a bankers bonus tax up here as well.
It might give us a hint at what is going to be in the next budget though.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/oct/18/snp-conference-nicola-sturgeon-and-john-swinney-gives-speeches-politics-live-blog
If buyers wish to speculate further on the future profitability of the business that's their look out. I wish them luck.
Each with its own standard of green tax - which went skyward under Labour.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-24568887
Cheaper energy but only if you vote Yes.
They would be better sticking to bankers bonuses. Taxing them pays for everything.
http://wallblog.co.uk/2013/10/18/that-british-gas-twitter-qa-car-crash-some-of-the-funniest-responses/
Of course, there's the rather more serious issue which is that UKIP MEPs make almost zero effort to fight for the UK's interests in the EU. A vote for UKIP in the European elections is a vote to allow us to be walked all over, and a vote for UKIP in the General Election is a vote for Ed Miliband and ever-closer union. Those are both rather more salient issues than whether Martin Callanan gets another term.
If you introduce a "premium economy" onto a train it is natural for people to assume this will be achieved by converting an existing standard class carriage, so people will feel that standard class will become more crowded, with the train company attempting to extort more money out of them for a seat.
https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTwWwfzuCwcpeGidBsCzswhg-6slGyGH7IsfeJ3i55slj0ZMNtU
One takes the Shadow Education limo.
I want to start today by asking you to give a warm conference welcome to our fabulous candidate for the Dunfermline by-election, Shirley-Anne Somerville.
Shirley-Anne will be an outstanding champion for the people of Dunfermline.
She is standing up for the hard won gains of our Scottish government."
http://www.snp.org/blog/post/2013/oct/nicola-sturgeon-conference-address.
Our Nicola is becoming more royalist than the king.
"At 22 August 2013, receipts from auctions under Phase 3 of the EU/ETS totalled approximately £224m, none of this will be recorded as taxes until next April, when the permits are surrendered."
See http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/about-ons/business-transparency/freedom-of-information/what-can-i-request/previous-foi-requests/government/classification-of-eu-ets-auction-receipts/index.html
So presumably Scotland's share of that is about 8%? About £18m? The next time the permits come up to auction? And this is going to result in permanent cuts how?
Even by SNP standards this really is ridiculous (unless I have missed something major).
Betting PostBacked Jovanovski to beat Wozniacki at 3.5 in the BGL BNP Paribas Luxembourg Open. Pondered this a bit. Jovanovski has won the last 2 meetings (both this year, but on clay) and they're 2-2 head-to-head. Wozniacki's won the only hard court meeting (same surface they'll be playing on) but it was 2-1 and not a slaughter. Both have pretty good recent records.
Whilst I suspect Wozniacki will win, I don't think in a two horse race she should be down at 1.38. Something like 1.7-1.8 would feel more accurate.
Anyway, I'll either look clever or moronic after the match.
Osborne is as bad as or worse than the previous lot when it comes to stealth taxes.
Right now, the Scottish Government invests around £80m a year on energy efficiency schemes to help meet our climate change targets and lower the costs of energy bills. A further £120m comes from a scheme designed in Westminster, operated through energy companies and paid for by a levy on your gas and electricity bills.
It is a disjointed approach, it doesn't take account of Scottish priorities and it's not as efficient as it could be. Independence will allow us to tackle fuel poverty much more directly, delivering Scottish solutions to Scottish problems, and ensuring that energy companies always behave in a socially responsible way to protect vulnerable customers.
Delegates,
I can announce today that an SNP government in an independent Scotland will remove the cost of energy saving measures and the warm home discount from energy bills. We will provide that funding from central government resources.That will mean direct government funding for fuel poverty schemes of at least £200 million per year. That money will be spent in a fully joined up way, on schemes designed in Scotland to meet Scottish circumstances.
And this won't just allow us to deliver our energy efficiency schemes more effectively. It will also save hard-pressed consumers money. We estimate that it will cut energy bills by around 5% - or £70 a year. Not a short term measure - but a real and lasting cut in Scottish energy bills."
Applause, tumultuous cheering, feet stamp. All stand.
Nice round numbers for the fiscally incontinent.
The Europarliament website has a map [pdf] of the regions, but it gives the number of MEPs for the 2004 elections. It does have a list of counties and unitary authorities in each region, though.
You could easily move Cumbria from the NW to the NE region, but without looking carefully I don't know whether it would be big enough to take an MEP with it. Hard to see how else you could divide northern England, without dismembering either Lancashire or Yorkshire - neither of which make any sense.
http://www.sportinglife.com/football/news/article/165/8977914/group-calls-for-hodgson-action
If the third class fares are cheaper than standard class fares are at the moment then I can't see a problem. Who reckons that will happen?
So the SNP are going to keep the green agenda, just send the massive bill to a different part of the economy.
Don;t you just love the left?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/24568089
If Hulkenberg stays then he must get a seat, and the Russian 17 year old (Sirotkin?) is guaranteed a seat, so Gutierrez goes. But if Hulkenberg goes then Sauber have indicated they can't see it as feasible to have a very young Mexican as team leader with a teenage Russian in the other seat.
If so, a bit of a shame. Gutierrez took a while to get it together, partly due to the car being a dog early on, but he's been performing well over the last few races.
The grievance industry isn't going to stand down by itself.
Ed's price freeze is also a complete farce. Everybody knows energy companies aren't really profiteering and it would only take a small uptick in prices for the whole system to break down completely. And that price uptick is virtually guaranteed because Ed the green has decreed that , verily, the people shall only use the 'right' type of energy.
Why don;t you just admit that the whole political establishment is in a desperate state on this topic? The complete folly of their ludicrous set of priorities is now being exposed to the electorate.
And its a situation entirely of their own making.
I think they are 12-18 year contracts for offshore wind and slightly longer for onshore wind.
As for the later subject if large tidal projects (the Severn and Thames barrages) they both start at an estimated cost of £17bn but would provide around 100 years of energy before requiring replacement, and have around a 5% ROI based on current subsidies offered. Companies need to be in for the long haul though as the first 10 years of operation would not be profitable.
"More interestingly, Sturgeon's also managed to answer a question I half-posed earlier. How have the SNP managed to remain so popular when they have been a party of government? Answer: Because they are still a party of opposition too. They are in opposition to Westminster. And, like all opposition parties, that means they can campaign on the basis of "We would do X differently" hypotheticals. (Governments cannot do this because, if they come up with a good idea, voters expect them to implement it.) "
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/oct/18/snp-conference-nicola-sturgeon-and-john-swinney-gives-speeches-politics-live-blog#block-526131f0e4b0760efba2af71
Osborne will be devastated!
1. In the case of nuclear, it is a price floor - so it cannot go below £92-93 for 35 years. In the case of wind, it's fixed price. So, if electricity prices rise, wind could turn out to be cheaper.
2. The owner of a windfarm has to buy their own third-party insurance; EDF gets it gifted to them.
I thought the 5% ROI on the Severn barrage was *before* subsidies, such as ROCs. Although it does - of course - depend on the price of electricity achieved.
One of the attractions of nuclear to the government that isn't immediately captured by the cost per MWh or ROI, is that it is a high tech, high skill industry which will keep alot of UK professionals and engineering firms employed - even if we buy alot of parts from abroad. There is also a hope that the engineering and manufacturing skills developed will be applicable in other fields and help UK exports. Certainly they will be hoping it does more for the UK economy than buying a bunch of windmills from Denmark.
The smaller the district magnitude the less scope for change.
1,1,1 is by far the most likely result, with UKIP replacing the LibDem seat.
He is so intensely aggravating it is unbelievable. Look at his website and see that for someone who claims to be a top barrister he is extraordinarily illiterate. Go to the Society of Black Lawyers website and look in vain for any details on leadership and number of members. What he is brilliant at, though, is exploiting the media's intense desire for stories. He gives then what they want, he is a barrister (ooh er) and he speaks on behalf of this legitimate-sounding organisation. That's all they need. Whether he represents anyone's views but his own is neither here nor there. He reminds me very much of those fanatic Moslem group spokespeople who get huge amounts of coverage without actually having any real support.
The Guardian posted a graphic giving the breakdown for a typical bill. The cost of the subsidy for large-scale renewables - that is the Renewable Obligation Certificates - is just £30 out of a typical £1267 household energy bill. That's less than 2.5%.
It's half the cost of the VAT added. It cannot possibly explain the vast increases in energy costs over the last decade or so. That is only explainable in terms of the increases in the price of gas and other fossil fuels.
Whats the MWH of an old fashioned coal fired belcher? Build thirty of those for fifty quid instead.
Phase the green stuff in much more gradually,as the technologies develop and the price drops.
Of course, that would be far too sensible for our politicians, who have put 'the planet' so far ahead of their f8cking voters its not true. It really is incredible.
Of course we do. What's the alternative? Ed says we can only use the 'right' sort of energy. Wind won't cut it so we have to spend untold billions at the rate the market wants now on nuclear.
Honestly your attempt to make a party political issue out of this really is pathetic. Ed would be doing the same and you know it.
We all know there's no alternative under the regime laid down by our current crop of politicians, and that includes ed. In fact its mainly ed.
He painted the double yellow lines everywhere under the last government, now he's moaning there's nowhere to park.
Rings very true. Perhaps the media should stop giving him the oxygen of coverage.
Feel very statist saying this, but shouldn't there be some kind of law banning organisations from mentioning race or sex in their name?
I thought the 5% was post subsidy, but I could be mistaken, a project with almost guaranteed 5% ROI with a possible subsidy still to come would surely have happened by now. A vehicle would have been created by EDF, Centrica and others to get the money together and hey would have started with that level of return on offer. It higher than Centrica's current company wide ROI for example.
The developments in technology will with time improve the ability of wind to deliver for us. If we'd supported the industry more reliably in the past we wouldn't now be importing so much of the hardware, but making it ourselves.
If the previous government hadn't sold the British state owned Westinghouse Electric Company (who design those reactors) to Toshiba in 2006, the Chinese would be paying us for nuclear power.
Well done to Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and Labour.