Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Blow for Change UK as it tried to complete formalities ahead o
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Blow for Change UK as it tried to complete formalities ahead of the possible May Euro elections
It has just been reported that the new party, change UK, has had its party logo rejected by the Electoral Commission on the grounds that it could “mislead voters”.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/apr/16/brexit-talks-with-government-have-stalled-says-corbyn
Then in their acceptance speech they can say:
"The wonderful thing about Tiggers is I'm the only one!"
(Sorry)
In fact they very much like stuff like the social chapter on holidays.
“The emblem also contained the acronym TIG, which we were not satisfied was sufficiently well known."'
From the link. "Not sufficiently well known" is a weird objection, since it would presumably damage tig and no one else; its not like being too similar to an existing logo. Also most people would have informally run their design past the Commision with a week in hand.
The clearly pro Remain parties not forming a one off alliance is bonkers (I appreciate it may have been hard in the time available)
http://energywatchgroup.org/wp-content/uploads/EWG_LUT_100RE_All_Sectors_Global_Report_2019.pdf
Electrification across all energy sectors is inevitable (see Figure KF-1) and is more resource efficient than the current system. Electricity generation in 2050 will exceed four to five times that of 2015, primarily due to high electrification rates of the transport and heat sectors. Final energy fuel consumption is reduced by more than 2/3 (68%) from 2015 numbers, as fossil fuels are phased out completely and remaining fuels are either electricity-based or biofuels. Electricity will constitute for more than 90% of the primary energy demand in 2050. This electrification results in massive energy efficiency gains when compared to a low electrification trajectory (see KF-1). Almost all of the renewable energy supply will come from local and regional generation....
Briefly skimming the assumptions in their model, which appear in the appendices at the end, they do not seem to have made any heroic assumptions about any of the technologies involved (all of which are currently demonstrable).
The biggest assumption seems to be the political policy lead involved - though given the compelling economic case, even that might be feasible.
Oh...ummm...sorry. Easy mistake to make...
The unkind might argue that the complete mix and muddle described in the submitted logo does indeed capture what the ChUKkers are about but that would be an unfortunate irony rather than an intended piece of marketing.
In the first instance, with no time to get the logo well-known, I'd suggest that they'd be best off superimposing black capitals 'CHANGE' over an outline of Britain.
No
And it is not a new party.
Maybe they aren't bothering to use the logo on the ballot.
As soon as they left their previous parties, they should have registered a new group. Instead, they seemed to take two months to realise that they'd taken an irrevocable step, couldn't go back and unless they were all happy to stand down at the next GE (possibly only weeks away), they'd need to organise as a party.
That lost time was critical as a reason for some of the errors being made now.
Bit weird. Going for Change UK (which is a daft name) and then trying to stick to the TIG line for the logo.
"Electricity generation in 2050 will exceed four to five times that of 2015, primarily due to high electrification rates of the transport and heat sectors"
This is quite an assumption - if we make use of hydrogen to decarbonise heating, then the growth in demand for electricity will not be quite so dramatic.
I feel like people (regardless of how they voted in the referendum) are just exasperated by the whole of "Westminster", so will be looking for the easiest way of protesting against the whole system, like in the 2009 Euro elections after the expenses scandal. Unfortunately for the LDs, despite having so few MPs, they'll still probably be grouped as part of "Westminster" (again like in the expenses scandal), in a way that the Greens won't be.
https://static.independent.co.uk/s3fs-public/thumbnails/image/2019/04/12/11/brexit-party-launch-9.jpg
Their MEP oflynn will stand in Peterborough if theres a by election
However Harris is definitely too short.
Syngas, as a means of energy storage/distribution is in the model in any event - but requires electricity for its production.
Heat pumps are in the main a cheaper option.
Although it could be worse. They might be the Tory and Unionist Party. Then they would be completely screwed...
if the bozos in government are struggling to agree with the EU what on earth makes them think they will progress with the maelstrom that is Trump ?
Nissan announces layoff of 600 workers in Catalonia
No deal with unions after four meetings; promised investment of 70 million euro up in the air
http://www.catalannews.com/business/item/nissan-announces-layoff-of-600-workers-in-catalonia
Google search: h21 north of england hydrogen
While the trends are certainly worth noting, they also need to be taken with a large dollop of caution.
(But how does Mike Gravel get *anyone* supporting him, with so many other candidates in the field?!)
Pause.
Ok, that's not gonna work...
In any event, that is hardly of importance to the major world population centres in 2050 - Asia and Africa.
That’s what happens when you have the EU collectively negotiate your trade deals. They end up being massively in favour of German and French industry, while screwing everyone else. Why does anyone think a customs union with the EU after we’ve left would be anything but an abysmal idea?
https://www.pollbludger.net
There'd be much more of a problem for UKIP/Brexit, who must already have a lot of bad blood between them anyway, when they have sitting MEPs to protect.
Of course, that implies an excess capital investment in those areas, which can only be recouped if renewable fuels are mandated.
The model is based on an assumption of zero emissions by 2050 - and clearly that requires a political lead - but demonstrates that it is achievable without making the cost of energy prohibitive.
Because that's a more convincing lie than the series Burgon's been telling over this.
https://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKCN1RS05W
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/the-latest-democratic-hopefuls-raise-75m-in-1st-quarter/2019/04/16/849274d4-6004-11e9-bf24-db4b9fb62aa2_story.html?utm_term=.43973d5bf1a4
One of the less believable of apologies, given his very firm denials previously. He would have known if he said something like that, and equivocated more. But it should pass muster with the party faithful, these sorts of things always do, left and right.