[Thatcher] was a good scientist unlike all the awful PPE wankers who have followed her,
Where does this myth come from? Her successors:
Major: University of Hard Knocks Blair: Law Brown: History Cameron: OK: PPE May: Geography Johnson: Literae Humaniores (Philosophy and Classics)
And if you seriously believe ancient Greek's for wimps, you're an even bigger wanker than Johnson. Which till now, I'd have thought impossible.
It’s not exactly useful though is it?
How "useful" is astrophysics? And in pure career terms: no undergraduate academic course on earth has, over the past 150 years, offered its graduates a higher chance of becoming head of its nation's government than Literae Humaniores at Oxford.
Johnson may be (sorry: undoubtedly is) the worst PM in this country's history. But, in choosing to do Classics at Oxford he made the shrewdest career decision any Briton can make.
Jeremy Corbyn is an incredible danger to the country.
I wouldn't be surprised if he got his wish and there were zero billionaires in the country after he spent 5 years in Downing Street. What impact that would have on the Exchequer shouldn't need pointing out ...
Would be interested to see your workings of the impact on the Exchequer of nil tax from billionaires and nil payment of benefits to people in poverty...
Are the Lib Dems going to seriously target anywhere outside London ?
South West and a couple of seats in Yorkshire.
SW: St. Ives looks a nailed on gain for the LibDems. After that, it's going to be hard graft.....
Truro & Falmouth looks winnable - Labour closer than expected in 2017, collapse towards LD vote in Euros, plus Sarah Newton standing down won't make life any easier for the Tories. Decent Green vote to harvest as well.
Maybe SE Cornwall too, though less likely.
I'd have thought StAlbans, Lewes, Truro, falmouth, Hallam, Ceredigeon, Fife NE, Leeds NW, Cheltenham, Yate (whatever it is called, Steve Webb's old patch), Berwick, Cambridge
Really prophesising the number of seats is a ridiculous and pointless exercise at this point in time, perhaps 5 weeks from today but even then. Why is so much thought and energy taken up by so many souls on this site. Nobody knows how the votes will fall in so many seats.
The most striking thing about these latest two polls, and other recent ones, is that the LibDems don't seem to be picking up the levels of support which one might expect given the political environment and the states of the two big parties.
Yes, the Lab/Lib balance is now around 2:1 whereas at one point it was looking pretty even. I think what we're seeing is what I call polarised disdain. You can't stand Boris Johnson? What the most anti-Johnson thing you can do? Vote Labour. You detest Jeremy Corbyn? How can you really express that? Vote Tory.
The LibDems have run their leaflet blitz on two themes: Jo Swinson is wonderful, and we'll revoke Brexit. The former hasn't really caught on as they expected, and, oddly, I think Brexit has been parked in many voters' minds, under the "it's getting sorted, more or less". Some are grateful, hence the Tory score, but others are turning their minds to other things, on which Labour has loads of policies and the LibDems have been largely silent.
and then it turns out the BBC did do it. On local news. Which is precisely why Jezza is doing these endless rallies. All aimed at regional TV and local news papers.
Whilst we're talking money, an interesting (to me, anyway) little anecdote:
I've put up my newest book on Smashwords (link at the end for those who like fantasy and/or comedy) with a 'you choose the price' approach. I'm expecting those who get it to pay nothing, with the hope they like it and then buy the other books in the series.
And I got a few free downloads (I get notified when people buy my books through Smashwords directly). This morning, someone paid well over the odds for it. Not sure if it was someone I know being generous, someone who had a free download and really liked it, or someone with enough cash to pay a paperback price for a potentially free e-book. But I thought that was interesting, and unexpected. (Later, a similar thing happened again).
People are more altruistic then they're given credit for. Although being generous in this instance provides two benefits. Firstly one feels virtuous, and secondly one supports the work of a creator that you wish to continue creating.
When it’s a voluntary choice and not because one is told that the route to morality is through virtue with failure to be virtuous makes one immoral.
Jeremy Corbyn is an incredible danger to the country.
I wouldn't be surprised if he got his wish and there were zero billionaires in the country after he spent 5 years in Downing Street. What impact that would have on the Exchequer shouldn't need pointing out ...
Really prophesising the number of seats is a ridiculous and pointless exercise at this point in time, perhaps 5 weeks from today but even then. Why is so much thought and energy taken up by so many souls on this site. Nobody knows how the votes will fall in so many seats.
To an extent but the poll trends, the word from canvassers on the ground, and upto date constituency polls gives a good indication of the direction of travel
[Thatcher] was a good scientist unlike all the awful PPE wankers who have followed her,
Where does this myth come from? Her successors:
Major: University of Hard Knocks Blair: Law Brown: History Cameron: OK: PPE May: Geography Johnson: Literae Humaniores (Philosophy and Classics)
And if you seriously believe ancient Greek's for wimps, you're an even bigger wanker than Johnson. Which till now, I'd have thought impossible.
It’s not exactly useful though is it?
How "useful" is astrophysics? And in pure career terms: no undergraduate academic course on earth has, over the past 150 years, offered its graduates a higher chance of becoming head of its nation's government than Literae Humaniores at Oxford.
Results or technological spin-offs from space sciences, astrophysics & particle physics include smart phones, the internet, GPS, weather forecast, CCDs, fibres for optical communications.
And these need to balanced against Boris Johnson and Flanner for Literae Humaniores.
It is no surprise you vote for the Party of Fools.
That's the problem with being a minor party. Not sure 'past electoral support and/or current support' aids their case as much as I personally would like to see her there for partisan reasons.
The one that came second in the last nationwide election
European Elections are Mickey Mouse protest votes not a General Election. Or do you think we will shortly have Prime Minister Farage?
Not at all there are no Mickey Mouse elections when everybody is eligible to vote the order of debates is simple 80% candidates across the UK gets you a place, 80% in Wales Scotland or NI gets you in the debates on local tv. No problem no arguament
Where has the 80% rule come from?
And the words used are 'past electoral support and/or current support' not 'proportion of candidates'. So you're suggesting if the OMRLP stand across the country then Howling Laud Hope should be in the debates but not the leader of the third largest party in Parliament?
F1: no qualifying tip. Looks very close. Was tempted by Bottas at 13 but the last two years he's been four-tenths off Hamilton in qualifying. Pre-race ramble will go up soonish.
Jeremy Corbyn is an incredible danger to the country.
I wouldn't be surprised if he got his wish and there were zero billionaires in the country after he spent 5 years in Downing Street. What impact that would have on the Exchequer shouldn't need pointing out ...
Would be interested to see your workings of the impact on the Exchequer of nil tax from billionaires and nil payment of benefits to people in poverty...
Are you suggesting Corbyn is proposing we abolish welfare? I don't think so somehow.
On a global level we already don't have people in poverty, which is why we talk about relative poverty instead.
Mr. Z, that may be legitimate criticism, but it's a far cry from declaring billionaires unacceptable.
Mr. F, for Labour to lose the People's Republic of South Yorkshire the vote would need to collapse.
Fracked maybe !!!
I agree with a post on PB a few weeks ago - there is a dividing line somewhere between Chesterfield/Mansield and Sheffield (ish) in a similar place to the Miners' Strike line, where the vote will be more likely to shift on South of that line.
One of our more interesting engineering billionaires actually lives in that zone - and started out with a support business for mining.
On fracking it is all populist politics, including the Scottish and Welsh Govts who have banned it. We are still waiting for an "earthquake" more violent than a train driving past, and the greenies have succeeded in keeping our gas supplies being at risk from the Iranian Government.
Weird.
Suspect that a careful legal strategy could drive a coach and fours through many of the Govt restrictions.
By the time of the debate LDs could be 30% behind the Tories and 20% behind Lab.
Plus keeping Swinson off screen is not a negative for them she's useless
It doesn't matter if she's useless she only has to be better than Johnson and Corbyn. That would be about as hard as beating a three legged tortoise in a marathon.
By the time of the debate LDs could be 30% behind the Tories and 20% behind Lab.
Plus keeping Swinson off screen is not a negative for them she's useless
It doesn't matter if she's useless she only has to be better than Johnson and Corbyn. That would be about as hard as beating a three legged tortoise in a marathon.
You have any evidence that she's any better than Johnson who is a three-times proven winner already?
Incidentally London Northwestern have invented a new game - musical trains. They couple three EMVs together on a random platform at New Street and you then guess which two are going to Northampton and which one to Rugeley. Almost everyone guessed wrong so there was much running around and confusion.
And then they announced it isn't going to Rugeley anyway but will short terminate at Hednesford.
There are many countries that have more billionaires per capita than us. Including countries like Sweden, Norway, Germany, Canada, and Denmark. You wouldn't want to live in most of the countries that have far fewer.
Mr. NorthWales, I'm more interested in how he's going to effect that.
Straightforward seizure of private property? Punitive taxation? Exile?
To some extent you are welcoming your new insect overlords. A small percentage of the billionaires are spiffy entrepreneurs reaping the just rewards of inventing a better vacuum cleaner. The rest are kleptocrats. We can tell this from the e scam.
Did you ever watch Wall Street? In it, Gordon Gecko attacked their businesses stagnated.
Now, CEOs are incentivised up to their eyeballs to drive share prices. It's been a key driver of disparities.
The problem is that many of those share prices have been driven DOWN.
If you incentivise people on the share price, and you have rewards that re.
And its the 'heads I win, tails you lose' which is a big driver of populism.
If the likes of Applegarth and Goodwin had ended up behind 'Homeless and Hungry' signs the country would have been a different place.
Most people who lose their jobs do not end up homeless and hungry, indeed many can live off savings until they find a new job as Applegarth and Goodwin did.
It was right they were removed from their paid posts after the bailouts, it would not have been right if all their savings were taken
A bit of advice before you start your phone canvassing.
Hundreds of thousands per year for life for failed bankers while the proles get statutory redundancy is not a vote winner.
It was Labour that bailed out the banks I would reply (the US at least let Lehmans dwin and Applegarth were sacked once the banks were bailed out they did not get redundancy pay
They got millions from ultimately the taxpayers.
And the process of different terms and conditions for the executive oligarchy to what the workforce receive continues.
They didn't beyond what they earnt pre bailout and if you confiscate the savings and pensions of sacked bankers you have to confiscate the savings and pensions of sacked cleaners and waiters and bank cashiers too, leading to far more homeless and hungry
Or is it the number of LibDems forecast to be elected? Or SNP?
BXP + Con is 53%
Simples.
Can't see that surviving to the end of the campaign. I suspect BXP will poll under 5% ultimately and can't see the Tories polling 48 . . .
I think the Conservatives will poll between 38% and 44%, and I suspect BXP will be 5-8%. I think there are a minority of Brexiteers who either would never vote Conservatives, or who believe any deal with the EU is by definition a sell out.
For the record, I am sceptical of the economics of fracking in the UK. But that is not a matter for central government regulation. Wealthy ecologists in North London shouldn't be deciding whether fracking is right for Blackpool - that should be a matter for the locals.
This is yet another area where, Brexit aside, I'm finding myself with very little reason to vote Conservative.
By the time of the debate LDs could be 30% behind the Tories and 20% behind Lab.
Plus keeping Swinson off screen is not a negative for them she's useless
It doesn't matter if she's useless she only has to be better than Johnson and Corbyn. That would be about as hard as beating a three legged tortoise in a marathon.
You have any evidence that she's any better than Johnson who is a three-times proven winner already?
She's won more votes in the House of Commons than he has *innocent face*
That's the problem with being a minor party. Not sure 'past electoral support and/or current support' aids their case as much as I personally would like to see her there for partisan reasons.
The one that came second in the last nationwide election
European Elections are Mickey Mouse protest votes not a General Election. Or do you think we will shortly have Prime Minister Farage?
So says HY, since we haven’t left by 31 Oct...
Had Boris willingly requested a further extension rather than most MPs doing so with Boris making clear his opposition to further extension that might have happened
That's the problem with being a minor party. Not sure 'past electoral support and/or current support' aids their case as much as I personally would like to see her there for partisan reasons.
The one that came second in the last nationwide election
European Elections are Mickey Mouse protest votes not a General Election. Or do you think we will shortly have Prime Minister Farage?
Not at all there are no Mickey Mouse elections when everybody is eligible to vote the order of debates is simple 80% candidates across the UK gets you a place, 80% in Wales Scotland or NI gets you in the debates on local tv. No problem no arguament
Where has the 80% rule come from?
And the words used are 'past electoral support and/or current support' not 'proportion of candidates'. So you're suggesting if the OMRLP stand across the country then Howling Laud Hope should be in the debates but not the leader of the third largest party in Parliament?
For the record, I am sceptical of the economics of fracking in the UK. But that is not a matter for central government regulation. Wealthy ecologists in North London shouldn't be deciding whether fracking is right for Blackpool - that should be a matter for the locals.
Is there anywhere where fracking is locally popular?
Or is it the number of LibDems forecast to be elected? Or SNP?
BXP + Con is 53%
Simples.
Can't see that surviving to the end of the campaign. I suspect BXP will poll under 5% ultimately and can't see the Tories polling 48 . . .
I think the Conservatives will poll between 38% and 44%, and I suspect BXP will be 5-8%. I think there are a minority of Brexiteers who either would never vote Conservatives, or who believe any deal with the EU is by definition a sell out.
Agreed. I suspect the BXP standing in every seat will help not hurt the Tories as Brexiteers who could vote Tories will do, but those who never will vote BXP instead of Labour. I don't think UKIP standing down in 2017 helped May.
That's the problem with being a minor party. Not sure 'past electoral support and/or current support' aids their case as much as I personally would like to see her there for partisan reasons.
The one that came second in the last nationwide election
European Elections are Mickey Mouse protest votes not a General Election. Or do you think we will shortly have Prime Minister Farage?
Not at all there are no Mickey Mouse elections when everybody is eligible to vote the order of debates is simple 80% candidates across the UK gets you a place, 80% in Wales Scotland or NI gets you in the debates on local tv. No problem no arguament
Where has the 80% rule come from?
And the words used are 'past electoral support and/or current support' not 'proportion of candidates'. So you're suggesting if the OMRLP stand across the country then Howling Laud Hope should be in the debates but not the leader of the third largest party in Parliament?
Absolutely it would increase the viewing figures
It would also substantially increase the seriousness and intellectual quality of the debate.
By the time of the debate LDs could be 30% behind the Tories and 20% behind Lab.
Plus keeping Swinson off screen is not a negative for them she's useless
It doesn't matter if she's useless she only has to be better than Johnson and Corbyn. That would be about as hard as beating a three legged tortoise in a marathon.
You have any evidence that she's any better than Johnson who is a three-times proven winner already?
She's won more votes in the House of Commons than he has *innocent face*
Being serious the House of Commons reflects how popular Theresa May was and gay sex obsessed Farron.
Swinson should at least have a better campaign than Farron did as I can't see her spending 4 weeks tied up in knots about whether or not gay sex is a sin.
There's something 'Amateur night at the Apollo' about Corbyn though I have to say his pitch makes much more sense than the cringeworthy platitude Johnson keeps repeating.
Mr. NorthWales, I'm more interested in how he's going to effect that.
Straightforward seizure of private property? Punitive taxation? Exile?
To some extent you are welcoming your new insect overlords. A small percentage of the billionaires are spiffy entrepreneurs reaping the just rewards of inventing a better vacuum cleaner. The rest are kleptocrats. We can tell this from the ludicrous increase in ceo vs average pay over the last 50 years. Either ceos have got 20x better at their jobs (they haven't) or they have got better at diverting money to themselves at the expense of the workforce and shareholders (they have). It is perfectly acceptable capitalist thought that we should identify and frustrate cartels of this sort rather than cringe in gratitude at the thought that they pay a limited amount of tax on the proceeds of the scam.
Did you ever watch Wall Street? In it, Gordon Gecko attacked the old world, when CEOs didn't get paid much, but didn't really care about corporate performance. They enjoyed their executive dining room and the perks of power, and their businesses stagnated.
Now, CEOs are incentivised up to their eyeballs to drive share prices. It's been a key driver of disparities.
And it is a terrible incentive. Executive renumeration had exploded but business performance has not.
It was, as ever, an invention of Chicago school economists to a problem that didn't exist.
By the time of the debate LDs could be 30% behind the Tories and 20% behind Lab.
Plus keeping Swinson off screen is not a negative for them she's useless
It doesn't matter if she's useless she only has to be better than Johnson and Corbyn. That would be about as hard as beating a three legged tortoise in a marathon.
You have any evidence that she's any better than Johnson who is a three-times proven winner already?
She's won more votes in the House of Commons than he has *innocent face*
Being serious the House of Commons reflects how popular Theresa May was and gay sex obsessed Farron.
Swinson should at least have a better campaign than Farron did as I can't see her spending 4 weeks tied up in knots about whether or not gay sex is a sin.
To an extent. But she also didn't start her leadership by expelling 7% of her MPs including two former Chancellors.
For the record, I am sceptical of the economics of fracking in the UK. But that is not a matter for central government regulation. Wealthy ecologists in North London shouldn't be deciding whether fracking is right for Blackpool - that should be a matter for the locals.
Is there anywhere where fracking is locally popular?
By the time of the debate LDs could be 30% behind the Tories and 20% behind Lab.
Plus keeping Swinson off screen is not a negative for them she's useless
It doesn't matter if she's useless she only has to be better than Johnson and Corbyn. That would be about as hard as beating a three legged tortoise in a marathon.
You have any evidence that she's any better than Johnson who is a three-times proven winner already?
Mr. NorthWales, I'm more interested in how he's going to effect that.
Straightforward seizure of private property? Punitive taxation? Exile?
To some extent you are welcoming your new insect overlords. A small percentage of the billionaires are spiffy entrepreneurs reaping the just rewards of inventing a better vacuum cleaner. The rest are kleptocrats. We can tell this from the ludicrous increase in ceo vs average pay over the last 50 years. Either ceos have got 20x better at their jobs (they haven't) or they have got better at diverting money to themselves at the expense of the workforce and shareholders (they have). It is perfectly acceptable capitalist thought that we should identify and frustrate cartels of this sort rather than cringe in gratitude at the thought that they pay a limited amount of tax on the proceeds of the scam.
Did you ever watch Wall Street? In it, Gordon Gecko attacked the old world, when CEOs didn't get paid much, but didn't really care about corporate performance. They enjoyed their executive dining room and the perks of power, and their businesses stagnated.
Now, CEOs are incentivised up to their eyeballs to drive share prices. It's been a key driver of disparities.
And it is a terrible incentive. Executive renumeration had exploded but business performance has not.
It was, as ever, an invention of Chicago school economists to a problem that didn't exist.
My grandfather, who was a bank manager for thirty years, commented that Brian Pitman did a huge amount for the shareholders of Lloyds but in the process lost sight of the humanities involved in running a successful bank. He was concerned this meant managers no longer knew their clients and were not lending money to the right people.
He didn't live to 2008, but I said 'he told you so' on his behalf.
Or is it the number of LibDems forecast to be elected? Or SNP?
BXP + Con is 53%
Simples.
Can't see that surviving to the end of the campaign. I suspect BXP will poll under 5% ultimately and can't see the Tories polling 48 . . .
I think the Conservatives will poll between 38% and 44%, and I suspect BXP will be 5-8%. I think there are a minority of Brexiteers who either would never vote Conservatives, or who believe any deal with the EU is by definition a sell out.
Agreed. I suspect the BXP standing in every seat will help not hurt the Tories as Brexiteers who could vote Tories will do, but those who never will vote BXP instead of Labour. I don't think UKIP standing down in 2017 helped May.
I tend to agree. I think it also allows Remainers to vote Conservative, knowing that they are different to BXP.
The only place BXP might cost the Conservatives seats would be in the South West, where there's bugger all Labour vote. But outside St Ives, I don't see that LDs performing strongly enough to get into the mid-40s needed to win a seat.
This is a betting site, we are interested in which seats offer the best prospects of making a profit or results overall. You can slag any one of the leaders off but it adds no value to the discussion. We need to focus on Any possible labour gains (unlikely) Tory gains LibDem gains
All the shit slinging helps no one but yourself as armchair warriors feeling fulfilled.
By the time of the debate LDs could be 30% behind the Tories and 20% behind Lab.
Plus keeping Swinson off screen is not a negative for them she's useless
It doesn't matter if she's useless she only has to be better than Johnson and Corbyn. That would be about as hard as beating a three legged tortoise in a marathon.
You have any evidence that she's any better than Johnson who is a three-times proven winner already?
This is a betting site, we are interested in which seats offer the best prospects of making a profit or results overall. You can slag any one of the leaders off but it adds no value to the discussion.
Only one? That's very limiting. Can I slag them all of in turn?
Mr. NorthWales, I'm more interested in how he's going to effect that.
Straightforward seizure of private property? Punitive taxation? Exile?
To some extent you are welcoming your new insect overlords. A small percentage of the billionaires are spiffy entrepreneurs reaping the just rewards of inventing a better vacuum cleaner. The rest are kleptocrats. We can tell this from the ludicrous increase in ceo vs average pay over the last 50 years. Either ceos have got 20x better at their jobs (they haven't) or they have got better at diverting money to themselves at the expense of the workforce and shareholders (they have). It is perfectly acceptable capitalist thought that we should identify and frustrate cartels of this sort rather than cringe in gratitude at the thought that they pay a limited amount of tax on the proceeds of the scam.
Did you ever watch Wall Street? In it, Gordon Gecko attacked the old world, when CEOs didn't get paid much, but didn't really care about corporate performance. They enjoyed their executive dining room and the perks of power, and their businesses stagnated.
Now, CEOs are incentivised up to their eyeballs to drive share prices. It's been a key driver of disparities.
And it is a terrible incentive. Executive renumeration had exploded but business performance has not.
It was, as ever, an invention of Chicago school economists to a problem that didn't exist.
That's not really true. Corporate earnings have grown as a percentage of GDP in both the US and the UK. (Which, by the way, is good for retirees whose pension funds own the companies making the profits.)
But it's been bad for society in general, and it's led to our economy being more levered, and less resilient to shocks.
Opinium are showing bigger leads for the Conservatives than other pollsters and one reason may revolve around the fact that they make greater efforts than others to weed out people who are not on the electoral register. They use the question "Over 4 million people are not registered to vote at all in the UK. As far as you know, is your name on the electoral register, that is, the official list of people entitled to vote?"
In their previous 23-25 October poll, 11% of their initial sample answered that they were not registered, and they took no further part in the survey. In the 4-6 September the figure was 13%. With the usual rush to register in the initial period of an election campaign, I would expect that 11% figure to fall further if the sampling is representative.
By the time of the debate LDs could be 30% behind the Tories and 20% behind Lab.
Plus keeping Swinson off screen is not a negative for them she's useless
It doesn't matter if she's useless she only has to be better than Johnson and Corbyn. That would be about as hard as beating a three legged tortoise in a marathon.
You have any evidence that she's any better than Johnson who is a three-times proven winner already?
Swinson couldn't beat an egg
I bet she can. In fact, I reckon she makes a mean scrambled eggs.
I tend to agree. I think it also allows Remainers to vote Conservative, knowing that they are different to BXP.
The only place BXP might cost the Conservatives seats would be in the South West, where there's bugger all Labour vote. But outside St Ives, I don't see that LDs performing strongly enough to get into the mid-40s needed to win a seat.
BXP cost the Cons Peterborough. Could we not see some of that?
I tend to agree. I think it also allows Remainers to vote Conservative, knowing that they are different to BXP.
The only place BXP might cost the Conservatives seats would be in the South West, where there's bugger all Labour vote. But outside St Ives, I don't see that LDs performing strongly enough to get into the mid-40s needed to win a seat.
BXP cost the Cons Peterborough. Could we not see some of that?
@rcs1000 why do you think the Lib Dems have no chance in Berwick? I think they might.
They have a chance, of course, but it's incredibly slight. Let's start with the obvious: they were third in 2017, thirty percentage points behind the Conservatives. The seat is not won, therefore, on UNS.
Secondly, it's not in Remainia. Indeed, it's more Brexity than the population as a whole.
Thirdly, it's not an area of local election strength for the LDs, and they went backward in the area (badly) last time there were elections in 2017.
I forecast a vote share little changed on last time, still thirty points adrift of the Conservatives.
How to make much needed new homes more expensive, less attractive (no GCH), and increase the price of existing stock.
Putting solar panels (for example) on roofs when they are being built is less expensive than retrofitting, and probably results (in the South of England at least) in electricity savings that outweigh the increased build cost.
I have had solar for four years and they are a huge success
I do think they should be mandated. In my case they cost £6,500
When will you break even?
Our industrial clients will only invest in Energy efficiency projects with a payback no greater than 2 years.
This is a betting site, we are interested in which seats offer the best prospects of making a profit or results overall. You can slag any one of the leaders off but it adds no value to the discussion. We need to focus on Any possible labour gains (unlikely) Tory gains LibDem gains
All the shit slinging helps no one but yourself as armchair warriors feeling fulfilled.
For the record, I am sceptical of the economics of fracking in the UK. But that is not a matter for central government regulation. Wealthy ecologists in North London shouldn't be deciding whether fracking is right for Blackpool - that should be a matter for the locals.
This is yet another area where, Brexit aside, I'm finding myself with very little reason to vote Conservative.
But it is nothing to do with "wealthy ecologists in North London" deciding it. It is because each time the Govt. has allowed fracking to start up again, the eathquakes have resumed. There seems to be an undeniable causal link.
For the record, I am sceptical of the economics of fracking in the UK. But that is not a matter for central government regulation. Wealthy ecologists in North London shouldn't be deciding whether fracking is right for Blackpool - that should be a matter for the locals.
This is yet another area where, Brexit aside, I'm finding myself with very little reason to vote Conservative.
The problem is that it wouldn't be the locals in Blackpool who ended up with the money but a different sort of North London wealthy.
How to make much needed new homes more expensive, less attractive (no GCH), and increase the price of existing stock.
Putting solar panels (for example) on roofs when they are being built is less expensive than retrofitting, and probably results (in the South of England at least) in electricity savings that outweigh the increased build cost.
I have had solar for four years and they are a huge success
I do think they should be mandated. In my case they cost £6,500
When will you break even?
Our industrial clients will only invest in Energy efficiency projects with a payback no greater than 2 years.
Wait. They won't do something unless it has a 50% return on invested capital?
Your clients are idiots if they're genuinely not doing projects with those kind of returns.
How to make much needed new homes more expensive, less attractive (no GCH), and increase the price of existing stock.
Putting solar panels (for example) on roofs when they are being built is less expensive than retrofitting, and probably results (in the South of England at least) in electricity savings that outweigh the increased build cost.
I have had solar for four years and they are a huge success
I do think they should be mandated. In my case they cost £6,500
When will you break even?
Our industrial clients will only invest in Energy efficiency projects with a payback no greater than 2 years.
You never do. What you do however is get a much better rate of return than you would if the money was sat in a bank account. For that reason, a friend of mine told me solar panels were awesome if you had capital to buy them, but you should never ever borrow to put them in.
Where a leader could make a real difference is fitting them for free on the understanding there would be no payments for surplus power (which in effect there aren't anyway now). That could make a huge difference.
And at last, we're limping into Hednesford station.
Had Boris willingly requested a further extension rather than most MPs doing so with Boris making clear his opposition to further extension that might have happened
The grievous error of the Benn Act. Set this up on a plate. Ah well, done now. No point 'what if' ing.
For the record, I am sceptical of the economics of fracking in the UK. But that is not a matter for central government regulation. Wealthy ecologists in North London shouldn't be deciding whether fracking is right for Blackpool - that should be a matter for the locals.
This is yet another area where, Brexit aside, I'm finding myself with very little reason to vote Conservative.
I was at a shale gas conference a few years back where one of the speakers said that the cheapest source of shale gas in the UK was LNG from the US.
BTW - only time I've attended a conference with bouncers on the door!
For anyone who doesn't expect a Labour meltdown then there are some nice constituency bets at SkyBet.
For example Labour to win Barnsley Central at 2/5, Brighton Kemptown at 4/6 and Doncaster North at 1/2.
Thanks for that! The Barnsley Central and Doncaster North odds are very tasty indeed.
Brighton Kemptown is more tricky to assess. I've avoided that one.
You're the local man
But it seemed to me that an almost 10k majority in a remain constituency will be difficult to lose no matter the national swing or the opinions of the MP.
For the record, I am sceptical of the economics of fracking in the UK. But that is not a matter for central government regulation. Wealthy ecologists in North London shouldn't be deciding whether fracking is right for Blackpool - that should be a matter for the locals.
Is there anywhere where fracking is locally popular?
In the US, where residents are entitled to be paid for the mineral rights under their homes
For the record, I am sceptical of the economics of fracking in the UK. But that is not a matter for central government regulation. Wealthy ecologists in North London shouldn't be deciding whether fracking is right for Blackpool - that should be a matter for the locals.
This is yet another area where, Brexit aside, I'm finding myself with very little reason to vote Conservative.
You don't have to answer this question, but do you have a vote in the UK?
For the record, I am sceptical of the economics of fracking in the UK. But that is not a matter for central government regulation. Wealthy ecologists in North London shouldn't be deciding whether fracking is right for Blackpool - that should be a matter for the locals.
This is yet another area where, Brexit aside, I'm finding myself with very little reason to vote Conservative.
Generally the locals have been against fracking. That's why the Cameron government changed the rules so that local councils couldn't refuse permission.
I've always said that fracking is not dangerous in terms of earthquakes, but it's a distraction from getting on with renewable energy. Essentially it's a misallocation of capital and engineering knowhow that could be more usefully applied elsewhere.
There are also legitimate local concerns about the quantity of water required, potential pollution and other disturbance.
By the time of the debate LDs could be 30% behind the Tories and 20% behind Lab.
Plus keeping Swinson off screen is not a negative for them she's useless
It doesn't matter if she's useless she only has to be better than Johnson and Corbyn. That would be about as hard as beating a three legged tortoise in a marathon.
You have any evidence that she's any better than Johnson who is a three-times proven winner already?
She's won more votes in the House of Commons than he has *innocent face*
Being serious the House of Commons reflects how popular Theresa May was and gay sex obsessed Farron.
Swinson should at least have a better campaign than Farron did as I can't see her spending 4 weeks tied up in knots about whether or not gay sex is a sin.
To an extent. But she also didn't start her leadership by expelling 7% of her MPs including two former Chancellors.
Johnson's expelling the rebels was a stroke of genius. May's Tories were incredibly riven and unmanageable, it was a disaster.
Johnson was elected on a very clear mandate and by expelling Clarke, Hammond and co he sent a very clear message that the unruly and divided nature of the party had to end now. The party united then, May barely got half her own MPs backing her in the first Meaningful Vote - after the expulsions Johnson got virtually every single Tory MP backing him.
@Big_G_NorthWales I used to work in solar. On the current government subsidy the pay back period is over 20 years. The panels only last 25 years.
Not a good investment in the UK. Maybe on the South Coast.
It is for me. The cost of £6500 yields about £800 per year and it is a far better return than in any savings account. And I am not concerned about the life span as I would need to live to 100 before the 25 years is over
I tend to agree. I think it also allows Remainers to vote Conservative, knowing that they are different to BXP.
The only place BXP might cost the Conservatives seats would be in the South West, where there's bugger all Labour vote. But outside St Ives, I don't see that LDs performing strongly enough to get into the mid-40s needed to win a seat.
BXP cost the Cons Peterborough. Could we not see some of that?
For the record, I am sceptical of the economics of fracking in the UK. But that is not a matter for central government regulation. Wealthy ecologists in North London shouldn't be deciding whether fracking is right for Blackpool - that should be a matter for the locals.
This is yet another area where, Brexit aside, I'm finding myself with very little reason to vote Conservative.
I was at a shale gas conference a few years back where one of the speakers said that the cheapest source of shale gas in the UK was LNG from the US.
BTW - only time I've attended a conference with bouncers on the door!
When I was a student I attended the NUS Conference IIRC in 2003, it was the week the Iraq War began. There was no security until one day there was armed security EVERYWHERE and Metal detectors every delegate had to go through.
The Jewish society had invited an Israeli politician, from memory the former Israeli Foreign Minister and Prime Minister Shimon Peres to a fringe meeting that basically the entire Conference attended besides those who chose to protest it instead. They were not taking any chances with security there!
Comments
Johnson may be (sorry: undoubtedly is) the worst PM in this country's history. But, in choosing to do Classics at Oxford he made the shrewdest career decision any Briton can make.
Lewes (unlikely but possible)
Truro & falmouth (no)
Hallam (yes)
Ceredigeon (yes)
Fife NE (yes)
Leeds NW (yes)
Cheltenham (maybe)
Thornbury & Yate (no)
Berwick (no)
Cambridge (maybe)
Nobody knows how the votes will fall in so many seats.
The LibDems have run their leaflet blitz on two themes: Jo Swinson is wonderful, and we'll revoke Brexit. The former hasn't really caught on as they expected, and, oddly, I think Brexit has been parked in many voters' minds, under the "it's getting sorted, more or less". Some are grateful, hence the Tory score, but others are turning their minds to other things, on which Labour has loads of policies and the LibDems have been largely silent.
Oh FFS. If they feature a clip of Jezza at a rally they have to feature a clip of the other parties under electoral rules.
Are the Cult deliberately uninformed about how elections work?
https://twitter.com/Lulupeg1/status/1190700818535763969
https://twitter.com/JoeTwyman/status/1190707556924166144
And these need to balanced against Boris Johnson and Flanner for Literae Humaniores.
It is no surprise you vote for the Party of Fools.
And the words used are 'past electoral support and/or current support' not 'proportion of candidates'. So you're suggesting if the OMRLP stand across the country then Howling Laud Hope should be in the debates but not the leader of the third largest party in Parliament?
Or is it 53% Leave?
Or is it the number of LibDems forecast to be elected? Or SNP?
37% to 11% last time
On a global level we already don't have people in poverty, which is why we talk about relative poverty instead.
One of our more interesting engineering billionaires actually lives in that zone - and started out with a support business for mining.
On fracking it is all populist politics, including the Scottish and Welsh Govts who have banned it. We are still waiting for an "earthquake" more violent than a train driving past, and the greenies have succeeded in keeping our gas supplies being at risk from the Iranian Government.
Weird.
Suspect that a careful legal strategy could drive a coach and fours through many of the Govt restrictions.
Simples.
https://enormo-haddock.blogspot.com/2019/11/usa-pre-qualifying-2019.html
And then they announced it isn't going to Rugeley anyway but will short terminate at Hednesford.
It's tough going by 2017 results but the Tories were closish in 2015
This is yet another area where, Brexit aside, I'm finding myself with very little reason to vote Conservative.
Swinson should at least have a better campaign than Farron did as I can't see her spending 4 weeks tied up in knots about whether or not gay sex is a sin.
It was, as ever, an invention of Chicago school economists to a problem that didn't exist.
But, the combination of primrose jacket and black boots is worse, I think ...
Still, all three have no sense of matching colour.
Keith Vaz won't be asking them to do any late night interior decoration at his flat, luckily for them ...
He didn't live to 2008, but I said 'he told you so' on his behalf.
The only place BXP might cost the Conservatives seats would be in the South West, where there's bugger all Labour vote. But outside St Ives, I don't see that LDs performing strongly enough to get into the mid-40s needed to win a seat.
We need to focus on
Any possible labour gains (unlikely)
Tory gains
LibDem gains
All the shit slinging helps no one but yourself as armchair warriors feeling fulfilled.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=little+green+bag
(Great track)
But it's been bad for society in general, and it's led to our economy being more levered, and less resilient to shocks.
In their previous 23-25 October poll, 11% of their initial sample answered that they were not registered, and they took no further part in the survey. In the 4-6 September the figure was 13%. With the usual rush to register in the initial period of an election campaign, I would expect that 11% figure to fall further if the sampling is representative.
Their last poll had 55 Remain v 45 Leave .
Sounds like they will not to do very well elsewhere.
Both the doomsayers and the optimists may be right, just in different areas.
As I said, the LibDems are welcome to him, for his crimes against clothing if nothing else.....
Secondly, it's not in Remainia. Indeed, it's more Brexity than the population as a whole.
Thirdly, it's not an area of local election strength for the LDs, and they went backward in the area (badly) last time there were elections in 2017.
I forecast a vote share little changed on last time, still thirty points adrift of the Conservatives.
Our industrial clients will only invest in Energy efficiency projects with a payback no greater than 2 years.
I feel like he needs a more aggressive taper.
Jesus.
NEW THREAD
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-49471321
Not a good investment in the UK. Maybe on the South Coast.
Your clients are idiots if they're genuinely not doing projects with those kind of returns.
Where a leader could make a real difference is fitting them for free on the understanding there would be no payments for surplus power (which in effect there aren't anyway now). That could make a huge difference.
And at last, we're limping into Hednesford station.
Have a good evening.
BTW - only time I've attended a conference with bouncers on the door!
But it seemed to me that an almost 10k majority in a remain constituency will be difficult to lose no matter the national swing or the opinions of the MP.
I've always said that fracking is not dangerous in terms of earthquakes, but it's a distraction from getting on with renewable energy. Essentially it's a misallocation of capital and engineering knowhow that could be more usefully applied elsewhere.
There are also legitimate local concerns about the quantity of water required, potential pollution and other disturbance.
Johnson was elected on a very clear mandate and by expelling Clarke, Hammond and co he sent a very clear message that the unruly and divided nature of the party had to end now. The party united then, May barely got half her own MPs backing her in the first Meaningful Vote - after the expulsions Johnson got virtually every single Tory MP backing him.
The Jewish society had invited an Israeli politician, from memory the former Israeli Foreign Minister and Prime Minister Shimon Peres to a fringe meeting that basically the entire Conference attended besides those who chose to protest it instead. They were not taking any chances with security there!