"Ed Miliband is dealt a blow today as an exclusive poll finds that a clear majority of Britons do not think he is ready to become prime minister.
Ipsos MORI found that just under one in four people thinks the Labour leader is ready to hold the keys of No 10, while two thirds believe that he is not yet up to the job."
The problem MikeK has is that he doesn't understand the difference between marginal and total cost.
When you build a windmill you spend a lot of money. Every time the windmill turns and chucks out a stream of electrons, you are getting some payback. Some people have claimed that the total number of electrons produced by the windmill over its life are less than those required to produce it.
Let us assume that is true. Even if it is, you would still not pull down your existing windmills, because the electrons have already been spent building them. Pulling them down just makes the economics worse.
For solar and wind (and to a lesser extend nuclear), we are talking about high capital cost, low marginal cost electricity. For gas, on the other hand, we are talking about low capital cost, and high marginal cost. Any sensible electrical generating system should be a mix of the two types.
As a scientist I object to the fact you have said these windmills generate electrons. :')
from same article - did I miss some big policy announcements ?
A Labour source said....
“It is only Ed Miliband and Labour which is setting out the change Britain needs. As people see the Government’s plan has failed and we are answering the big questions on the economy, the NHS, the energy firms and the rail companies, we are confident people will come towards us.”"
Assets and liabilities can (and should) be divided. But the question of currency is an ongoing concern. Are you really saying that a non-British nation should have the right to use the British concern, have the Bank of England as lender of last resort and (presumably) have a say over interest rates whilst at the same time having total independence over fiscal policy?
That's Sturgeon's position, and it's distinctly fishy.
It's deranged. An agreement could be reached over a common currency but it would necessarily involve some degree of fiscal limits for Scotland. Or, Scotland could have its own currency. But you can't have independence over fiscal policy whilst claiming the currency of a foreign country. It's mad. Why not choose the US dollar, or the Vietnamese dong?
Morris, More like we would need to control rUK penchant for borrowing, they would have our currency debauched in no time.
I agree with you that in order to maintain pressure on the Cons UKIP need to not give an inch and every concession should be met by a hardening of resolve; classic negotiation technique.
That said, there is a danger of cutting-nose-to-spite-face syndrome setting in. You are upset at the centrist leaning, and are keen to redefine the character of the Cons. But realistically they aren't likely to row back from certain positions (eg. Gay marriage). So you are left in the invidious position of actively blocking a key policy (eg. euro referendum) which you are wholly in favour of in order to get jam tomorrow.
For me that is a fail but I understand the strategy.
There's little point in providing evidence on two elements of a triple vaccine.
Where's the third?
And of course the side effects you highlight in the measles element of the MMR vaccine are the same temporary,minor and not causally proven/rare which occur with Attenuvax the single measles vaccine.
And that's before we get on to the delays between jabs and take-up rates.
As I said previously, the debate is more interesting in that there are good replacements for measles and rubella, but not for mumps. So the question becomes whether protection for 2 diseases is sufficient or whether mumps is a critical element.
On the side effects question the fundamental topic comes down to how the immune system works. And frankly, we don't know. Vaccines are immunostimulants, which work well. But I've seen enough examples - across multiples species (fish, swine, cattle, companion and equine) - where multivalent vaccines cause immunological issues that makes me pause to consider.
Delays between the jabs is de minimis risk (and if there is an outbreak you can always accelerate the programme).
Take-up rates: I agree with you. Absolutely MMR is in the interest of the government/health authorities because of cost and compliance (take up rates). Question is whether it is in the interests of an individual to employ a single vs multivalent vaccination strategy.
At the moment I'm tending towards the single vaccination strategy, becuase they are administered later (when the immune system is more developed) and there is less risk of interaction. I'm comfortable with the risk of the mumps exposure. Cost and time is not a factor in my consideration, and I'm fortunate in that respect.
During the study period, 189 patients were hospitalized for treatment of GBS, and approximately 630,000 vaccine recipients received 900,000 doses of MMR vaccine;
No causal association seems to prevail between MMR vaccination and GBS.
So why's it on the label? Labels get thought about with a great deal of care - and believe you me the company would doing their best to get GBS off if there was clear evidence of no link.
I agree with you that in order to maintain pressure on the Cons UKIP need to not give an inch and every concession should be met by a hardening of resolve; classic negotiation technique.
That said, there is a danger of cutting-nose-to-spite-face syndrome setting in. You are upset at the centrist leaning, and are keen to redefine the character of the Cons. But realistically they aren't likely to row back from certain positions (eg. Gay marriage). So you are left in the invidious position of actively blocking a key policy (eg. euro referendum) which you are wholly in favour of in order to get jam tomorrow.
For me that is a fail but I understand the strategy.
Well the thing is I have never voted Conservative, I voted labour in an unthinking "because my family always have" way. But I dont agree with much of what they say, and I don't see the difference between them and the Tories. I read the UKIP manifesto and I did agree with what they had to say.
They say what they mean and that upsets some people, but i think thats what political parties should do. So why would I vote for anyone else?
So you are left in the invidious position of actively blocking a key policy (eg. euro referendum) which you are wholly in favour of in order to get jam tomorrow.
They'd have to be stark raving bonkers off their nuts to take any notice of that without at least getting some clarity on whether and when they'll still get their referendum if the non-existent treaty of the 28 member states that's supposed to precede it continues to non-exist.
I agree with you that in order to maintain pressure on the Cons UKIP need to not give an inch and every concession should be met by a hardening of resolve; classic negotiation technique.
That said, there is a danger of cutting-nose-to-spite-face syndrome setting in. You are upset at the centrist leaning, and are keen to redefine the character of the Cons. But realistically they aren't likely to row back from certain positions (eg. Gay marriage). So you are left in the invidious position of actively blocking a key policy (eg. euro referendum) which you are wholly in favour of in order to get jam tomorrow.
For me that is a fail but I understand the strategy.
I find it hard to believe that you believe that Cammo, or any minister in the present government will honour that referendum promise. Cammo has history on this, and anyway his promise is so far into the future, and surrounded with conditions, as to be absurd.
Evidence on the MMR side effects is mixed: suggestions of a trend, but not statistically significant. Cost I don't care about. Take up rate I don't care about, lack of a mumps vaccine is not a major concern.
And frankly, if I was in government, I would probably take the same view that the government has: at a societal level MMR has advantages.
But in any event I am going to continue to do my own research and you are not going to convince me. Biological pharmaceuticals are an area that I have 15 years worth of experience in, and I have enough people I know & trust in the space to ask the questions I need to know. For example I would rate CY's views as far more significant than yours in any final determination that I make [wikipedia.org/wiki/Chang_Yi_Wang].
Given this, and the fact that this discussion has little relevance to anyone else I suggest we leave it there.
Mr. K, it's sad to see you're buying into a revisionist lie about Cameron. He's cocked up enough for genuine criticism without resorting to doublethink about the referendum.
He kept his promise. He voted for it. The parties that didn't were yellow and red, not blue.
As for keeping his promise, if he becomes PM next time his backbenchers will axe him if he doesn't. If you don't trust Cameron, you can certainly trust the Conservative Party's fondness for regicide.
Mr. Kelly, you appear to have accidentally conflated the meaning of British from the national (ie UK excluding Scotland), which was what I meant, to the geographical.
If you leave a country you can't keep the currency unless the country you left agrees. It's like divorcing someone and then demanding to keep a joint account.
Mr Dancer, absolutely they can keep on using the currency if they want to (RoI did so for 20+ years after independence).
They just can't expect a seat on the MPC or the BofE to act as lender of last resort.
Charles , as we already own 10% of the B of E we will use or share as lender of last resort , and no reason why we could not have someone on the MPC other than petulance by unionists. It makes perfect sense if independence happens for us to share a currency at least initially and it will be in England's interests to trade easily with Scotland. So other than pettiness I fail to see why 1 member out of 9 would be an issue.
Mr. Kelly, you appear to have accidentally conflated the meaning of British from the national (ie UK excluding Scotland), which was what I meant, to the geographical.
If you leave a country you can't keep the currency unless the country you left agrees. It's like divorcing someone and then demanding to keep a joint account.
Mr Dancer, absolutely they can keep on using the currency if they want to (RoI did so for 20+ years after independence).
They just can't expect a seat on the MPC or the BofE to act as lender of last resort.
Charles , as we already own 10% of the B of E we will use or share as lender of last resort , and no reason why we could not have someone on the MPC other than petulance by unionists. It makes perfect sense if independence happens for us to share a currency at least initially and it will be in England's interests to trade easily with Scotland. So other than pettiness I fail to see why 1 member out of 9 would be an issue.
Fundamentally because the MPC is responsible for a mandate set by the rUK CoE with reference to the rUK economy. There is a great likelihood of an inappropriate interest rate being in place for the Scottish economy than there is for the rUK economy (arguably this exists at the moment anyway)
Lender of last resort far more difficult - why would rUK take on an open-ended liability without compensation?
when Salmond talks of independence, what he really means is the satisfaction of nationalist lust and very little else. Will the Queen remain head of state? Yup. Will sterling remain as the common currency? Yup. Will there be a joint air force? Will British embassies still represent the Scots? Will dual citizenship be maintained? Will Scotland continue to be a member of the EU on British terms? Will British authorities still regulate Scottish financial services? Will the Bank of England's reserves continue to be shared? Yup, yup, yup, yup, yup and yup.
But: will Scots be able to wave their sporrans in a tartan mist, in a brief moment of Saltire-shrouded glory? Er, no. It is this that Salmond is banking on to win it.
As for keeping his promise, if he becomes PM next time his backbenchers will axe him if he doesn't. If you don't trust Cameron, you can certainly trust the Conservative Party's fondness for regicide.
Nah, he'd be fine. He'd just keep on putting it off. Most Tory MPs wouldn't actually want an in/out referendum anyway because they support "in but grumpy", so they don't support leaving and they don't want a positive mandate for staying in.
If he was really pushed he'd have a referendum on whether the voters were generally cheesed off and thought the other member states should be more helpful about renegotiating things, to give him a mandate to take to Brussels. That would buy him another five years, easy.
"This, while continental industry and electricity consumers will be paying something like £2 per ton of carbon dioxide produced, the British equivalents will be paying about £7.
With the UK government committed (via the economic suicide bill) to driving the carbon price up to £18 in 2018, to £30 in 2020 and to £70 in 2030, using the carbon tax mechanism, we now face the spectre of the EU's carbon market collapsing completely, leaving the UK as the only country in the EU handicapped in this way."
It is clearly nonsense that the UK has set minimum carbon prices.
But that was our choice. We chose to deliberately disadvantage ourselves relative to not just to Europe, but to almost everyone else in the entire world. One can only hope that our government reconsiders the minimum price.
(It's also worth noting that one of the reasons why the carbon price has collapsed in Europe is because so much of European power is now being generated by wind and solar - and nuclear in France. While numbers vary depending on the definition, it is clear that in a great many European countries - Denmark, Spain, Germany, France, Sweden - more than 25% of power comes from non-emitting sources. In the UK, I believe, the number is more like 5%.)
"But that was our choice."
Most people don't know global warming flat-lined in 1998. They don't know that because the BBC and the political class didn't tell them. A choice based of false information isn't a fair choice.
But let's forget global warming for a minute. The ETS basically ensures that countries meet their carbon reduction targets in a moderately efficient manner.
Yet we decided that we wanted to horse-whip ourselves so that - even if the targets were being met - British companies had to pay more than their competitors because... because... because...
It's incomprehensible to me, irrespective of your underlying view on the science of global warming, why you want to do such a thing.
Because the political elit of the TORY/LAB/LIB Party, are plain stupid and nuts. Only Ukip has the sensible policies to the global warming scam: get rid of all these manic targets and abolish the windmill farms.
what are you poing to replace them with ?
I'm guessing he's going to say 'nuclear'. Which is funny, because new nuclear requires exactly the same kind of subsidies (i.e. guaranteed electricity prices over 20 years) as wind.
I think the only fuel that exists without subsidy currently is pretty much coal. Even this article (Which counts the 5% VAT on fuel as a 'fossil fuel' subsidy only ?) reckons £72m. In terms of subsidy per Watt Hour that must be way below anything else.
Actually gas and coal have very similar economics in the UK. The most profitable power generation is almost certainly hydro, where the costs of construction were paid for decades ago. Nuclear is also profitable right now, albeit because most of the plant is towards the end of its operating life, and therefore sustaining capex is modest. However, building new nuclear is not cost efficient, because the massive capital costs required mean - given current electricity prices - that it just simply doesn't make economic sense. Without subsidies, solar would not exist in the UK.
Unfortunately the decomissioning bill for nuclear means we will still be paying for it in 20 or 30 years , so hardly profitable.
No, not scaremongering. Circumstantial evidence, but not conclusive. Difference between balance of probabilities and beyond reasonble doubt. However you want to phrase it.
If you had *any idea* on how to read the results of clinical trials you would weigh up all the factors and draw conclusions.
The only thing that matters is vaccination against measles and rubella. If MMR were the only solution then I would go for it. If there is a solution that achieves the objective at a lower risk then that is worth considering.
"since when is "well into the second half" early ?"
Sigh. Within the confines of the mandate given by the Scottish people for a referendum "well into the second half" of this parliamentary term, September 2014 is early. I know it must be confusing to you as a Tory that the SNP actually plan to keep their promise to the electorate, but there it is.
The fact that any PB Tories are so heroically gullible as to believe a word of Cammie's Cast Iron Referendum Pledge for an IN/OUT EU referendum is "near perfect" in it's irony.
The entire IN/OUT referendum is predicated on there being treaty negotiations to form a new deal on, even down to Cammie's wording of the referendum question itself. Yet is still hasn't dawned on most of them that this is a get out clause every bit as huge as Cammie had for Lisbon since any new treaty looks ever more like a pipe dream.
Some of us still remember the hilarity of Cammie's EU flounce that wasn't even if some PB tories appear to have conveniently forgotten.
"This, while continental industry and electricity consumers will be paying something like £2 per ton of carbon dioxide produced, the British equivalents will be paying about £7.
With the UK government committed (via the economic suicide bill) to driving the carbon price up to £18 in 2018, to £30 in 2020 and to £70 in 2030, using the carbon tax mechanism, we now face the spectre of the EU's carbon market collapsing completely, leaving the UK as the only country in the EU handicapped in this way."
It is clearly nonsense that the UK has set minimum carbon prices.
But that was our choice. We chose to deliberately disadvantage ourselves relative to not just to Europe, but to almost everyone else in the entire world. One can only hope that our government reconsiders the minimum price.
(It's also worth noting that one of the reasons why the carbon price has collapsed in Europe is because so much of European power is now being generated by wind and solar - and nuclear in France. While numbers vary depending on the definition, it is clear that in a great many European countries - Denmark, Spain, Germany, France, Sweden - more than 25% of power comes from non-emitting sources. In the UK, I believe, the number is more like 5%.)
"But that was our choice."
Most people don't know global warming flat-lined in 1998. They don't know that because the BBC and the political class didn't tell them. A choice based of false information isn't a fair choice.
But let's forget global warming for a minute. The ETS basically ensures that countries meet their carbon reduction targets in a moderately efficient manner.
Yet we decided that we wanted to horse-whip ourselves so that - even if the targets were being met - British companies had to pay more than their competitors because... because... because...
It's incomprehensible to me, irrespective of your underlying view on the science of global warming, why you want to do such a thing.
Because the political elit of the TORY/LAB/LIB Party, are plain stupid and nuts. Only Ukip has the sensible policies to the global warming scam: get rid of all these manic targets and abolish the windmill farms.
Why would you want to abolish something which produces electricity with zero marginal cost?
Cant get past the paywall but I think this proves a point. Windfarms are NOT cost free. The cost of manufacture means that these absurd windmills will eat more current than they produce, sometimes for years.
Fine, but once you've turned the wind turbines off what is going to replace the electricity they generate ?
The windmills all have backup options already. Mostly gas.
anotherDave.
Again I'll ask the question: why would you turn off a windmill? Given the marginal cost of electricity generated from a windmill is zero, it would be clearly bonkers to do so.
Because the marginal cost is not zero. They get a guaranteed price over the market rate (renewables obligation certificate/feed in tariff?). In the case of the off shore wind farms, the maintenance costs may well be non-trivial.
But fine, leave them on, but do not subsidise them at all. If they can sell their electricity in competition with other providers let them go for it.
If you got rid of all subsidies, then wind and solar would still be 'first on the dispatch curve', because you don't need to burn fuel to make them generate power. So, whenever the wind is blowing they would be producing power. (And any wind farmer owner would rather receive market price for their power rather than pull down the turbines.)
@AlanBrooke "'but we are where we are. Currently wind generates about 5% of uk energy so if we switch the turbines off our options are we all use 5% less, 1.3 million houses go completely without electricity or we find 5% elsewhere. If so where ?"
Slipped my mind until anotherdave mentioned it below but one of the arguments against the windmills was they needed to have full backup in place as well - so isn't it already there?
That would mean your backup being available 100% of the time which is highly unlikely. Also cheaper to let a windmill keep turning than to power up the gas power station.
"This, while continental industry and electricity consumers will be paying something like £2 per ton of carbon dioxide produced, the British equivalents will be paying about £7.
With the UK government committed (via the economic suicide bill) to driving the carbon price up to £18 in 2018, to £30 in 2020 and to £70 in 2030, using the carbon tax mechanism, we now face the spectre of the EU's carbon market collapsing completely, leaving the UK as the only country in the EU handicapped in this way."
It is clearly nonsense that the UK has set minimum carbon prices.
But that was our choice. We chose to deliberately disadvantage ourselves relative to not just to Europe, but to almost everyone else in the entire world. One can only hope that our government reconsiders the minimum price.
(It's also worth noting that one of the reasons why the carbon price has collapsed in Europe is because so much of European power is now being generated by wind and solar - and nuclear in France. While numbers vary depending on the definition, it is clear that in a great many European countries - Denmark, Spain, Germany, France, Sweden - more than 25% of power comes from non-emitting sources. In the UK, I believe, the number is more like 5%.)
"But that was our choice."
Most people don't know global warming flat-lined in 1998. They don't know that because the BBC and the political class didn't tell them. A choice based of false information isn't a fair choice.
But let's forget global warming for a minute. The ETS basically ensures that countries meet their carbon reduction targets in a moderately efficient manner.
Yet we decided that we wanted to horse-whip ourselves so that - even if the targets were being met - British companies had to pay more than their competitors because... because... because...
It's incomprehensible to me, irrespective of your underlying view on the science of global warming, why you want to do such a thing.
Because the political elit of the TORY/LAB/LIB Party, are plain stupid and nuts. Only Ukip has the sensible policies to the global warming scam: get rid of all these manic targets and abolish the windmill farms.
what are you poing to replace them with ?
I'm guessing he's going to say 'nuclear'. Which is funny, because new nuclear requires exactly the same kind of subsidies (i.e. guaranteed electricity prices over 20 years) as wind.
I think the only fuel that exists without subsidy currently is pretty much coal. Even this article (Which counts the 5% VAT on fuel as a 'fossil fuel' subsidy only ?) reckons £72m. In terms of subsidy per Watt Hour that must be way below anything else.
Actually gas and coal have very similar economics in the UK. The most profitable power generation is almost certainly hydro, where the costs of construction were paid for decades ago. Nuclear is also profitable right now, albeit because most of the plant is towards the end of its operating life, and therefore sustaining capex is modest. However, building new nuclear is not cost efficient, because the massive capital costs required mean - given current electricity prices - that it just simply doesn't make economic sense. Without subsidies, solar would not exist in the UK.
Unfortunately the decomissioning bill for nuclear means we will still be paying for it in 20 or 30 years , so hardly profitable.
Not true. In the UK, generators have been required to put decommissioning money in a special pot now.
Mr. G, you silly haggis, it was a Scotsman that kept borrowing all the money.
LOL, Morris he is no Scotsman, I reckon an alien swapped the real baby out of the cot, a real cuckoo in the nest. He even said himself that he was North British , but I think he meant Northern Martian.
ScottP - will inhuman weapons of mass destruction be removed from Scottish soil? Yup. Will the UK government's inhuman welfare policies be reversed? Yup. Will Scotland have access to its own national resources? Yup. Will we have representation in the European Union for the first time, rather than being 'represented' by William Hague? Yup. Will we have a government we actually voted for? Yup, yup, yup.
when Salmond talks of independence, what he really means is the satisfaction of nationalist lust and very little else. Will the Queen remain head of state? Yup. Will sterling remain as the common currency? Yup. Will there be a joint air force? Will British embassies still represent the Scots? Will dual citizenship be maintained? Will Scotland continue to be a member of the EU on British terms? Will British authorities still regulate Scottish financial services? Will the Bank of England's reserves continue to be shared? Yup, yup, yup, yup, yup and yup.
But: will Scots be able to wave their sporrans in a tartan mist, in a brief moment of Saltire-shrouded glory? Er, no. It is this that Salmond is banking on to win it.
"This, while continental industry and electricity consumers will be paying something like £2 per ton of carbon dioxide produced, the British equivalents will be paying about £7.
With the UK government committed (via the economic suicide bill) to driving the carbon price up to £18 in 2018, to £30 in 2020 and to £70 in 2030, using the carbon tax mechanism, we now face the spectre of the EU's carbon market collapsing completely, leaving the UK as the only country in the EU handicapped in this way."
It is clearly nonsense that the UK has set minimum carbon prices.
But that was our choice. We chose to deliberately disadvantage ourselves relative to not just to Europe, but to almost everyone else in the entire world. One can only hope that our government reconsiders the minimum price.
(It's also worth noting that one of the reasons why the carbon price has collapsed in Europe is because so much of European power is now being generated by wind and solar - and nuclear in France. While numbers vary depending on the definition, it is clear that in a great many European countries - Denmark, Spain, Germany, France, Sweden - more than 25% of power comes from non-emitting sources. In the UK, I believe, the number is more like 5%.)
"But that was our choice."
Most people don't know global warming flat-lined in 1998. They don't know that because the BBC and the political class didn't tell them. A choice based of false information isn't a fair choice.
But let's forget global warming for a minute. The ETS basically ensures that countries meet their carbon reduction targets in a moderately efficient manner.
Yet we decided that we wanted to horse-whip ourselves so that - even if the targets were being met - British companies had to pay more than their competitors because... because... because...
It's incomprehensible to me, irrespective of your underlying view on the science of global warming, why you want to do such a thing.
Because the political elit of the TORY/LAB/LIB Party, are plain stupid and nuts. Only Ukip has the sensible policies to the global warming scam: get rid of all these manic targets and abolish the windmill farms.
what are you poing to replace them with ?
I'm guessing he's going to say 'nuclear'. Which is funny, because new nuclear requires exactly the same kind of subsidies (i.e. guaranteed electricity prices over 20 years) as wind.
I think the only fuel that exists without subsidy currently is pretty much coal. Even this article (Which counts the 5% VAT on fuel as a 'fossil fuel' subsidy only ?) reckons £72m. In terms of subsidy per Watt Hour that must be way below anything else.
Actually gas and coal have very similar economics in the UK. The most profitable power generation is almost certainly hydro, where the costs of construction were paid for decades ago. Nuclear is also profitable right now, albeit because most of the plant is towards the end of its operating life, and therefore sustaining capex is modest. However, building new nuclear is not cost efficient, because the massive capital costs required mean - given current electricity prices - that it just simply doesn't make economic sense. Without subsidies, solar would not exist in the UK.
Unfortunately the decomissioning bill for nuclear means we will still be paying for it in 20 or 30 years , so hardly profitable.
Not true. In the UK, generators have been required to put decommissioning money in a special pot now.
LOL, so Robert you think they will stick £20 Billion or so in the piggy bank. Hunterston is way behind schedule , way way over budget and likely to take an extra 20 or 30 years to decommission
I have no financial interest in undermining MMR. I am just sharing some thoughts on the topic. What are your medical qualifications? I have 15 years of experience in vaccines.
The evidence from the trials is not statistically significant. If it was statistically significant then the MMR vaccine would not be licenced for sale. It is by no means conclusive, but it circumstantial.
Some interesting stats released today by the Office of Rail Regulation (ORR) about how Network Rail is financed.
Of particular note is that more than £1 in 10 of revenue is used to finance Network Rail's debt.
According to a report from the Office of Rail Regulation (ORR), the cost of paying off the £28bn debt totalled £1.5bn in the 2011-12 financial year, equal to 13% of the amount used to operate the network of lines across Britain.
Network Rail's Finance Director, Patrick Butcher, has previously estimated that the organisation's debt is likely to rise over the coming 20-30 years.
The £11.6bn cost of running the network was 58% funded by money generated generated from passengers, with the other £4.0bn coming from government subsidiaries.
According to the ORR, the contribution to running costs from passenger income rose 8.7%, partly due to a rise in journey numbers, while the government's funding decreased by £19m (0.5%) compared to the 2010-11 year.
So much for Thatcher ridding the UK of subsidised state industries!
Mandelson says Thatcher warned him 'the Irish are all liars'
When Mrs Thatcher worked for the Sporting Life, it was her job each March to phone all the Irish trainers and ask about their prospects in the handicaps at Cheltenham.
"We clearly support the [UK government's current fiscal] policy. And we have done for some time."
She then goes on to repeat the qualification contained in the last IMF report on the UK economy stating that Osborne needs to keep an eye on [mainly growth] outputs and only adjust policy if they underperform."
All in answer to Sky's Ed Conway who was left stranded in Washington when the day after he used Chief Economiist Blancmange's somewhat heretic ideas to criticise Osborne, the IMF officially warned its member countries to be cautious about further quantitative easing.
So no endorsement of either Blancmange or Conway from Lagarde. Boy George will be chuckling to himself.
Oh dear, Ed. You would be better off with the New York Times than a Murdoch media channel.
"This, while continental industry and electricity consumers will be paying something like £2 per ton of carbon dioxide produced, the British equivalents will be paying about £7.
With the UK government committed (via the economic suicide bill) to driving the carbon price up to £18 in 2018, to £30 in 2020 and to £70 in 2030, using the carbon tax mechanism, we now face the spectre of the EU's carbon market collapsing completely, leaving the UK as the only country in the EU handicapped in this way."
It is clearly nonsense that the UK has set minimum carbon prices.
But that was our choice. We chose to deliberately disadvantage ourselves relative to not just to Europe, but to almost everyone else in the entire world. One can only hope that our government reconsiders the minimum price.
(It's also worth noting that one of the reasons why the carbon price has collapsed in Europe is because so much of European power is now being generated by wind and solar - and nuclear in France. While numbers vary depending on the definition, it is clear that in a great many European countries - Denmark, Spain, Germany, France, Sweden - more than 25% of power comes from non-emitting sources. In the UK, I believe, the number is more like 5%.)
"But that was our choice."
Most people don't know global warming flat-lined in 1998. They don't know that because the BBC and the political class didn't tell them. A choice based of false information isn't a fair choice.
But let's forget global warming for a minute. The ETS basically ensures that countries meet their carbon reduction targets in a moderately efficient manner.
Yet we decided that we wanted to horse-whip ourselves so that - even if the targets were being met - British companies had to pay more than their competitors because... because... because...
It's incomprehensible to me, irrespective of your underlying view on the science of global warming, why you want to do such a thing.
Because the political elit of the TORY/LAB/LIB Party, are plain stupid and nuts. Only Ukip has the sensible policies to the global warming scam: get rid of all these manic targets and abolish the windmill farms.
Why would you want to abolish something which produces electricity with zero marginal cost?
Cant get past the paywall but I think this proves a point. Windfarms are NOT cost free. The cost of manufacture means that these absurd windmills will eat more current than they produce, sometimes for years.
Fine, but once you've turned the wind turbines off what is going to replace the electricity they generate ?
The windmills all have backup options already. Mostly gas.
anotherDave.
Again I'll ask the question: why would you turn off a windmill? Given the marginal cost of electricity generated from a windmill is zero, it would be clearly bonkers to do so.
Because the marginal cost is not zero. They get a guaranteed price over the market rate (renewables obligation certificate/feed in tariff?). In the case of the off shore wind farms, the maintenance costs may well be non-trivial.
But fine, leave them on, but do not subsidise them at all. If they can sell their electricity in competition with other providers let them go for it.
If you got rid of all subsidies, then wind and solar would still be 'first on the dispatch curve', because you don't need to burn fuel to make them generate power. So, whenever the wind is blowing they would be producing power. (And any wind farmer owner would rather receive market price for their power rather than pull down the turbines.)
Super, if wind farm owners don't need subsidies, they'll prosper. I think we may find that they are actually subsidy farmers, and once the subsidies disappear, so will the windfarms.
when Salmond talks of independence, what he really means is the satisfaction of nationalist lust and very little else. Will the Queen remain head of state? Yup. Will sterling remain as the common currency? Yup. Will there be a joint air force? Will British embassies still represent the Scots? Will dual citizenship be maintained? Will Scotland continue to be a member of the EU on British terms? Will British authorities still regulate Scottish financial services? Will the Bank of England's reserves continue to be shared? Yup, yup, yup, yup, yup and yup.
But: will Scots be able to wave their sporrans in a tartan mist, in a brief moment of Saltire-shrouded glory? Er, no. It is this that Salmond is banking on to win it.
I have no financial interest in undermining MMR. I am just sharing some thoughts on the topic. What are your medical qualifications? I have 15 years of experience in vaccines.
The evidence from the trials is not statistically significant. If it was statistically significant then the MMR vaccine would not be licenced for sale. It is by no means conclusive, but it circumstantial.
Charles, I think you have needled tim.
He is showing side effects consistent with a diagnosis of anaphylactic shock
I give up, the science is clear, there's no point arguing with you.
That's exactly the point: if you read the clinical trial results the science is *not* clear.
There is circumstantial evidence of an association towards greater side effects with MMR, but this is not statistically significant. That means it is the equivalent of unproven
Mr. K, it's sad to see you're buying into a revisionist lie about Cameron. He's cocked up enough for genuine criticism without resorting to doublethink about the referendum.
He kept his promise. He voted for it. The parties that didn't were yellow and red, not blue.
As for keeping his promise, if he becomes PM next time his backbenchers will axe him if he doesn't. If you don't trust Cameron, you can certainly trust the Conservative Party's fondness for regicide.
But Cameron hasn't promised a referendum if there isn't a treaty to vote on. He quite ostentatiously evaded answering ("I'm an optimist!"). And there really won't be a treaty to vote on in the next Parliament - nobody really wants one, and the lead-time required would mean that the first draft would be under discussion right now.
What you would get in 2017 (by which time it's certainly possible that discussions on a treaty will be starting) is a promise to have a referendum in the following Parliament, if you re-elect the Tories AGAIN in 2020. It'd be fun in a morbid sort of way to see how often the trick can be repeated.
Mr. K, it's sad to see you're buying into a revisionist lie about Cameron. He's cocked up enough for genuine criticism without resorting to doublethink about the referendum.
He kept his promise. He voted for it. The parties that didn't were yellow and red, not blue.
As for keeping his promise, if he becomes PM next time his backbenchers will axe him if he doesn't. If you don't trust Cameron, you can certainly trust the Conservative Party's fondness for regicide.
But Cameron hasn't promised a referendum if there isn't a treaty to vote on. He quite ostentatiously evaded answering ("I'm an optimist!"). And there really won't be a treaty to vote on in the next Parliament - nobody really wants one, and the lead-time required would mean that the first draft would be under discussion right now.
What you would get in 2017 (by which time it's certainly possible that discussions on a treaty will be starting) is a promise to have a referendum in the following Parliament, if you re-elect the Tories AGAIN in 2020. It'd be fun in a morbid sort of way to see how often the trick can be repeated.
The exact text of the speech pledging the IN/OUT referendum makes it clear that it is not dependent on a new EU treaty but, in the absence of a treaty, a new settlement negotiated by the UK:
But if there is no appetite for a new Treaty for us all then of course Britain should be ready to address the changes we need in a negotiation with our European partners.
The next Conservative Manifesto in 2015 will ask for a mandate from the British people for a Conservative Government to negotiate a new settlement with our European partners in the next Parliament.
It will be a relationship with the Single Market at its heart.
And when we have negotiated that new settlement, we will give the British people a referendum with a very simple in or out choice. To stay in the EU on these new terms; or come out altogether.
It will be an in-out referendum.
I think you might have looked at a blank sheet of paper and started to hallucinate, Nick.
Mr. Palmer, I'm not sure that a man who was a Labour MP during the time of the party's despicable deceit about Lisbon is in a position to try and attack the Conservatives for breaking promises on an EU referendum, although I recognise your expertise in the subject.
Pupils in England should spend more hours at school each day and have shorter holidays, the Education Secretary Michael Gove has argued.
In the most successful East Asian education systems, "school days are longer, school holidays are shorter", Mr Gove told an education conference.
He added that current school terms were designed for "an agricultural economy".
Speaking at an education conference in London, Mr Gove said: "It is already the case that some of the best schools in the country recognise the need to change the structure of the school term.
"It's also the case that some of the best schools in the country recognise that we need to have a longer school day as well."
He argued that a longer school day would also be more family-friendly and "consistent with the pressures of a modern society".
"I remember half term in October when I was at school in Aberdeen was called the tattie holiday, the period when kids would go to the fields to pick potatoes.
"It was also at a time when the majority of mums stayed home. That world no longer exists, and we can't afford to have an education system that was essentially, set in the 19th Century."
Mr Gove added that a longer school day was the norm in East Asian nations where "the expectations of mathematical and scientific knowledge are more demanding than this country".
"If you look at the length of the school day in England, the length of the summer holiday, and we compare it to the extra tuition and support that children are receiving elsewhere, then we are fighting or actually running in this global race in a way that ensures that we start with a significant handicap."
Mr Gove said that some academies (state schools outside local authority control), were already running longer school days while others had changed the structure of their school terms.
You should stick to ineptly spinning that Lansley will be PM or that Osbrowne is a genius, Seth O Logue.
There will be no renegotiations or settlement or new deal without a new treaty.
Why on earth would the EU suddenly hand Cammie some ludicrous imaginary new settlement out of the blue? Because they fear the wrath of the incompetent fop's devastating EU flounces that change nothing?
LOL
The staggering gullibility of PB tories never fails to amuse.
F1: P1 and P2 are from 8am and 12pm tomorrow. I'm hoping to catch at least some of both sessions. With any luck that'll help me turn in a green tip or two.
You should stick to ineptly spinning that Lansley will be PM or that Osbrowne is a genius, Seth O Logue.
There will be no renegotiations or settlement or new deal without a new treaty.
Why on earth would the EU suddenly hand Cammie some ludicrous imaginary new settlement out of the blue? Because they fear the wrath of the incompetent fop's devastating EU flounces that change nothing?
LOL
The staggering gullibility of PB tories never fails to amuse.
Pork
You don't know what was agreed at Schoß Meseburg over a dinner of sauerkraut and roast wild bore piglet.
Full of common sense - but no LD Energy Secretary will have such common sense.
It's hard to argue with any UKIP policies, they really are just common sense. I'm getting to the stage where I question the sanity of anyone who doesn't vote for them.
If there was even the slightest hint of any small scraps (no matter how spurious or contrived) Merkel could throw to Cammie for posturing to mollify his gullible eurosceptic MPs, then the incompetent fop would hardly be keeping it a secret now, would he?
Pupils in England should spend more hours at school each day and have shorter holidays, the Education Secretary Michael Gove has argued.
In the most successful East Asian education systems, "school days are longer, school holidays are shorter", Mr Gove told an education conference.
He added that current school terms were designed for "an agricultural economy".
Speaking at an education conference in London, Mr Gove said: "It is already the case that some of the best schools in the country recognise the need to change the structure of the school term.
"It's also the case that some of the best schools in the country recognise that we need to have a longer school day as well."
He argued that a longer school day would also be more family-friendly and "consistent with the pressures of a modern society".
"I remember half term in October when I was at school in Aberdeen was called the tattie holiday, the period when kids would go to the fields to pick potatoes.
"It was also at a time when the majority of mums stayed home. That world no longer exists, and we can't afford to have an education system that was essentially, set in the 19th Century."
Mr Gove added that a longer school day was the norm in East Asian nations where "the expectations of mathematical and scientific knowledge are more demanding than this country".
"If you look at the length of the school day in England, the length of the summer holiday, and we compare it to the extra tuition and support that children are receiving elsewhere, then we are fighting or actually running in this global race in a way that ensures that we start with a significant handicap."
Mr Gove said that some academies (state schools outside local authority control), were already running longer school days while others had changed the structure of their school terms.
If there was even the slightest hint of any small scraps (no matter how spurious or contrived) Merkel could throw to Cammie for posturing to mollify his gullible eurosceptic MPs, then the incompetent fop would hardly be keeping it a secret now, would he?
What a pity voting UKIP would help to put Ed Miliband into No 10.
much as I hate to poop a party, the UKIP "policy" ( I read it this p.m. ) is a set of aspirations. It's the kind of thing Ed should be doing now to set the mood music but hasn't got the bottle. There are several good ideas but as yet it wouldn't stand scrutiny, it needs to be worked on to the next stage.
Full of common sense - but no LD Energy Secretary will have such common sense.
It's hard to argue with any UKIP policies, they really are just common sense. I'm getting to the stage where I question the sanity of anyone who doesn't vote for them.
really nigel, I mean you don;t perhaps think that one or two of them might need a bit of work ? How big do you think the hit on overseas investment will be if we leave the EU ?
Full of common sense - but no LD Energy Secretary will have such common sense.
It's hard to argue with any UKIP policies, they really are just common sense. I'm getting to the stage where I question the sanity of anyone who doesn't vote for them.
really nigel, I mean you don;t perhaps think that one or two of them might need a bit of work ? How big do you think the hit on overseas investment will be if we leave the EU ?
Tell me how big you think it will be, it's a question always raised by the europhiles.
Of course some of the policies need to be developed, but they are all eminently sensible, and have a bit more detail than Labour's policies!
I've read some deluded idiocy in my time but that pamphlet takes the biscuit.
Ukip - loons.
At least give Cammie his full quote. He called UKIP "fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists".
We can be sure there will not be a repeat of such amusing unpleasantness with Crosby on board. After all, Michael Howard only called the kippers "cranks, gadflies and extremists". A sign of real respect as I'm sure you would agree.
Mr. K, it's sad to see you're buying into a revisionist lie about Cameron. He's cocked up enough for genuine criticism without resorting to doublethink about the referendum.
He kept his promise. He voted for it. The parties that didn't were yellow and red, not blue.
As for keeping his promise, if he becomes PM next time his backbenchers will axe him if he doesn't. If you don't trust Cameron, you can certainly trust the Conservative Party's fondness for regicide.
But Cameron hasn't promised a referendum if there isn't a treaty to vote on. He quite ostentatiously evaded answering ("I'm an optimist!"). And there really won't be a treaty to vote on in the next Parliament - nobody really wants one, and the lead-time required would mean that the first draft would be under discussion right now.
What you would get in 2017 (by which time it's certainly possible that discussions on a treaty will be starting) is a promise to have a referendum in the following Parliament, if you re-elect the Tories AGAIN in 2020. It'd be fun in a morbid sort of way to see how often the trick can be repeated.
The exact text of the speech pledging the IN/OUT referendum makes it clear that it is not dependent on a new EU treaty but, in the absence of a treaty, a new settlement negotiated by the UK:
But if there is no appetite for a new Treaty for us all then of course Britain should be ready to address the changes we need in a negotiation with our European partners.
The next Conservative Manifesto in 2015 will ask for a mandate from the British people for a Conservative Government to negotiate a new settlement with our European partners in the next Parliament.
It will be a relationship with the Single Market at its heart.
And when we have negotiated that new settlement, we will give the British people a referendum with a very simple in or out choice. To stay in the EU on these new terms; or come out altogether.
It will be an in-out referendum.
I think you might have looked at a blank sheet of paper and started to hallucinate, Nick.
"...when we have negotiated that new settlement..."
Indeed. And when I've won the lottery, I shall be pleased to give you 20% interest on any sum you choose to lend me now.
currently I'm ploughing through unis with No 3. The missus is all about rankings and courses. No 3 asks me why I went to Manchester - " because I wanted to see the Buzzcocks live" ( true ). Dirty looks from other half especially since the bastards split between UCAS and Uni.
Mr. K, it's sad to see you're buying into a revisionist lie about Cameron. He's cocked up enough for genuine criticism without resorting to doublethink about the referendum.
He kept his promise. He voted for it. The parties that didn't were yellow and red, not blue.
As for keeping his promise, if he becomes PM next time his backbenchers will axe him if he doesn't. If you don't trust Cameron, you can certainly trust the Conservative Party's fondness for regicide.
But Cameron hasn't promised a referendum if there isn't a treaty to vote on. He quite ostentatiously evaded answering ("I'm an optimist!"). And there really won't be a treaty to vote on in the next Parliament - nobody really wants one, and the lead-time required would mean that the first draft would be under discussion right now.
What you would get in 2017 (by which time it's certainly possible that discussions on a treaty will be starting) is a promise to have a referendum in the following Parliament, if you re-elect the Tories AGAIN in 2020. It'd be fun in a morbid sort of way to see how often the trick can be repeated.
The exact text of the speech pledging the IN/OUT referendum makes it clear that it is not dependent on a new EU treaty but, in the absence of a treaty, a new settlement negotiated by the UK:
But if there is no appetite for a new Treaty for us all then of course Britain should be ready to address the changes we need in a negotiation with our European partners.
The next Conservative Manifesto in 2015 will ask for a mandate from the British people for a Conservative Government to negotiate a new settlement with our European partners in the next Parliament.
It will be a relationship with the Single Market at its heart.
And when we have negotiated that new settlement, we will give the British people a referendum with a very simple in or out choice. To stay in the EU on these new terms; or come out altogether.
It will be an in-out referendum.
I think you might have looked at a blank sheet of paper and started to hallucinate, Nick.
"...when we have negotiated that new settlement..."
Indeed. And when I've won the lottery, I shall be pleased to give you 20% interest on any sum you choose to lend me now.
Seriously, do you really believe this stuff?
Yes, I certainly believe the intent.
And Hague's work at the FCO in auditing the EU competences will be diligently if not faithfully completed.
And I am equally sure that Angela likes the idea of hiding behind Dave's petticoat.
But whether the naïveté leads to an entente cordiale universale, I'll pass on that for the moment.
Full of common sense - but no LD Energy Secretary will have such common sense.
It's hard to argue with any UKIP policies, they really are just common sense. I'm getting to the stage where I question the sanity of anyone who doesn't vote for them.
really nigel, I mean you don;t perhaps think that one or two of them might need a bit of work ? How big do you think the hit on overseas investment will be if we leave the EU ?
Tell me how big you think it will be, it's a question always raised by the europhiles.
Of course some of the policies need to be developed, but they are all eminently sensible, and have a bit more detail than Labour's policies!
I'm not a europhile, I'm fairly sceptical. But since you ask I reckon we'll lose 75-80% of FDI over ten years as it goes to Ireland or E Europe unless we do something substantive to counteract it. That's about £ 25bn per annum. The issue isn't about Labour, calling them fat doesn't make UKIP thin. I'm interested in the policy. What in your opinion are the three biggest risks to the UK economy if we leave the EU ?
Comments
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband-not-ready-yet-to-be-prime-minister-say-majority-in-new-poll-8578311.html
"Ed Miliband is dealt a blow today as an exclusive poll finds that a clear majority of Britons do not think he is ready to become prime minister.
Ipsos MORI found that just under one in four people thinks the Labour leader is ready to hold the keys of No 10, while two thirds believe that he is not yet up to the job."
A Labour source said....
“It is only Ed Miliband and Labour which is setting out the change Britain needs. As people see the Government’s plan has failed and we are answering the big questions on the economy, the NHS, the energy firms and the rail companies, we are confident people will come towards us.”"
I agree with you that in order to maintain pressure on the Cons UKIP need to not give an inch and every concession should be met by a hardening of resolve; classic negotiation technique.
That said, there is a danger of cutting-nose-to-spite-face syndrome setting in. You are upset at the centrist leaning, and are keen to redefine the character of the Cons. But realistically they aren't likely to row back from certain positions (eg. Gay marriage). So you are left in the invidious position of actively blocking a key policy (eg. euro referendum) which you are wholly in favour of in order to get jam tomorrow.
For me that is a fail but I understand the strategy.
On the side effects question the fundamental topic comes down to how the immune system works. And frankly, we don't know. Vaccines are immunostimulants, which work well. But I've seen enough examples - across multiples species (fish, swine, cattle, companion and equine) - where multivalent vaccines cause immunological issues that makes me pause to consider.
Delays between the jabs is de minimis risk (and if there is an outbreak you can always accelerate the programme).
Take-up rates: I agree with you. Absolutely MMR is in the interest of the government/health authorities because of cost and compliance (take up rates). Question is whether it is in the interests of an individual to employ a single vs multivalent vaccination strategy.
At the moment I'm tending towards the single vaccination strategy, becuase they are administered later (when the immune system is more developed) and there is less risk of interaction. I'm comfortable with the risk of the mumps exposure. Cost and time is not a factor in my consideration, and I'm fortunate in that respect.
They say what they mean and that upsets some people, but i think thats what political parties should do. So why would I vote for anyone else?
Evidence on the MMR side effects is mixed: suggestions of a trend, but not statistically significant. Cost I don't care about. Take up rate I don't care about, lack of a mumps vaccine is not a major concern.
And frankly, if I was in government, I would probably take the same view that the government has: at a societal level MMR has advantages.
But in any event I am going to continue to do my own research and you are not going to convince me. Biological pharmaceuticals are an area that I have 15 years worth of experience in, and I have enough people I know & trust in the space to ask the questions I need to know. For example I would rate CY's views as far more significant than yours in any final determination that I make [wikipedia.org/wiki/Chang_Yi_Wang].
Given this, and the fact that this discussion has little relevance to anyone else I suggest we leave it there.
He kept his promise. He voted for it. The parties that didn't were yellow and red, not blue.
As for keeping his promise, if he becomes PM next time his backbenchers will axe him if he doesn't. If you don't trust Cameron, you can certainly trust the Conservative Party's fondness for regicide.
Just sell your 10% of the BofE to France, that would p*ss them off no end.
Lender of last resort far more difficult - why would rUK take on an open-ended liability without compensation?
If he was really pushed he'd have a referendum on whether the voters were generally cheesed off and thought the other member states should be more helpful about renegotiating things, to give him a mandate to take to Brussels. That would buy him another five years, easy.
If you had *any idea* on how to read the results of clinical trials you would weigh up all the factors and draw conclusions.
The only thing that matters is vaccination against measles and rubella. If MMR were the only solution then I would go for it. If there is a solution that achieves the objective at a lower risk then that is worth considering.
The entire IN/OUT referendum is predicated on there being treaty negotiations to form a new deal on, even down to Cammie's wording of the referendum question itself. Yet is still hasn't dawned on most of them that this is a get out clause every bit as huge as Cammie had for Lisbon since any new treaty looks ever more like a pipe dream.
Some of us still remember the hilarity of Cammie's EU flounce that wasn't even if some PB tories appear to have conveniently forgotten.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/04/should-the-public-affairs-act-1975-be-repealed/
http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/lxi3dxkhp1/YG-Archive-Public-Affairs-Act-results-150413.pdf
Beyond me why anyone would want independence.
Absolute guff, nothing but petty sniping , zero content , puerile at best.
Should add mind you that it is par for your input Scott, you will be a lonely Tory in an independent Scotland.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10001423/Lady-Thatcher-warned-the-Irish-are-all-liars-says-Lord-Mandelson.html
It'll be due any decade now.
LOL
Coalition/Government 39%
Labour 38%
I have no financial interest in undermining MMR. I am just sharing some thoughts on the topic. What are your medical qualifications? I have 15 years of experience in vaccines.
The evidence from the trials is not statistically significant. If it was statistically significant then the MMR vaccine would not be licenced for sale. It is by no means conclusive, but it circumstantial.
Of particular note is that more than £1 in 10 of revenue is used to finance Network Rail's debt.
According to a report from the Office of Rail Regulation (ORR), the cost of paying off the £28bn debt totalled £1.5bn in the 2011-12 financial year, equal to 13% of the amount used to operate the network of lines across Britain.
Network Rail's Finance Director, Patrick Butcher, has previously estimated that the organisation's debt is likely to rise over the coming 20-30 years.
The £11.6bn cost of running the network was 58% funded by money generated generated from passengers, with the other £4.0bn coming from government subsidiaries.
According to the ORR, the contribution to running costs from passenger income rose 8.7%, partly due to a rise in journey numbers, while the government's funding decreased by £19m (0.5%) compared to the 2010-11 year.
So much for Thatcher ridding the UK of subsidised state industries!
http://www.watfordobserver.co.uk/news/localnews/10363787.Last_Watford_Conservative_councillor_defects_to_Liberal_Democrats/
"We clearly support the [UK government's current fiscal] policy. And we have done for some time."
She then goes on to repeat the qualification contained in the last IMF report on the UK economy stating that Osborne needs to keep an eye on [mainly growth] outputs and only adjust policy if they underperform."
All in answer to Sky's Ed Conway who was left stranded in Washington when the day after he used Chief Economiist Blancmange's somewhat heretic ideas to criticise Osborne, the IMF officially warned its member countries to be cautious about further quantitative easing.
So no endorsement of either Blancmange or Conway from Lagarde. Boy George will be chuckling to himself.
Oh dear, Ed. You would be better off with the New York Times than a Murdoch media channel.
http://playpolitical.typepad.com/uk_conservative/2013/04/charles-moore-michael-gove-and-peter-mandelson-discuss-margaret-thatchers-political-legacy-during-a-.html
http://ukip.org/media/policies/energy.pdf
Don't forget they'll also retain the English language!
He is showing side effects consistent with a diagnosis of anaphylactic shock
There is circumstantial evidence of an association towards greater side effects with MMR, but this is not statistically significant. That means it is the equivalent of unproven
What a pity voting UKIP would help to put Ed Miliband into No 10.
What you would get in 2017 (by which time it's certainly possible that discussions on a treaty will be starting) is a promise to have a referendum in the following Parliament, if you re-elect the Tories AGAIN in 2020. It'd be fun in a morbid sort of way to see how often the trick can be repeated.
Sadly, not going to make Dirty Dicks tomorrow, as am electioneering instead. Hope you have a good time.
But if there is no appetite for a new Treaty for us all then of course Britain should be ready to address the changes we need in a negotiation with our European partners.
The next Conservative Manifesto in 2015 will ask for a mandate from the British people for a Conservative Government to negotiate a new settlement with our European partners in the next Parliament.
It will be a relationship with the Single Market at its heart.
And when we have negotiated that new settlement, we will give the British people a referendum with a very simple in or out choice. To stay in the EU on these new terms; or come out altogether.
It will be an in-out referendum.
I think you might have looked at a blank sheet of paper and started to hallucinate, Nick.
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/teachers-to-be-rewarded-for-shitness-2013041865961
In the most successful East Asian education systems, "school days are longer, school holidays are shorter", Mr Gove told an education conference.
He added that current school terms were designed for "an agricultural economy".
Speaking at an education conference in London, Mr Gove said: "It is already the case that some of the best schools in the country recognise the need to change the structure of the school term.
"It's also the case that some of the best schools in the country recognise that we need to have a longer school day as well."
He argued that a longer school day would also be more family-friendly and "consistent with the pressures of a modern society".
"I remember half term in October when I was at school in Aberdeen was called the tattie holiday, the period when kids would go to the fields to pick potatoes.
"It was also at a time when the majority of mums stayed home. That world no longer exists, and we can't afford to have an education system that was essentially, set in the 19th Century."
Mr Gove added that a longer school day was the norm in East Asian nations where "the expectations of mathematical and scientific knowledge are more demanding than this country".
"If you look at the length of the school day in England, the length of the summer holiday, and we compare it to the extra tuition and support that children are receiving elsewhere, then we are fighting or actually running in this global race in a way that ensures that we start with a significant handicap."
Mr Gove said that some academies (state schools outside local authority control), were already running longer school days while others had changed the structure of their school terms.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-22202694
Pupils have always been the best assessors of teaching quality.
There will be no renegotiations or settlement or new deal without a new treaty.
Why on earth would the EU suddenly hand Cammie some ludicrous imaginary new settlement out of the blue? Because they fear the wrath of the incompetent fop's devastating EU flounces that change nothing?
LOL
The staggering gullibility of PB tories never fails to amuse.
You don't know what was agreed at Schoß Meseburg over a dinner of sauerkraut and roast wild bore piglet.
The Proms have not been the same since Sir Malcolm Sargent died.
I once made the mistake of watching a maturing Nigel Kennedy demonstrate the fruits of his weed fuelled exile to Poland.
Never again.
A useful new option.
If there was even the slightest hint of any small scraps (no matter how spurious or contrived) Merkel could throw to Cammie for posturing to mollify his gullible eurosceptic MPs, then the incompetent fop would hardly be keeping it a secret now, would he?
The Stranglers should have retained Pork as their librettist.
[Edit: I much prefer Bob Marley II]
Ukip - loons.
Of course some of the policies need to be developed, but they are all eminently sensible, and have a bit more detail than Labour's policies!
We can be sure there will not be a repeat of such amusing unpleasantness with Crosby on board. After all, Michael Howard only called the kippers "cranks, gadflies and extremists".
A sign of real respect as I'm sure you would agree.
Indeed. And when I've won the lottery, I shall be pleased to give you 20% interest on any sum you choose to lend me now.
Seriously, do you really believe this stuff?
And Hague's work at the FCO in auditing the EU competences will be diligently if not faithfully completed.
And I am equally sure that Angela likes the idea of hiding behind Dave's petticoat.
But whether the naïveté leads to an entente cordiale universale, I'll pass on that for the moment.