Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Polling suggests that it is going to be harder for Tories

2»

Comments

  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,471

    Off topic (though no one seems on it), UKIP Scotland have replaced Lord Monckton as their head with one Misty Thackeray - is that his porn star name?

    :)

    My porn star name in Fritzy Bramdean. I could have made a fortune.
    Mine is Happy Heath.

    There's some fertile ground to be sowed with that one. ;-)
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,568

    Anecdotally UKIP supporters I have encountered when canvassing generally believe that there is no difference between Labour and the Tories. They are not interested in voting Tory to stop Labour because they think Cameron is pursuing the same policies as Miliband anyway.

    Lib Dem/ Labour switchers, on the other hand, tend to have strong anti-Tory views and are still prepared to back their second-choice party as the lesser of two evils. And Clegg's recent attempts to draw dividing lines between the Lib Dems and Tories is clearly aimed at shoring up support amongst Labour switchers in Lib Dem seats where the Tories are second (which, of course, is most of them).

    That's my (equally anecdotal) impression too. The nearest equivalent to UKIP in determination not to vote tactically is the Greens. In both cases they feel they're making a positive choice.

  • BobajobBobajob Posts: 1,536
    Ian Bone? Janice Dick?

    Are we still on porn names?
  • BobajobBobajob Posts: 1,536
    Jon Bigger
  • Stuart_DicksonStuart_Dickson Posts: 3,557
    edited December 2013

    Off topic (though no one seems on it), UKIP Scotland have replaced Lord Monckton as their head with one Misty Thackeray - is that his porn star name?

    :)

    My porn star name is Fritzy Bramdean. I could have made a fortune.
    Mine is Happy Heath.

    There's some fertile ground to be sowed with that one. ;-)
    :)
  • Doesn't look like we will be getting any Cowdenbeath by-election markets. The bookies have clearly concluded that it will be an easy LAB HOLD. Paddy Power offered me LAB at 1/25. I'll pass thanks.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,916
    Of course some the Oldham by-election did show some Tories willing to switch, although probably to a lesser extent. Nick Palmer Greens and UKIP voters are ideologues, whether of left and right, and so less willing to vote tactically, the fact they would probably have most been happy when Michael Foot and William Hague respectively were leaders of the Labour and Tory Party shows that they are not the best people to appeal too to win an election, although under the FPTP system neither main party wants to lose too much of its base to the fringe!
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    edited December 2013
    Wealden Conservative candidate open primary on Thursday 5th December at 7pm at the East Sussex National Golf Club Hotel.

    Anyone on the parliamentary electoral register in the Wealden constituency can take part, but registration is required by 5pm on Tuesday 3rd December:

    http://www.wealdenconservatives.com/news/wealdens-next-mp

    Candidates are Edward Argar, Tony Caldeira, Nusrat (Nus) Ghani and Helen Whately:

    http://www.conservativehome.com/parliament/2013/11/the-final-four-in-the-wealden-open-primary-are-named.html
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    In a Golf Club ! That says it all.

    When will the cocktails be served ?
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549

    Doesn't look like we will be getting any Cowdenbeath by-election markets. The bookies have clearly concluded that it will be an easy LAB HOLD. Paddy Power offered me LAB at 1/25. I'll pass thanks.

    Isn't this an SNP / Labour marginal ? Just 10 months before an historic referendum, it's being called already ?
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,568
    That's a bit bonkers. An old friend of mine (the late Richard Sharp, author of the entertaining classic The Game of Diplomacy, available online if anyone wants to dip in) was very like Farage in many ways - smoked like a chimney, downed real ale with gusto. He eventually developed lung cancer and said dryly, "Maybe the health fascists were right after all" - but I'm not sure he'd really have lived his life differently if he'd had another go.

    I'm in two minds about his secondary theme of e-cigs, though. I can see the danger in creating a popular new form of smoking, but if it really weans people off fags it's tempting, and I'm libertarian enough not to want to ban anything that's even faintly unhealthy. Is there a solidly-based risk assessment out there?

  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    South East Cambridgeshire Conservative open primary on 7th December:

    http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/News/Four-candidates-shortlisted-to-succeed-Sir-Jim-Paice-20131126134953.htm

    Candidates:

    Heidi Allen
    Charlotte Vere
    Paul Bristow
    Lucy Frazer
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Pro EU demonstrations in Ukraine:

    http://www.independent.ie/world-news/ukraine-protests-target-government-29801555.html

    Unlikely to see them here very soon!
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 43,046
    On topic

    as the main NOTA party is in, er, government then there is only one NOTA game in town and that's UKIP.

    They have hoovered up the world's-gone-to-hell-in-a-handbasket vote.

    But.

    There is still a large contingent, how large we shall see, which are vanilla golf club Tories frustrated with Dave's windmill antics and who, primarily, want a vote on the EU. They get it that if they vote UKIP they don't get that vote but for now, they want to give the Cons a boot up the arse.

    Most of these will return to the Cons fold come GE2015.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    edited December 2013
    The Liberals held Toronto Centre in the by-election on 25th November:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toronto_Centre#Election_results
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 43,046
    off-topic

    they really, really shouldn't let artists talk about themselves/their work.
  • BobajobBobajob Posts: 1,536
    Re: Populus (40/33) - yet another survey that has the two big parties locked into position around the 39-32 mark, where both have been, give or take a point or two, for donkeys' years. Is it possible this just stays there, impervious to any outside influence, for many months more?
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,514
    TOPPING said:

    On topic

    as the main NOTA party is in, er, government then there is only one NOTA game in town and that's UKIP.

    They have hoovered up the world's-gone-to-hell-in-a-handbasket vote.

    But.

    There is still a large contingent, how large we shall see, which are vanilla golf club Tories frustrated with Dave's windmill antics and who, primarily, want a vote on the EU. They get it that if they vote UKIP they don't get that vote but for now, they want to give the Cons a boot up the arse.

    Most of these will return to the Cons fold come GE2015.

    Any evidence for that ? Sounds like wishful thinking.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    ATTENTION BETTORS!!!

    £350 left at 4/6 those good things the Lib Dems to beat the "surely they've reached their ceiling" Kippers in GE 2015 vote share
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,916
    Andy JS Indeed, and the Liberal vote was up 8%, the Tory vote fell almost 14%, looks like Justin Trudeau remains on-track to oust Harper in 2015 and restore a famous political name to the Canadian Premiership
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    “All three candidates vying for election in Hampstead and Kilburn at the 2015 general election came together for the first time to answer questions and introduce themselves to pupils at a Hampstead boys school.

    BBC news presenter Jon Sopel hosted a special hustings at University College School, in Frognal, on Friday (November 28) attended by all three of the parliamentary candidates looking to replace Hampstead and Kilburn MP, Glenda Jackson.”


    http://www.hamhigh.co.uk/news/contenders_vying_to_be_mp_for_hampstead_and_kilburn_attend_first_hustings_at_ucs_school_1_3064531
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    If the energy companies or the Govt try to boast of the £50 a year they are "saving" customers, when in reality it is £50 off the £130 odd rise in yearly bills it really will be George Orwell, 1984 & chocolate rations come to life
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,207
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/10489516/EU-guilty-of-power-grab-against-British-justice-system-says-Dominic-Grieve.html

    "The European Union is “subverting” the rules in its attempts to intervene in matters that should always be decided by the UK, the Government's top law officer has warned."
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,471
    TOPPING said:

    off-topic

    they really, really shouldn't let artists talk about themselves/their work.

    Yet again, the Turner Prize is won by a load of cr@p.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,471
    isam said:

    If the energy companies or the Govt try to boast of the £50 a year they are "saving" customers, when in reality it is £50 off the £130 odd rise in yearly bills it really will be George Orwell, 1984 & chocolate rations come to life

    Would you prefer to pay the £50 ?
  • Pro EU demonstrations in Ukraine:

    http://www.independent.ie/world-news/ukraine-protests-target-government-29801555.html

    Unlikely to see them here very soon!

    They're not really pro-EU demonstrations; they're anti-Russian ones.
  • NextNext Posts: 826

    isam said:

    If the energy companies or the Govt try to boast of the £50 a year they are "saving" customers, when in reality it is £50 off the £130 odd rise in yearly bills it really will be George Orwell, 1984 & chocolate rations come to life

    Would you prefer to pay the £50 ?
    Ed Miliband does. He wants wanted ever higher prices to stop people using too much energy.


  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    My dad is one of these, he lives in a Con/LD marginal but would poll for UKIP at present. He would vote Con to keep the LD out. A bit sad as until 10 years ago he voted LD.
    TOPPING said:

    On topic

    as the main NOTA party is in, er, government then there is only one NOTA game in town and that's UKIP.

    They have hoovered up the world's-gone-to-hell-in-a-handbasket vote.

    But.

    There is still a large contingent, how large we shall see, which are vanilla golf club Tories frustrated with Dave's windmill antics and who, primarily, want a vote on the EU. They get it that if they vote UKIP they don't get that vote but for now, they want to give the Cons a boot up the arse.

    Most of these will return to the Cons fold come GE2015.

  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,568
    Floater said:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/10489516/EU-guilty-of-power-grab-against-British-justice-system-says-Dominic-Grieve.html

    "The European Union is “subverting” the rules in its attempts to intervene in matters that should always be decided by the UK, the Government's top law officer has warned."

    Odd speech warning against nameless things - the only concrete example mentioned (unless it's just shoddy journalism) is something about olive oil bottles, which doesn't sound a classic British freedom.

  • MonkeysMonkeys Posts: 758
    The thing about e-cigs is, it's not really smoking. You're inhaling Propylene Glycol (available in asthma inhalers,) water vapour, and the same nicotine you get in nicorette. No studies have proven it's dangerous, but because you can't realistically "prove," something is safe, the anti's use that to go "b-b-but it might not be!" And, if we allow for that argument, you can never win even with something that is super-safe.

    What we do have are a couple of studies that say it's more effective than nicotine patches, but everything is more effective than nicotine patches. We also have a couple of studies that say nicotine on it's own is only mildly addictive - there are thousands of chemicals in normal cigarettes, and they include things like MAO Inhibitors, which basically make half your brain light up. Nicotine is also under some circumstances a pretty useful drug - it acts as a cognitive enhancer, and seems to reduce the otherwise-untreatable negative symptoms of Schizophrenia, to the point where at least two pharmaceutical companies, that I know of, have nicotinic receptor agonists in clinical trials right now, as add-on treatments for Schizophrenia.

    There's no good reason to regulate the blatantly safer alternative out of existence.

    I write all this as a non-smoker.
  • NextNext Posts: 826

    Floater said:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/10489516/EU-guilty-of-power-grab-against-British-justice-system-says-Dominic-Grieve.html

    "The European Union is “subverting” the rules in its attempts to intervene in matters that should always be decided by the UK, the Government's top law officer has warned."

    Odd speech warning against nameless things - the only concrete example mentioned (unless it's just shoddy journalism) is something about olive oil bottles, which doesn't sound a classic British freedom.

    You missed the most important line...

    "The UK has already mounted a series of legal challenges in Europe and Mr Grieve warned that more could follow ahead of the next election."
  • NextNext Posts: 826
    Monkeys said:

    The thing about e-cigs is, it's not really smoking. You're inhaling Propylene Glycol (available in asthma inhalers,) water vapour, and the same nicotine you get in nicorette. No studies have proven it's dangerous, but because you can't realistically "prove," something is safe, the anti's use that to go "b-b-but it might not be!" And, if we allow for that argument, you can never win even with something that is super-safe.

    What we do have are a couple of studies that say it's more effective than nicotine patches, but everything is more effective than nicotine patches. We also have a couple of studies that say nicotine on it's own is only mildly addictive - there are thousands of chemicals in normal cigarettes, and they include things like MAO Inhibitors, which basically make half your brain light up. Nicotine is also under some circumstances a pretty useful drug - it acts as a cognitive enhancer, and seems to reduce the otherwise-untreatable negative symptoms of Schizophrenia, to the point where at least two pharmaceutical companies, that I know of, have nicotinic receptor agonists in clinical trials right now, as add-on treatments for Schizophrenia.

    There's no good reason to regulate the blatantly safer alternative out of existence.

    I write all this as a non-smoker.

    I agree. But they confuse people as they look like cigarettes and the user blows "smoke", even though actually just water vapour.

    So e-cigs will suffer a lot of prejudice from that alone.
  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    Next said:

    Floater said:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/10489516/EU-guilty-of-power-grab-against-British-justice-system-says-Dominic-Grieve.html

    "The European Union is “subverting” the rules in its attempts to intervene in matters that should always be decided by the UK, the Government's top law officer has warned."

    Odd speech warning against nameless things - the only concrete example mentioned (unless it's just shoddy journalism) is something about olive oil bottles, which doesn't sound a classic British freedom.

    You missed the most important line...

    "The UK has already mounted a series of legal challenges in Europe and Mr Grieve warned that more could follow ahead of the next election."
    And of course Osborne has gone to court to protect bankers' bonuses from being capped under EU rules.

  • Floater said:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/10489516/EU-guilty-of-power-grab-against-British-justice-system-says-Dominic-Grieve.html

    "The European Union is “subverting” the rules in its attempts to intervene in matters that should always be decided by the UK, the Government's top law officer has warned."

    Odd speech warning against nameless things - the only concrete example mentioned (unless it's just shoddy journalism) is something about olive oil bottles, which doesn't sound a classic British freedom.

    And that is how power transfers: the principle is not defended because the specific is trivial. Then, when something important comes up, precedent has already been set.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,568
    Monkeys said:

    The thing about e-cigs is, it's not really smoking. You're inhaling Propylene Glycol (available in asthma inhalers,) water vapour, and the same nicotine you get in nicorette. No studies have proven it's dangerous, but because you can't realistically "prove," something is safe, the anti's use that to go "b-b-but it might not be!" And, if we allow for that argument, you can never win even with something that is super-safe.

    What we do have are a couple of studies that say it's more effective than nicotine patches, but everything is more effective than nicotine patches. We also have a couple of studies that say nicotine on it's own is only mildly addictive - there are thousands of chemicals in normal cigarettes, and they include things like MAO Inhibitors, which basically make half your brain light up. Nicotine is also under some circumstances a pretty useful drug - it acts as a cognitive enhancer, and seems to reduce the otherwise-untreatable negative symptoms of Schizophrenia, to the point where at least two pharmaceutical companies, that I know of, have nicotinic receptor agonists in clinical trials right now, as add-on treatments for Schizophrenia.

    There's no good reason to regulate the blatantly safer alternative out of existence.

    I write all this as a non-smoker.

    Sounds reasonable. Does anyone want to put the other side? My poker group has half a dozen e-smokers. They say they do think it's very slightly risky as people who pig out on them would get a lot of nicotine, but they feel it's unlikely. (They might be biased...)

  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    edited December 2013
    "Estate agents in West Hampstead were forced to act as “bouncers” after being swamped with almost a hundred desperate home buyers hoping to purchase what is claimed to be “the cheapest freehold house in central London”.

    Staff from Dutch & Dutch Estate Agents in West End Lane were forced to take up crowd control duties as prospective home buyers rushed to the two bedroom house in Sumatra Road during a viewing on Saturday (November 23).

    With many properties in the same neighbourhood valued in excess of £1million, interest rocketed when the house was put on the market for just £300,000.

    Around 90 people crammed into the small house and queues formed out the door.

    The low valuation - almost unheard of for a two bedroom property in the area - was due to a small floor plan and a nearby railway line."


    http://www.hamhigh.co.uk/news/viewing_of_cheapest_house_in_central_london_sees_estate_agents_forced_to_act_as_bouncers_1_3047668#cxrecs_s
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118

    isam said:

    If the energy companies or the Govt try to boast of the £50 a year they are "saving" customers, when in reality it is £50 off the £130 odd rise in yearly bills it really will be George Orwell, 1984 & chocolate rations come to life

    Would you prefer to pay the £50 ?
    Well, looks like someones fallen for it
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    Ed Miliband swiftly and decisively caves in to Len. Again...

    @patrickwintour: Labour aims to reassure trade unions by easing in party funding changes http://t.co/VWbF6wFC43 via @guardian
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 43,046

    TOPPING said:

    On topic

    as the main NOTA party is in, er, government then there is only one NOTA game in town and that's UKIP.

    They have hoovered up the world's-gone-to-hell-in-a-handbasket vote.

    But.

    There is still a large contingent, how large we shall see, which are vanilla golf club Tories frustrated with Dave's windmill antics and who, primarily, want a vote on the EU. They get it that if they vote UKIP they don't get that vote but for now, they want to give the Cons a boot up the arse.

    Most of these will return to the Cons fold come GE2015.

    Any evidence for that ? Sounds like wishful thinking.
    Yes. I have spoken to every single person who has indicated they would vote UKIP.

    No I haven't got evidence. That will come in GE2015 but I have met a fair few of all types in particular the Cons=>UKIP=>2015 Cons.

  • isamisam Posts: 41,118

    Monkeys said:

    The thing about e-cigs is, it's not really smoking. You're inhaling Propylene Glycol (available in asthma inhalers,) water vapour, and the same nicotine you get in nicorette. No studies have proven it's dangerous, but because you can't realistically "prove," something is safe, the anti's use that to go "b-b-but it might not be!" And, if we allow for that argument, you can never win even with something that is super-safe.

    What we do have are a couple of studies that say it's more effective than nicotine patches, but everything is more effective than nicotine patches. We also have a couple of studies that say nicotine on it's own is only mildly addictive - there are thousands of chemicals in normal cigarettes, and they include things like MAO Inhibitors, which basically make half your brain light up. Nicotine is also under some circumstances a pretty useful drug - it acts as a cognitive enhancer, and seems to reduce the otherwise-untreatable negative symptoms of Schizophrenia, to the point where at least two pharmaceutical companies, that I know of, have nicotinic receptor agonists in clinical trials right now, as add-on treatments for Schizophrenia.

    There's no good reason to regulate the blatantly safer alternative out of existence.

    I write all this as a non-smoker.

    Sounds reasonable. Does anyone want to put the other side? My poker group has half a dozen e-smokers. They say they do think it's very slightly risky as people who pig out on them would get a lot of nicotine, but they feel it's unlikely. (They might be biased...)

    Cant remember where but Im sure I saw a sign banning all smoking inc e-cigs somewhere the other day... why would they be banned?

  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Mark Simmonds reselected as Conservative candidate for Boston & Skegness:

    twitter.com/MarkJSimmonds/status/407561622660845568
  • MarkSeniorMarkSenior Posts: 4,699
    isam said:

    Monkeys said:

    The thing about e-cigs is, it's not really smoking. You're inhaling Propylene Glycol (available in asthma inhalers,) water vapour, and the same nicotine you get in nicorette. No studies have proven it's dangerous, but because you can't realistically "prove," something is safe, the anti's use that to go "b-b-but it might not be!" And, if we allow for that argument, you can never win even with something that is super-safe.

    What we do have are a couple of studies that say it's more effective than nicotine patches, but everything is more effective than nicotine patches. We also have a couple of studies that say nicotine on it's own is only mildly addictive - there are thousands of chemicals in normal cigarettes, and they include things like MAO Inhibitors, which basically make half your brain light up. Nicotine is also under some circumstances a pretty useful drug - it acts as a cognitive enhancer, and seems to reduce the otherwise-untreatable negative symptoms of Schizophrenia, to the point where at least two pharmaceutical companies, that I know of, have nicotinic receptor agonists in clinical trials right now, as add-on treatments for Schizophrenia.

    There's no good reason to regulate the blatantly safer alternative out of existence.

    I write all this as a non-smoker.

    Sounds reasonable. Does anyone want to put the other side? My poker group has half a dozen e-smokers. They say they do think it's very slightly risky as people who pig out on them would get a lot of nicotine, but they feel it's unlikely. (They might be biased...)

    Cant remember where but Im sure I saw a sign banning all smoking inc e-cigs somewhere the other day... why would they be banned?

    Because the country is full of tinpot little Hitlers who want nothing better than to control other people's lives .
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,568

    Floater said:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/10489516/EU-guilty-of-power-grab-against-British-justice-system-says-Dominic-Grieve.html

    "The European Union is “subverting” the rules in its attempts to intervene in matters that should always be decided by the UK, the Government's top law officer has warned."

    Odd speech warning against nameless things - the only concrete example mentioned (unless it's just shoddy journalism) is something about olive oil bottles, which doesn't sound a classic British freedom.

    And that is how power transfers: the principle is not defended because the specific is trivial. Then, when something important comes up, precedent has already been set.
    Sure, but his speech, as reported, gives the impression that he's thinking of several specific things the EU has done or is currently doing ("is subverting" not "might subvert"), not one random thing about olive oil. It's rum that he apparently couldn't think of anything to mention that especially bothered him. If Miliband gave a speech claiming that the government "is betraying" pensioners, say, but couldn't give a specific example of it except for a change in regulations affecting Marmite jars, wouldn't you think it odd?

  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,514
    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    On topic

    as the main NOTA party is in, er, government then there is only one NOTA game in town and that's UKIP.

    They have hoovered up the world's-gone-to-hell-in-a-handbasket vote.

    But.

    There is still a large contingent, how large we shall see, which are vanilla golf club Tories frustrated with Dave's windmill antics and who, primarily, want a vote on the EU. They get it that if they vote UKIP they don't get that vote but for now, they want to give the Cons a boot up the arse.

    Most of these will return to the Cons fold come GE2015.

    Any evidence for that ? Sounds like wishful thinking.
    Yes. I have spoken to every single person who has indicated they would vote UKIP.

    No I haven't got evidence. That will come in GE2015 but I have met a fair few of all types in particular the Cons=>UKIP=>2015 Cons.

    I can see there being some swingback, but since the Kippers pick up support from NOTAs and people who don't vote, by definition they won't be going blue.

    Furthermore since where the votes are picked up probably counts more than how many are cast I suspect cameron has more of a problem. Kippers can return in their droves in the SE and it will make bugger all difference. Cameron needs the votes in the Midlands and North and since he hasn't really done much to win over voters in these areas he'll have a problem.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,025
    Some speculation that the UK might be fully upgraded back to AAA, possibly even on Friday after what we are still laughably calling the autumn statement.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/10489768/Derivative-markets-have-already-upgraded-Britain-to-AAA.html

    These are not good times for those that got their kicks mocking Osborne. Not good at all.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,041
    DavidL said:

    Some speculation that the UK might be fully upgraded back to AAA, possibly even on Friday after what we are still laughably calling the autumn statement.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/10489768/Derivative-markets-have-already-upgraded-Britain-to-AAA.html

    These are not good times for those that got their kicks mocking Osborne. Not good at all.

    Surely a yellow box is incoming?!

  • New Thread
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,916
    SeanT Escaped tiger?
  • sladeslade Posts: 2,080
    AndyJS said:

    The Liberals held Toronto Centre in the by-election on 25th November:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toronto_Centre#Election_results

    A clear example of Conservatives voting tactically for the Liberal?
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,471
    isam said:

    isam said:

    If the energy companies or the Govt try to boast of the £50 a year they are "saving" customers, when in reality it is £50 off the £130 odd rise in yearly bills it really will be George Orwell, 1984 & chocolate rations come to life

    Would you prefer to pay the £50 ?
    Well, looks like someones fallen for it
    Bit late to the party, but may I suggest you read my previous posts about the changes, going back weeks?

    Some of the levies put onto energy bills have no right being there. Moving them into general taxation makes sense, and should save a small amount of money as the companies will not have to collect them. There is also a bigger saving in the ECO being watered down over a longer period.

    It's also good to see that the large distribution (pipes and wires) slice of the pie is being squeezed slightly. It's strange that people concentrate their ire on the energy companies, but not on the distribution companies, who also put their prices up.
  • BobajobBobajob Posts: 1,536

    isam said:

    isam said:

    If the energy companies or the Govt try to boast of the £50 a year they are "saving" customers, when in reality it is £50 off the £130 odd rise in yearly bills it really will be George Orwell, 1984 & chocolate rations come to life

    Would you prefer to pay the £50 ?
    Well, looks like someones fallen for it
    Bit late to the party, but may I suggest you read my previous posts about the changes, going back weeks?

    Some of the levies put onto energy bills have no right being there. Moving them into general taxation makes sense, and should save a small amount of money as the companies will not have to collect them. There is also a bigger saving in the ECO being watered down over a longer period.

    It's also good to see that the large distribution (pipes and wires) slice of the pie is being squeezed slightly. It's strange that people concentrate their ire on the energy companies, but not on the distribution companies, who also put their prices up.
    Tories dancing to Labour's tune on this stuff JJ. What is this mysterious "general taxation" that is going to save my family money? I only ask because usually taxation means paying the same or more in some other way...

This discussion has been closed.