I have a few quid on Burnham. He ran last time, with reasonable parliamentary support, while I think that Chukka has limited popularity in either parliament or Unions. I cannot see him winning.
Fox Burnham also has emotional intelligence, as can be seen in his Hillsborough statement, he also has a degree in English rather than PPE. I still think it will be Chukka Umunna though who will succeed Miliband if he falls short in 2015!
All day today wind power has been contributing about five gigawatt to the national grid. Currently this amounts to about 15 percent, and suffices to supply very roughly two or three million homes.
How many of the last 10 CoE were economists or had studied economics at university? Not many....
In a strong field, quite the most stupid comment on PB since it switched.
Perhaps you would care in future to view your sources a little more critically.
Perhaps you can justify your claim? I suspect you are thinking about his time as PM
He was Chancellor for a year - and frankly I don't remember anything he did apart from take the country into the ERM. Clearly a mistake with hindisght - but given that the UK was only a member for 2 years more politically damaging than economically destructive.
Fox Chukka backed Ed Miliband in 2010 and would likely have his MPs and union backing, as well as that of the membership, I doubt Burnham would do any better than he did last time, and he is from the Blairite wing of the party which is shrinking
All day today wind power has been contributing about five gigawatt to the national grid. Currently this amounts to about 15 percent, and suffices to supply very roughly two or three million homes.
All day today wind power has been contributing about five gigawatt to the national grid. Currently this amounts to about 15 percent, and suffices to supply very roughly two or three million homes.
Just incredibly unilluminating. Are you aware that the wind blows more strongly on some days, less strongly on others and sometimes not at all? And that that makes cherry-picked single data points a tiny bit uninformative?
All day today wind power has been contributing about five gigawatt to the national grid. Currently this amounts to about 15 percent, and suffices to supply very roughly two or three million homes.
Just incredibly unilluminating. Are you aware that the wind blows more strongly on some days, less strongly on others and sometimes not at all? And that that makes cherry-picked single data points a tiny bit uninformative?
I feel slightly embarrassed to have to point out that it is, hopefully, just a start, and that the website explains that we use quick reacting CCGT generation to even things out. Black and white solutions are nice but usually not possible in reality.
If Ed wins the election, there will be at least five years before a leadership election, but if Ed loses the election then I could see the re-invention of New Labour with a more centrist/Blairite agenda. Alternitively a defeated Labour party could shift to the hard left, as in the eighties, but I think that they have learnt from those years.
Last time around the centrist faction voted for David Miliband, but even so 12% of MPs preferred Burnham. Next time David will not be standing, and there are few other obvious centrist candidates.
Andy Burnham is an excellent communicator, and would connect better with voters than the well dressed public school educated millionaire Chukka.
Fox Chukka backed Ed Miliband in 2010 and would likely have his MPs and union backing, as well as that of the membership, I doubt Burnham would do any better than he did last time, and he is from the Blairite wing of the party which is shrinking
How many of the last 10 CoE were economists or had studied economics at university? Not many....
In a strong field, quite the most stupid comment on PB since it switched.
Perhaps you would care in future to view your sources a little more critically.
Perhaps you can justify your claim? I suspect you are thinking about his time as PM
He was Chancellor for a year - and frankly I don't remember anything he did apart from take the country into the ERM. Clearly a mistake with hindisght - but given that the UK was only a member for 2 years more politically damaging than economically destructive.
Let's have a look.....
The greatest number of mass forced evictions since the Highland clearances. Mass unemployment. Huge numbers of small businesses bankrupted due to collapsed demand and absurdly high interest rates. Deficit reaching 12% of GDP. Greatest tax increases since we were fighting Napoleon.
Now, I'll grant you that some of these consequences occurred after he switched, but no chancellor has done so much damage in such a short time.
And on a personal note .....
I haven't forgotten the racist statement parroted by Gus O'Donnell (his press officer) to Michael Brunson after Italy left the ERM.
I also haven't forgotten his incompetence in failing to save the life of a British journalist in Iraq whilst Foreign Secretary. Weren't we supplying arms to Iraq at the time?
Until a few days ago I had no idea that renewable energy was able to contribute more than 20% to the national grid. I thought it was about 10% at the most even with strong winds.
Until a few days ago I had no idea that renewable energy was able to contribute more than 20% to the national grid. I thought it was about 10% at the most even with strong winds.
How many of the last 10 CoE were economists or had studied economics at university? Not many....
In a strong field, quite the most stupid comment on PB since it switched.
Perhaps you would care in future to view your sources a little more critically.
Perhaps you can justify your claim? I suspect you are thinking about his time as PM
He was Chancellor for a year - and frankly I don't remember anything he did apart from take the country into the ERM. Clearly a mistake with hindisght - but given that the UK was only a member for 2 years more politically damaging than economically destructive.
Let's have a look.....
The greatest number of mass forced evictions since the Highland clearances. Mass unemployment. Huge numbers of small businesses bankrupted due to collapsed demand and absurdly high interest rates. Deficit reaching 12% of GDP. Greatest tax increases since we were fighting Napoleon.
Now, I'll grant you that some of these consequences occurred after he switched, but no chancellor has done so much damage in such a short time.
And on a personal note .....
I haven't forgotten the racist statement parroted by Gus O'Donnell (his press officer) to Michael Brunson after Italy left the ERM.
I also haven't forgotten his incompetence in failing to save the life of a British journalist in Iraq whilst Foreign Secretary. Weren't we supplying arms to Iraq at the time?
How many of the last 10 CoE were economists or had studied economics at university? Not many....
In a strong field, quite the most stupid comment on PB since it switched.
Perhaps you would care in future to view your sources a little more critically.
Perhaps you can justify your claim? I suspect you are thinking about his time as PM
He was Chancellor for a year - and frankly I don't remember anything he did apart from take the country into the ERM. Clearly a mistake with hindisght - but given that the UK was only a member for 2 years more politically damaging than economically destructive.
Let's have a look.....
The greatest number of mass forced evictions since the Highland clearances. Mass unemployment. Huge numbers of small businesses bankrupted due to collapsed demand and absurdly high interest rates. Deficit reaching 12% of GDP. Greatest tax increases since we were fighting Napoleon.
Now, I'll grant you that some of these consequences occurred after he switched, but no chancellor has done so much damage in such a short time.
And on a personal note .....
I haven't forgotten the racist statement parroted by Gus O'Donnell (his press officer) to Michael Brunson after Italy left the ERM.
I also haven't forgotten his incompetence in failing to save the life of a British journalist in Iraq whilst Foreign Secretary. Weren't we supplying arms to Iraq at the time?
Well, unfortunately for you, despite being Italian, I do realise that the Prime Minister is the First Lord of the Treasury, so he WAS still at the Treasury.
It actually says so on the door of 10 Downing Street.
I think the reappraisal comes from people who didn't experience him in office and have forgotten just how incompetent he was.
As for the ERM being popular, so what? It is getting the decision right that matters and he got the decision itself and the rate we entered at terribly wrong. Worse, he kept us in with enormous damage to the economy (and people) just to save his face.
And let's not forget what a stinking hypocrite he is. (Edwina Currie, anyone?)
We were discussing the CoE role in the context of formal qualifications, but clearly you are too obtuse to comprehend that.
I was resident in Britain during his time as PM, and remember it well, I joined the Labour Party at that time, and was one of many who were suckered by Blair, but over time I recognise that his period as PM was a golden period compared with the last decade.
How many of the last 10 CoE were economists or had studied economics at university? Not many....
In a strong field, quite the most stupid comment on PB since it switched.
Perhaps you would care in future to view your sources a little more critically.
Perhaps you can justify your claim? I suspect you are thinking about his time as PM
He was Chancellor for a year - and frankly I don't remember anything he did apart from take the country into the ERM. Clearly a mistake with hindisght - but given that the UK was only a member for 2 years more politically damaging than economically destructive.
Let's have a look.....
The greatest number of mass forced evictions since the Highland clearances. Mass unemployment. Huge numbers of small businesses bankrupted due to collapsed demand and absurdly high interest rates. Deficit reaching 12% of GDP. Greatest tax increases since we were fighting Napoleon.
Now, I'll grant you that some of these consequences occurred after he switched, but no chancellor has done so much damage in such a short time.
And on a personal note .....
I haven't forgotten the racist statement parroted by Gus O'Donnell (his press officer) to Michael Brunson after Italy left the ERM.
I also haven't forgotten his incompetence in failing to save the life of a British journalist in Iraq whilst Foreign Secretary. Weren't we supplying arms to Iraq at the time?
Well, unfortunately for you, despite being Italian, I do realise that the Prime Minister is the First Lord of the Treasury, so he WAS still at the Treasury.
It actually says so on the door of 10 Downing Street.
I think the reappraisal comes from people who didn't experience him in office and have forgotten just how incompetent he was.
As for the ERM being popular, so what? It is getting the decision right that matters and he got the decision itself and the rate we entered at terribly wrong. Worse, he kept us in with enormous damage to the economy (and people) just to save his face.
And let's not forget what a stinking hypocrite he is. (Edwina Currie, anyone?)
If Ed wins the election, there will be at least five years before a leadership election, but if Ed loses the election then I could see the re-invention of New Labour with a more centrist/Blairite agenda. Alternitively a defeated Labour party could shift to the hard left, as in the eighties, but I think that they have learnt from those years.
Last time around the centrist faction voted for David Miliband, but even so 12% of MPs preferred Burnham. Next time David will not be standing, and there are few other obvious centrist candidates.
Andy Burnham is an excellent communicator, and would connect better with voters than the well dressed public school educated millionaire Chukka.
Fox Chukka backed Ed Miliband in 2010 and would likely have his MPs and union backing, as well as that of the membership, I doubt Burnham would do any better than he did last time, and he is from the Blairite wing of the party which is shrinking
I'd price up Labour going back to a minister under Brown if they lose in 2015 as about the same as the Tories choosing another Bullingdon Boy to follow Dave if they lose in 2015.
Yes, please, Ed - ditch Balls. This would be multiple Christmases come at once:
1) The look on Ed B's face
2) A public admission of utter failure by Labour in framing any kind of vaguely sane economic policy
3) A trigger for the simmering resentment within Labour about Ed M to burst into the open - currently we get little bubbles such as Lord Puttnam's bizarre interview of today, but discipline has remained remarkably tight when you consider what senior Labour politicians must really think.
4) ... and then look at the alternative runners....
I think the best time to ditch Balls would be next summer, as the pre-election discipline would inhibit any reprisals by Balls, and I suspect that the political agenda next summer would be dominated by the Indyref and conflict over Europe in the Tory party in the aftermath of the Euro-elections, while the World cup would dominate the popular press.
Robotic though she is, Rachel Reeves may be best of a poor field. The Labour front bench is really rather second rate.
Yes, please, Ed - ditch Balls. This would be multiple Christmases come at once:
1) The look on Ed B's face
2) A public admission of utter failure by Labour in framing any kind of vaguely sane economic policy
3) A trigger for the simmering resentment within Labour about Ed M to burst into the open - currently we get little bubbles such as Lord Puttnam's bizarre interview of today, but discipline has remained remarkably tight when you consider what senior Labour politicians must really think.
4) ... and then look at the alternative runners....
I think the best time to ditch Balls would be next summer, as the pre-election discipline would inhibit any reprisals by Balls, and I suspect that the political agenda next summer would be dominated by the Indyref and conflict over Europe in the Tory party in the aftermath of the Euro-elections, while the World cup would dominate the popular press.
The trouble with that would be that, whatever the timing, the first question Ed Miliband would be asked would be 'Does the new appointment mean that Labour admits it got the economy wrong?' If the answer is No, then 'So why was Balls sacked?' Next summer wouldn't leave long to establish a new economic message.
As others have pointed out, the problem isn't Balls - in fact he's the most impressive member of the Shadow Cabinet, or at least was until his car-crash on Thursday - it's the fact that they haven't actually got anything to say on the economy. Even that wouldn't matter too much if they hadn't spent years saying, in the most absurdly intemperate terms, that Osborne got everything wrong, when actually he got it right.
I think the best time to ditch Balls would be next summer, as the pre-election discipline would inhibit any reprisals by Balls, and I suspect that the political agenda next summer would be dominated by the Indyref and conflict over Europe in the Tory party in the aftermath of the Euro-elections, while the World cup would dominate the popular press.
The trouble with that would be that, whatever the timing, the first question Ed Miliband would be asked would be 'Does the new appointment mean that Labour admits it got the economy wrong?' If the answer is No, then 'So why was Balls sacked?' Next summer wouldn't leave long to establish a new economic message.
As others have pointed out, the problem isn't Balls - in fact he's the most impressive member of the Shadow Cabinet, or at least was until his car-crash on Thursday - it's the fact that they haven't actually got anything to say on the economy. Even that wouldn't matter too much if they hadn't spent years saying, in the most absurdly intemperate terms, that Osborne got everything wrong, when actually he got it right.
At the moment, with a Labour lead, I don't think Ed will risk that even though the Tories could be left screaming "but, but, but, he's just accepted failure" like some Cassandra.
Speaking of Chancellors, or former ones, I have to say this video about the daughter of a former Chancellor made me laugh though I admit there's nothing sophisticated about it.
The Twitter address of the newly-selected UKIP candidate for Hayes and Harlington is maybe a slightly embarrassing reminder of the fact that he contested the seat in 2010 for the English Democrats:
We were discussing the CoE role in the context of formal qualifications, but clearly you are too obtuse to comprehend that.
I was resident in Britain during his time as PM, and remember it well, I joined the Labour Party at that time, and was one of many who were suckered by Blair, but over time I recognise that his period as PM was a golden period compared with the last decade.
How many of the last 10 CoE were economists or had studied economics at university? Not many....
In a strong field, quite the most stupid comment on PB since it switched.
Perhaps you would care in future to view your sources a little more critically.
Perhaps you can justify your claim? I suspect you are thinking about his time as PM
He was Chancellor for a year - and frankly I don't remember anything he did apart from take the country into the ERM. Clearly a mistake with hindisght - but given that the UK was only a member for 2 years more politically damaging than economically destructive.
Let's have a look.....
The greatest number of mass forced evictions since the Highland clearances. Mass unemployment. Huge numbers of small businesses bankrupted due to collapsed demand and absurdly high interest rates. Deficit reaching 12% of GDP. Greatest tax increases since we were fighting Napoleon.
Now, I'll grant you that some of these consequences occurred after he switched, but no chancellor has done so much damage in such a short time.
And on a personal note .....
I haven't forgotten the racist statement parroted by Gus O'Donnell (his press officer) to Michael Brunson after Italy left the ERM.
I also haven't forgotten his incompetence in failing to save the life of a British journalist in Iraq whilst Foreign Secretary. Weren't we supplying arms to Iraq at the time?
Well, unfortunately for you, despite being Italian, I do realise that the Prime Minister is the First Lord of the Treasury, so he WAS still at the Treasury.
It actually says so on the door of 10 Downing Street.
I think the reappraisal comes from people who didn't experience him in office and have forgotten just how incompetent he was.
As for the ERM being popular, so what? It is getting the decision right that matters and he got the decision itself and the rate we entered at terribly wrong. Worse, he kept us in with enormous damage to the economy (and people) just to save his face.
And let's not forget what a stinking hypocrite he is. (Edwina Currie, anyone?)
John Major can hardly be cited as a stellar example of what those without school or university qualifications can achieve.
You have completely failed to address:
His racism Edwina Currie Farzad Bazoft Matrix Churchill Mass forced evictions
Considering the Tories have failed to win a majority in the House of Commons since he left office (remind me, exactly how bad were the 1997 General Election results?), no wonder Labour supporters like yourself view it as a 'Golden Age'.
Balls will be a net vote loser but at this point why does Miliband need to fire him?
The numbers are in Labour's favour.
If it comes to squeaky bum time then he can do it. Until then why bother? Balls seems to think he's some kind of big beast. I'd suggest that is...balls. Thus is perfectly fire-able. Just not yet.
I think the best time to ditch Balls would be next summer, as the pre-election discipline would inhibit any reprisals by Balls, and I suspect that the political agenda next summer would be dominated by the Indyref and conflict over Europe in the Tory party in the aftermath of the Euro-elections, while the World cup would dominate the popular press.
Even that wouldn't matter too much if they hadn't spent years saying, in the most absurdly intemperate terms, that Osborne got everything wrong, when actually he got it right.
Am I missing something or was Osborne always intending on borrowing £110bn in the 4th year of this parliament?
Fox Chukka backed Ed Miliband in 2010 and would likely have his MPs and union backing, as well as that of the membership, I doubt Burnham would do any better than he did last time, and he is from the Blairite wing of the party which is shrinking
Burnham was originally a Blairite, but he's not really anymore. In the leadership campaign, the stuff he said (aside from taking a Blairite/hawkish stance on crime and Iraq) was actually quite left-wing, a lot moreso than David Miliband. Also, Burnham's big idea is to create a National Care Service, which gives the few Blairites remaining (who have a paranoia about anything that sounds like tax'n'spend) absolute fits.
I also sense he's much more popular among Labour party grassroots members than Cooper is, so I agree he'd be the favourite to be next leader if Ed doesn't win in 2015.
For those interested, there's a programme about the terracotta army from 8pm on Ch4 tonight. Not sure if I'll watch it.
Do watch it. It wasn't just about the Terracotta Army per se, but an analysis of the huge infrastructure of bonded/slave labour, technology, Fordian mass-production, skilled craftsmanship, and weapons technology that would have been necessary to construct it (over a period of 40 years). And the long-term geo-political consequences of the unification of China which happened at the same time.
Thailand Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra says she will dissolve parliament and hold elections, after days of anti-government protests Retweeted by BBC News (UK)":
Thailand Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra says she will dissolve parliament and hold elections, after days of anti-government protests Retweeted by BBC News (UK)":
"Anti-government protesters, who have been calling for her government to be replaced with an unelected "people's council", say the rallies will continue."
Hard to see the "ignore elections" people having an easy time getting people to turn out and vote.
Thailand Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra says she will dissolve parliament and hold elections, after days of anti-government protests Retweeted by BBC News (UK)":
"Anti-government protesters, who have been calling for her government to be replaced with an unelected "people's council", say the rallies will continue."
Hard to see the "ignore elections" people having an easy time getting people to turn out and vote.
Thaksin arouses strong emotions in the country. I do sometimes wonder though if the "Democrats" aren't so much worried about corruption as that they're out of power, so not getting their share.
Thailand Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra says she will dissolve parliament and hold elections, after days of anti-government protests Retweeted by BBC News (UK)":
"Anti-government protesters, who have been calling for her government to be replaced with an unelected "people's council", say the rallies will continue."
Hard to see the "ignore elections" people having an easy time getting people to turn out and vote.
Thaksin arouses strong emotions in the country. I do sometimes wonder though if the "Democrats" aren't so much worried about corruption as that they're out of power, so not getting their share.
They're supposed to be loyal to the king, so why isn't he telling them to STFU and respect the result of the election?
Comments
'5% off the Tory polling with his 2010 election campaign'
So when the 'No' vote in the independence referendum goes down by 5% is entirely the fault of your hero Darling?
All day today wind power has been contributing about five gigawatt to the national grid. Currently this amounts to about 15 percent, and suffices to supply very roughly two or three million homes.
http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/
He was Chancellor for a year - and frankly I don't remember anything he did apart from take the country into the ERM. Clearly a mistake with hindisght - but given that the UK was only a member for 2 years more politically damaging than economically destructive.
Democracy means that a stupid persons vote counts just as much as mine.
Milliband will dither and dither and by this time next year (when axing Balls will be a necessity) his position will be too weak to do much.
5% here, 5% there, pretty soon you have an undeniable meme...
Last time around the centrist faction voted for David Miliband, but even so 12% of MPs preferred Burnham. Next time David will not be standing, and there are few other obvious centrist candidates.
Andy Burnham is an excellent communicator, and would connect better with voters than the well dressed public school educated millionaire Chukka.
My stake is small and at quite good odds.
The greatest number of mass forced evictions since the Highland clearances.
Mass unemployment.
Huge numbers of small businesses bankrupted due to collapsed demand and absurdly high interest rates.
Deficit reaching 12% of GDP.
Greatest tax increases since we were fighting Napoleon.
Now, I'll grant you that some of these consequences occurred after he switched, but no chancellor has done so much damage in such a short time.
And on a personal note .....
I haven't forgotten the racist statement parroted by Gus O'Donnell (his press officer) to Michael Brunson after Italy left the ERM.
I also haven't forgotten his incompetence in failing to save the life of a British journalist in Iraq whilst Foreign Secretary. Weren't we supplying arms to Iraq at the time?
Current numbers:
Wind: 15.89%
Biomass: 1.87%
Hydro: 1.52%
Pumped: 1.08%
Total: 20.36%
http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/
I think that increasingly John Major is being reappraised as PM, and is rated better than those who succeeded him.
The ERM was quite a popular move at the time, with support across parties.
It actually says so on the door of 10 Downing Street.
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2011/11/30/1322666181646/The-door-of-No-10-Downing-007.jpg
I think the reappraisal comes from people who didn't experience him in office and have forgotten just how incompetent he was.
As for the ERM being popular, so what? It is getting the decision right that matters and he got the decision itself and the rate we entered at terribly wrong. Worse, he kept us in with enormous damage to the economy (and people) just to save his face.
And let's not forget what a stinking hypocrite he is. (Edwina Currie, anyone?)
I was resident in Britain during his time as PM, and remember it well, I joined the Labour Party at that time, and was one of many who were suckered by Blair, but over time I recognise that his period as PM was a golden period compared with the last decade.
1) The look on Ed B's face
2) A public admission of utter failure by Labour in framing any kind of vaguely sane economic policy
3) A trigger for the simmering resentment within Labour about Ed M to burst into the open - currently we get little bubbles such as Lord Puttnam's bizarre interview of today, but discipline has remained remarkably tight when you consider what senior Labour politicians must really think.
4) ... and then look at the alternative runners....
Robotic though she is, Rachel Reeves may be best of a poor field. The Labour front bench is really rather second rate.
As others have pointed out, the problem isn't Balls - in fact he's the most impressive member of the Shadow Cabinet, or at least was until his car-crash on Thursday - it's the fact that they haven't actually got anything to say on the economy. Even that wouldn't matter too much if they hadn't spent years saying, in the most absurdly intemperate terms, that Osborne got everything wrong, when actually he got it right.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMnW-rPny0A
He seems alright with it
This is great for all the"anti immigration means you're racist" throwbacks #nickpalmer
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/magazine/article3938636.ece
You have completely failed to address:
His racism
Edwina Currie
Farzad Bazoft
Matrix Churchill
Mass forced evictions
Considering the Tories have failed to win a majority in the House of Commons since he left office (remind me, exactly how bad were the 1997 General Election results?), no wonder Labour supporters like yourself view it as a 'Golden Age'.
The numbers are in Labour's favour.
If it comes to squeaky bum time then he can do it. Until then why bother? Balls seems to think he's some kind of big beast. I'd suggest that is...balls. Thus is perfectly fire-able. Just not yet.
"
John Major can hardly be cited as a stellar example of what those without school or university qualifications can achieve.
You have completely failed to address:
His racism
Edwina Currie
Farzad Bazoft
Matrix Churchill
Mass forced evictions
"
Are Italians a race?
'Rachel looks OK
Until she opens he mouth.
I also sense he's much more popular among Labour party grassroots members than Cooper is, so I agree he'd be the favourite to be next leader if Ed doesn't win in 2015.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDSnD0PGQyg&
Thailand Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra says she will dissolve parliament and hold elections, after days of anti-government protests Retweeted by BBC News (UK)":
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-25252795
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/10504423/Ed-Balls-shadow-chancellor-turned-pianist-in-concert.html
Hard to see the "ignore elections" people having an easy time getting people to turn out and vote.