IMO it will be relatively easy for Labour to go from 258 seats to about 300 by picking up easy targets from the LDs and seats from the Tories where demographic change is taking place like Enfield North and Brighton Kemptown. But then it will suddenly become much more difficult for them to move from 300 to 326 because they'll need to win small town seats like Worcester, Gloucester and Tamworth which are moving away from them demographically.
And if people like Sarah Teather keep going,then not only will the Lib Dem defectors stay with Labour,there will be another small minority who will start leaving.
With the Syrian intervention,fracking,attack on Guardian journalists,Lobbying bill and Snooping bill,it`s time for real Lib Dems to ask for their money back
If another Lib-Con coalition is on the cards based on a smaller rump of LD Mps - would it be humiliating for the LDs to have less cabinet members than this parly ? A potential bargaining chip for Labour - shack up with us and you can have another cabinet post or two.... ?
Cabinet post or not,I suspect a lot of backbench Lib Dem MP`s are more comfortable shacking up with Labour than a Tory government which is turning more authoritarian by the day.
Can you point me to coalition authoritarian policies that have been opposed by Labour. It's a genuine question, the only one I can think of off the top of my head are the 'porn laws' and those have by and large been welcomed by 'As a father' Ed.
Question for people with spreadsheets: does anyone have one showing the NUTS1 region for each constituency? (These are used e.g. for the European Parliament elections.)
''With the Syrian intervention,fracking,attack on Guardian journalists,Lobbying bill and Snooping bill,it`s time for real Lib Dems to ask for their money back''
except of course in the lib dem/conservative/UKIP fights, where you would presumably want them to keep voting lib dem (such as Eastleigh).
I honestly couldn`t care less.I think Britain is in for four-party politics for a while and if Miliband gets in,he`s going to change the voting system anyway.
Very interesting to note that you have gone from "Our next prime minister" to "if he gets in". If even the true believers such as yourself are starting to have doubts, (consciously or other wise) it really is all to play for.
Around thirty per-cent of the electorate did not vote in the last GE. For the 2010 LibDhimmis to make-up 7% of the electorate would imply that they were 10% of those who actually voted: The current 5% Labour lead suggests otherwise.
Two problems: The positied premise is wishful thinking and, secondly, ignores the possibility that the electorate may re-engage with the political process. The latter are the bigger prize and the one that the major British parties - Conservative, Labour and UKIP - should be most concerned with.
Question for people with spreadsheets: does anyone have one showing the NUTS1 region for each constituency? (These are used e.g. for the European Parliament elections.)
"But the court heard that medical experts who had examined the girl had found no clear physical evidence that she had ever been sexually abused.
When she was examined two years after the last alleged attack, tests indicated that she had not had full sex, the jury was told."
I mean, how on earth did this get to the jury?
The CPS are often criticised for not sending enough rape cases to trial, so it's possible that they send a few speculative efforts like this one so that they can show those people that juries will not convict on the sole basis of a rape victim's testimony - ie the problem is with the lack of evidence gathered, societies confusion on consent, etc
The CPS obviously have to exercise some degree of discretion on the cases that they choose to send to trial, but in general it is preferable for a case to be decided by a jury than a CPS lawyer I think.
The penny seems to be dropping among smart Tories, and even a few PB Tories that the Conservative party's attacks on TradeUnions may be counterproductive.
Isn’t it possible – not certain but merely possible – that Miliband is on to something here? And if he is and if he manages to push these reforms through and they actually amount to something wouldn’t there be some contrast between a Labour party largely funded by small donors and a Tory party disagreeably dependent upon large donations from millionaires? I think there might be and that contrast might not work to the Tories’ advantage.
Which is another way of saying that for all the energy the Tories spend attacking union bosses those bosses are, objectively speaking, the Tories’ allies. Unions aren’t a problem really but the Conservatives would like you to believe they are; mighty union bosses might not have Ed Miliband in their pocket but the Tory party would like you to think they do. It is in Conservative interests to up-big the Unions and they have ample reason to fear Miliband’s proposed reforms.
Meanwhile, it is certainly true that millions of union members voted Conservative at the last election. Which is something Tories might remember just as they might remember that government-paid public-sector workers also vote and writing – or seeming to write – those citizens off as the problem or the reason for Britain’s sub-optimal economic performance might not be the wisest electoral ploy in the world.
Those people who fall for stories about trade unions, immigrants and disabled benefit scroungers are as damaging to the Tory Party as the Tea Party loons are to the long term interests of the GOP
Ed Miliband seems to be the one who has fallen most for Union scare stories.
"But the court heard that medical experts who had examined the girl had found no clear physical evidence that she had ever been sexually abused.
When she was examined two years after the last alleged attack, tests indicated that she had not had full sex, the jury was told."
I mean, how on earth did this get to the jury?
Good question.
I don't want to go on about this but the prosecution in this case asked the jury to convict the accused of 5 counts of rape. Without getting overly technical I would really like to know the basis upon which they did this. On the basis of the limited information available it seems to me to have been an improper thing for a prosecutor to have done. I suspect we have not heard the last of this.
"But the court heard that medical experts who had examined the girl had found no clear physical evidence that she had ever been sexually abused.
When she was examined two years after the last alleged attack, tests indicated that she had not had full sex, the jury was told."
I mean, how on earth did this get to the jury?
Good question.
I don't want to go on about this but the prosecution in this case asked the jury to convict the accused of 5 counts of rape. Without getting overly technical I would really like to know the basis upon which they did this. On the basis of the limited information available it seems to me to have been an improper thing for a prosecutor to have done. I suspect we have not heard the last of this.
TBH, that a celebrity has been cleared of child sex charges has cheered me up - there are some who are innocent.
"But the court heard that medical experts who had examined the girl had found no clear physical evidence that she had ever been sexually abused.
When she was examined two years after the last alleged attack, tests indicated that she had not had full sex, the jury was told."
I mean, how on earth did this get to the jury?
The CPS are often criticised for not sending enough rape cases to trial, so it's possible that they send a few speculative efforts like this one so that they can show those people that juries will not convict on the sole basis of a rape victim's testimony - ie the problem is with the lack of evidence gathered, societies confusion on consent, etc
The CPS obviously have to exercise some degree of discretion on the cases that they choose to send to trial, but in general it is preferable for a case to be decided by a jury than a CPS lawyer I think.
Bl***y H**l, OblitusSumMe, where does that leave the poor defendant? After all Le Vell, Turner or whatever his name is has had whatever good name he had pretty comprehensively blackened in the course of defending himself.
Mark Wallace @wallaceme Ye gods, I hadn't realised the Guardian intends to pay Huhne to write on a regular basis pressgazette.co.uk/content/guardi… Wasn't yesterday bad enough?
I notice that no-one is expecting Tory voters in, for example, Withington or Rochdale to vote tactically for the LibDems.
I don't see why not. The flip side of the great LD "betrayal" is most blues assumed the LDs were simply soft Labour, though this is mostly a Southern thing since the LDs have replaced Labour in many consitituencies and their rhetoric is anti-tory. That took a knock in 2010. As an aside I usually voted Lib ( tactically ) in the councils elections when I lived in Manchester. In Withington.
''With the Syrian intervention,fracking,attack on Guardian journalists,Lobbying bill and Snooping bill,it`s time for real Lib Dems to ask for their money back''
except of course in the lib dem/conservative/UKIP fights, where you would presumably want them to keep voting lib dem (such as Eastleigh).
I honestly couldn`t care less.I think Britain is in for four-party politics for a while and if Miliband gets in,he`s going to change the voting system anyway.
Very interesting to note that you have gone from "Our next prime minister" to "if he gets in". If even the true believers such as yourself are starting to have doubts, (consciously or other wise) it really is all to play for.
I would rather be considered a realist than Anecdote Joe.There are enough of them around here.
Mark Wallace @wallaceme Ye gods, I hadn't realised the Guardian intends to pay Huhne to write on a regular basis pressgazette.co.uk/content/guardi… Wasn't yesterday bad enough?
Why on earth would the Guardian want to hire a sanctimonious, self absorbed, smug, humourless Murdoch conspiracist? Oh....hang on.....
"But the court heard that medical experts who had examined the girl had found no clear physical evidence that she had ever been sexually abused.
When she was examined two years after the last alleged attack, tests indicated that she had not had full sex, the jury was told."
I mean, how on earth did this get to the jury?
Good question.
I don't want to go on about this but the prosecution in this case asked the jury to convict the accused of 5 counts of rape. Without getting overly technical I would really like to know the basis upon which they did this. On the basis of the limited information available it seems to me to have been an improper thing for a prosecutor to have done. I suspect we have not heard the last of this.
DavidL without knowing the precise testimony of the witness, the medical evidence mentioned on this thread would point to lack of evidence rather than proof positive to the contrary.
Message to Putin - if Britain is a small island then why can we still demand that your Ukraine friends kick off at quarter to ten at night so we English can watch our football in the natural order of work, dinner , footie!! So there!!
''With the Syrian intervention,fracking,attack on Guardian journalists,Lobbying bill and Snooping bill,it`s time for real Lib Dems to ask for their money back''
except of course in the lib dem/conservative/UKIP fights, where you would presumably want them to keep voting lib dem (such as Eastleigh).
I honestly couldn`t care less.I think Britain is in for four-party politics for a while and if Miliband gets in,he`s going to change the voting system anyway.
Very interesting to note that you have gone from "Our next prime minister" to "if he gets in". If even the true believers such as yourself are starting to have doubts, (consciously or other wise) it really is all to play for.
I would rather be considered a realist than Anecdote Joe.There are enough of them around here.
It's very interesting though, you, a founder member of the Ed looked great today and was a towering example of a modern statesman, has stepped back from the coolaid of Ed as nailed on next prime minister, to if he wins. It's the small cracks that finally cause a dam to burst, you may well be the first of many.
The penny seems to be dropping among smart Tories, and even a few PB Tories that the Conservative party's attacks on TradeUnions may be counterproductive.
The LDs will be most vulnerable in seats being defended where the incumbent MP is not standing again.
But they could make gains - one I've identified for reasons I cannot disclose is Watford. The Labrokes price has moved in from 6/1 to 3/1 since the start of August.
At GE2010 I had an ongoing argument with JackW on Watford. He said the LDs would take it - I said otherwise.
At the 2015 GE will the Lib Dems lose more seats to Labour or the Conservatives?
The 12th Lib Dem seat on the Labour target list is Cardiff Central, which is held with a majority of 4576 (12.7%).
The 12th Lib Dem seat on the Conservative target list is Eastbourne, which is held with a majority of 3435 (6.6%).
Although the majority over the Conservatives is lower in Eastbourne, the Lib Dem - Labour swing required for the seat to change hands is higher there than in Cardiff Central [6.6% compared to 6.4%]. This suggests that even if the Lib Dem to Labour swing is uniform, this will not disproportionately benefit the Tories as we often assume on here.
''With the Syrian intervention,fracking,attack on Guardian journalists,Lobbying bill and Snooping bill,it`s time for real Lib Dems to ask for their money back''
except of course in the lib dem/conservative/UKIP fights, where you would presumably want them to keep voting lib dem (such as Eastleigh).
I honestly couldn`t care less.I think Britain is in for four-party politics for a while and if Miliband gets in,he`s going to change the voting system anyway.
Very interesting to note that you have gone from "Our next prime minister" to "if he gets in". If even the true believers such as yourself are starting to have doubts, (consciously or other wise) it really is all to play for.
I would rather be considered a realist than Anecdote Joe.There are enough of them around here.
It's very interesting though, you, a founder member of the Ed looked great today and was a towering example of a modern statesman, has stepped back from the coolaid of Ed as nailed on next prime minister, to if he wins. It's the small cracks that finally cause a dam to burst, you may well be the first of many.
Ed looked good today and I said so.I suggest your post is more suitably directed to a number of posters who keep blathering `Tory majority nailed on` or `Ed will never be prime minister` without any evidence to support it.
I notice that no-one is expecting Tory voters in, for example, Withington or Rochdale to vote tactically for the LibDems.
I don't see why not. The flip side of the great LD "betrayal" is most blues assumed the LDs were simply soft Labour, though this is mostly a Southern thing since the LDs have replaced Labour in many consitituencies and their rhetoric is anti-tory. That took a knock in 2010. As an aside I usually voted Lib ( tactically ) in the councils elections when I lived in Manchester. In Withington.
So is there a possibility that Tory voters in the seats mentioned will vote Lib Dem? I know a few Tories in Rochdale and I would have thought them HIGHLY unlikely to do so!
Thanks Sunil. Actually - had a second look, I've got a spreadsheet from the Harvard academic Pippa Norris, and it's got the regions in it. I have a Python script I used to scrape the constituency results from the BBC site (so should've thought of your suggestion!), and another for the Telegraph. And I downloaded a copy of the Press Association's spreadsheet (via the Guardian). The Telegraph results turned out to be error-strewn, but irritatingly even the rest have a variety of discrepancies, some of which I never got to the bottom of.
Some disputes were over whether to include the Thirsk and Malton result (which was run later due to a candidate's death), whether Bercow counted as a "Conservative" in Buckingham, and whether the North Ayrshire and Arran candidate for the Tories counted as official after the party disowned him. Some spreadsheets mistakenly conflated the Northern Ireland Green Party with the England and Wales Green Party.
Other problems I never solved! Derby South for instance, UKIP and an Independent got 1821 and 1357 votes, but which way round? The BBC, the PA/Guardian, the parliamentary website, and Derby CC reckoned that UKIP got 1821 and the indy 1357, whereas Pippa Norris reckoned it was UKIP 1357 and the indy 1821. I'm tempted to think Pippa Norris was wrong on this one.
In Morecambe and Lunesdale did the Lib Dems get 5791 votes (BBC, Lancaster Council, the parliamentary website), or 5971 votes (Pippa Norris, PA/Guardian, and ukpollingreport)?
In Worcestershire West, did the Lib Dems get 20,409 votes (Pippa Norris, Worcs CC) or 20,459 votes (the BBC site, and parliament.uk)?
Other places where Guardian/PA differ from Pippa Norris: in Cambridgeshire North East did UKIP get 2791 votes, or 2991? In Caerphilly, did the Lib Dems get 5688 or 5988? In Buckingham, did UKIP get 8401 or 8410?
I know these are only small errors but it's frustrating not to have a single reliable source for something as basic as election results!
The penny seems to be dropping among smart Tories, and even a few PB Tories that the Conservative party's attacks on TradeUnions may be counterproductive.
And if people like Sarah Teather keep going,then not only will the Lib Dem defectors stay with Labour,there will be another small minority who will start leaving.
With the Syrian intervention,fracking,attack on Guardian journalists,Lobbying bill and Snooping bill,it`s time for real Lib Dems to ask for their money back
If another Lib-Con coalition is on the cards based on a smaller rump of LD Mps - would it be humiliating for the LDs to have less cabinet members than this parly ? A potential bargaining chip for Labour - shack up with us and you can have another cabinet post or two.... ?
Cabinet post or not,I suspect a lot of backbench Lib Dem MP`s are more comfortable shacking up with Labour than a Tory government which is turning more authoritarian by the day.
Can you point me to coalition authoritarian policies that have been opposed by Labour. It's a genuine question, the only one I can think of off the top of my head are the 'porn laws' and those have by and large been welcomed by 'As a father' Ed.
''With the Syrian intervention,fracking,attack on Guardian journalists,Lobbying bill and Snooping bill,it`s time for real Lib Dems to ask for their money back''
except of course in the lib dem/conservative/UKIP fights, where you would presumably want them to keep voting lib dem (such as Eastleigh).
I honestly couldn`t care less.I think Britain is in for four-party politics for a while and if Miliband gets in,he`s going to change the voting system anyway.
Very interesting to note that you have gone from "Our next prime minister" to "if he gets in". If even the true believers such as yourself are starting to have doubts, (consciously or other wise) it really is all to play for.
I would rather be considered a realist than Anecdote Joe.There are enough of them around here.
It's very interesting though, you, a founder member of the Ed looked great today and was a towering example of a modern statesman, has stepped back from the coolaid of Ed as nailed on next prime minister, to if he wins. It's the small cracks that finally cause a dam to burst, you may well be the first of many.
Ed looked good today and I said so.I suggest your post is more suitably directed to a number of posters who keep blathering `Tory majority nailed on` or `Ed will never be prime minister` without any evidence to support it.
Does anybody say Tory majority nailed on and actually mean it? If so a link would be appreciated, so that, I can point and laugh.
As for Ed never being prime minister, I think there is a greater than 50% chance he will be, but and it's a big but, he will need to up his game. This far into his leadership and very little indication of actually being able to lead rather than react, does not bode well. It's all very well setting ambushes about micro issues at PMQ's but he will have to start setting out his policies, and more importantly, what he's for, rather than against.
The penny seems to be dropping among smart Tories, and even a few PB Tories that the Conservative party's attacks on TradeUnions may be counterproductive.
The penny seems to be dropping among smart Tories, and even a few PB Tories that the Conservative party's attacks on TradeUnions may be counterproductive.
Thanks Sunil. Actually - had a second look, I've got a spreadsheet from the Harvard academic Pippa Norris, and it's got the regions in it. I have a Python script I used to scrape the constituency results from the BBC site (so should've thought of your suggestion!), and another for the Telegraph. And I downloaded a copy of the Press Association's spreadsheet (via the Guardian). The Telegraph results turned out to be error-strewn, but irritatingly even the rest have a variety of discrepancies, some of which I never got to the bottom of.
Some disputes were over whether to include the Thirsk and Malton result (which was run later due to a candidate's death), whether Bercow counted as a "Conservative" in Buckingham, and whether the North Ayrshire and Arran candidate for the Tories counted as official after the party disowned him. Some spreadsheets mistakenly conflated the Northern Ireland Green Party with the England and Wales Green Party.
Other problems I never solved! Derby South for instance, UKIP and an Independent got 1821 and 1357 votes, but which way round? The BBC, the PA/Guardian, the parliamentary website, and Derby CC reckoned that UKIP got 1821 and the indy 1357, whereas Pippa Norris reckoned it was UKIP 1357 and the indy 1821. I'm tempted to think Pippa Norris was wrong on this one.
In Morecambe and Lunesdale did the Lib Dems get 5791 votes (BBC, Lancaster Council, the parliamentary website), or 5971 votes (Pippa Norris, PA/Guardian, and ukpollingreport)?
In Worcestershire West, did the Lib Dems get 20,409 votes (Pippa Norris, Worcs CC) or 20,459 votes (the BBC site, and parliament.uk)?
Other places where Guardian/PA differ from Pippa Norris: in Cambridgeshire North East did UKIP get 2791 votes, or 2991? In Caerphilly, did the Lib Dems get 5688 or 5988? In Buckingham, did UKIP get 8401 or 8410?
I know these are only small errors but it's frustrating not to have a single reliable source for something as basic as election results!
For pre-war election results we only know most of them due to the tireless work of F.W.S Craig reconstructing them from newspaper archives etc.
The LDs will be most vulnerable in seats being defended where the incumbent MP is not standing again.
This is true. Aside from Teather, are any Lib Dems known to be stepping down? Menzies Campbell perhaps?
I'm sure the LDs will still put more resources into seats they hold, albeit with a fresh candidate, than they will into seats they don't, aside from a couple of targets. In percentage terms, what do you reckon is the value of incumbency bonus to the Lib Dems?
Question for people with spreadsheets: does anyone have one showing the NUTS1 region for each constituency? (These are used e.g. for the European Parliament elections.)
The LDs will be most vulnerable in seats being defended where the incumbent MP is not standing again.
This is true. Aside from Teather, are any Lib Dems known to be stepping down? Menzies Campbell perhaps?
I'm sure the LDs will still put more resources into seats they hold, albeit with a fresh candidate, than they will into seats they don't, aside from a couple of targets. In percentage terms, what do you reckon is the value of incumbency bonus to the Lib Dems?
The penny seems to be dropping among smart Tories, and even a few PB Tories that the Conservative party's attacks on TradeUnions may be counterproductive.
And if people like Sarah Teather keep going,then not only will the Lib Dem defectors stay with Labour,there will be another small minority who will start leaving.
With the Syrian intervention,fracking,attack on Guardian journalists,Lobbying bill and Snooping bill,it`s time for real Lib Dems to ask for their money back
If another Lib-Con coalition is on the cards based on a smaller rump of LD Mps - would it be humiliating for the LDs to have less cabinet members than this parly ? A potential bargaining chip for Labour - shack up with us and you can have another cabinet post or two.... ?
Cabinet post or not,I suspect a lot of backbench Lib Dem MP`s are more comfortable shacking up with Labour than a Tory government which is turning more authoritarian by the day.
Can you point me to coalition authoritarian policies that have been opposed by Labour. It's a genuine question, the only one I can think of off the top of my head are the 'porn laws' and those have by and large been welcomed by 'As a father' Ed.
Snooping Bill Secret Courts Lobbying Bill
The sad truth is that politicians of all shades are not good at protecting our liberties once they get into power. They are far too easily persuaded by the officials who want powers and rights which they genuinely believe will make their job of protecting people easier and more effective.
New Labour was appallingly authoritarian and the Coalition too have fallen away from a reasonable start to not much better.
Politicians need to be braver but the fear of being held responsible when some terrorist or criminal might have been stopped by overbearing powers is irresistible. It is not easy to see an answer to this but sunset clauses on any restrictions of liberty requiring a review as to their efficacy and utility would be some sort of a start.
Personally, I would start with Enhanced Disclosure Certificates. Is there any evidence that they have done any good at all?
[We will] curb the improper influence of lobbyists by introducing a statutory register of lobbyists, changing the Ministerial Code so that ministers and officials are forbidden from meeting MPs on issues where the MP is paid to lobby, requiring companies to declare how much they spend on lobbying in their annual reports, and introducing a statutory register of interests for parliamentary candidates based on the current Register of Members’ Interests
(so did Labour, come to that).
In any case, why on earth would anyone concerned about Civil Liberties want to switch to helping Labour, of all parties, into government? The party which wanted 90 days detention not only without trial, but even without a vague indication of what you're suspected of, the party which wanted ID cards, the party which made it illegal to let anyone know you were thinking you might sell your house without having a government-approved inspector writing a dumb and completely useless report first, the party which passed and then abused anti-terrorism laws, the party which gave us not only Iraq but the fraudulent justification for Iraq, the party which made it illegal for a plumber to smoke in his own van even if he was the only occupant, the party which cosied up to Murdoch, the party which wanted not just one but two entire obtrusive databases for criminal and even gossip record checking, etc etc etc.
The LDs will be most vulnerable in seats being defended where the incumbent MP is not standing again.
This is true. Aside from Teather, are any Lib Dems known to be stepping down? Menzies Campbell perhaps?
I'm sure the LDs will still put more resources into seats they hold, albeit with a fresh candidate, than they will into seats they don't, aside from a couple of targets. In percentage terms, what do you reckon is the value of incumbency bonus to the Lib Dems?
Malcolm Bruce in Gordon iirc.
Sir Alan Beith, making Berwick-upon-Tweed a very realistic Tory target I would think.
Question for people with spreadsheets: does anyone have one showing the NUTS1 region for each constituency? (These are used e.g. for the European Parliament elections.)
The LDs will be most vulnerable in seats being defended where the incumbent MP is not standing again.
This is true. Aside from Teather, are any Lib Dems known to be stepping down? Menzies Campbell perhaps?
Malcolm Bruce in Gordon iirc.
Thanks, and @RichardNabavi for Sir Alan Beith in Berwick. I had a look and couldn't find any stories saying Campbell is stepping down, actually. Perhaps he runs and runs and runs....
IMO the only way the Tories could have won a majority at the next election was with the new boundaries. By refusing Lords Reform the Tories destroyed any chance of outright victory.
Poor effort, surely you could come up with someone calling members of the public bigots, or sponsoring a press officer who made up stories about opposition MP's or throwing mobile phones at staff, or throwing furniture and breaking printers. That would be a story.
Unsubstantiated stories from an internet back water don't really cut it as evidence of "authoritarian" behavior.
Standards of bad behavior are really falling since this Government came into power.
The LDs will be most vulnerable in seats being defended where the incumbent MP is not standing again.
This is true. Aside from Teather, are any Lib Dems known to be stepping down? Menzies Campbell perhaps?
I'm sure the LDs will still put more resources into seats they hold, albeit with a fresh candidate, than they will into seats they don't, aside from a couple of targets. In percentage terms, what do you reckon is the value of incumbency bonus to the Lib Dems?
Malcolm Bruce in Gordon iirc.
Annette Brooke as well but we're best off just texting Andrea for a proper answer
Mark Wallace @wallaceme Ye gods, I hadn't realised the Guardian intends to pay Huhne to write on a regular basis pressgazette.co.uk/content/guardi… Wasn't yesterday bad enough?
Why on earth would the Guardian want to hire a sanctimonious, self absorbed, smug, humourless Murdoch conspiracist? Oh....hang on.....
Don’t forget, Huhne was an economics editor, leader writer and columnist for The Guardian, long before he entered politics. – He has regularly kept in touch with the paper over the years and especially since joining the coalition*. Think of it as returning to the fold in a more official capacity..!
* (doing the dirty on fellow ministers- ‘just don’t mention my name’)
"Jeremy Hunt's remarks about GPs and the elderly are another illustration of how he's recast the job of health secretary, and is even changing the politics of Conservative and the NHS. Mr Hunt is not kind about GPs and the service they provide: some A&E departments know patients better than their so-called family doctors, he suggests. Once, no Tory would have dared take on GPs, for fear of being seen as heartless health-bashers. In a nod that that legacy, Mr Hunt is careful in his criticism, pinning the blame on Labour's GP contract, not GPs themselves. But the broad point is the same: Mr Hunt is criticising NHS performance, and getting away with it. Not just getting away with it either: many patients will likely nod approvingly at his description of GP out-of-hours care. Mr Hunt is growing into his role as patients' champion, a political template he has partly borrowed from Michael Gove."
@AndyJS - did you compile it by actually listening to the results as they were declared?
Thinking about it, are we even sure that the results that get read out are correct- a lot of the discrepancies I found looked like transcription errors (swapped or altered digits) and I can imagine an error creeping in during the preparation of the results to be read out, or even the act of reading out itself, not just in the reporting of the results!
(I was particularly interested in your records of 5,791 in Morecambe and Lunesdale, 20,459 in Worcestershire West, 5,688 in Caerphilly!)
"Jeremy Hunt's remarks about GPs and the elderly are another illustration of how he's recast the job of health secretary, and is even changing the politics of Conservative and the NHS. Mr Hunt is not kind about GPs and the service they provide: some A&E departments know patients better than their so-called family doctors, he suggests. Once, no Tory would have dared take on GPs, for fear of being seen as heartless health-bashers. In a nod that that legacy, Mr Hunt is careful in his criticism, pinning the blame on Labour's GP contract, not GPs themselves. But the broad point is the same: Mr Hunt is criticising NHS performance, and getting away with it. Not just getting away with it either: many patients will likely nod approvingly at his description of GP out-of-hours care. Mr Hunt is growing into his role as patients' champion, a political template he has partly borrowed from Michael Gove."
There's a mysticism about relationships between patients and "their" GP. Known them from cradle and all that. Do we actually know how long GP's stay in post? In my (pharmaceutical) experience GP's "know" the patients who have problems not the generality.
@AndyJS - did you compile it by actually listening to the results as they were declared?
Thinking about it, are we even sure that the results that get read out are correct- a lot of the discrepancies I found looked like transcription errors (swapped or altered digits) and I can imagine an error creeping in during the preparation of the results to be read out, or even the act of reading out itself, not just in the reporting of the results!
(I was particularly interested in your records of 5,791 in Morecambe and Lunesdale, 20,459 in Worcestershire West, 5,688 in Caerphilly!)
In every set of local elections there are a few with very incorrect results announced and published . Usually the error id in not counting a whole ballot box . This happened in 2 London wards and 1 Cheltenham ward in 2010 .
The Labour Party could have defeated the Justice and Security Act 2013. Instead, it endorsed the principle of closed material procedures in every civil case save inquests throughout the United Kingdom. The Labour Party also introduced closed material procedures in the first place via the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997 and in control order proceedings. The Labour Party, like the coalition, does not support open justice.
It might also be libellous too, I couldn't find a named person alleging this incident occurred in that blog article. Is there any other sources for this story?
"Jeremy Hunt's remarks about GPs and the elderly are another illustration of how he's recast the job of health secretary, and is even changing the politics of Conservative and the NHS. Mr Hunt is not kind about GPs and the service they provide: some A&E departments know patients better than their so-called family doctors, he suggests. Once, no Tory would have dared take on GPs, for fear of being seen as heartless health-bashers. In a nod that that legacy, Mr Hunt is careful in his criticism, pinning the blame on Labour's GP contract, not GPs themselves. But the broad point is the same: Mr Hunt is criticising NHS performance, and getting away with it. Not just getting away with it either: many patients will likely nod approvingly at his description of GP out-of-hours care. Mr Hunt is growing into his role as patients' champion, a political template he has partly borrowed from Michael Gove."
There's a mysticism about relationships between patients and "their" GP. Known them from cradle and all that. Do we actually know how long GP's stay in post? In my (pharmaceutical) experience GP's "know" the patients who have problems not the generality.
I honestly couldn't tell you who "my" GP is. On the thankfully rare occasions that I've had to see a GP, I ring the practice and arrange to see whoever has the earliest available appointment. GP practices are businesses, not somewhere to go and meet someone who has any real interest in you or your family, contrary to some peoples expectations.
OK: Someone commented on the last thread that fracc’ed gas could supply 100% of British needs for some indeterminate period of time. I would like to give people some numbers, so they can understand what would be required for that to be the case. (And just as full disclosure, I am a fund manager, with extensive energy sector interests. If you Google for “economics of oil” you will discover than an article I wrote is about the second or third link. I’ve also spoken at a number of energy conferences on the impact of tight oil. That said, for technicals, Richard Tyndall who works in the industry, is much more knowledgable than me.)
Anyway: over the period 2010 to 2012, the UK has average gas consumption of around 8.4 billion cubic feet per day. Gas production in the UK is in sharp decline, having been as high as 10 bcf/day in 2003, and now runs at around 4 bcf (or maybe even a little lower). [Source: 1]
A typical horizontal Barnett shale gas well will produce around 2 million cubic feet per day at peak production (and peak is about a month in). First year production declines are between 50 and 75%. [2] The consequence of high decline rates is that maintaining production is incredibly drilling and services intensive. If the UK produced 100% of its gas from shale gas / fracc’ed gas it would (conservatively) need to replace half that production every year.
So, to get 4 billion cubic feet of new capacity coming on a year would require at least 2,000 new wells to be drilled every year (and perhaps . If we assume each well takes six weeks (which is optimistic, I suspect) then we need around 300 rigs constantly drilling in the UK. I’d like to put that in context for a second: there are between 100 and 225 rigs operating in the Bakken [3] - an area more than 70x larger than Cheshire, but with similar populations – and this has put enormous strain on local resources, with particular difficulties on sand and water availability.
@AndyJS - did you compile it by actually listening to the results as they were declared?
Thinking about it, are we even sure that the results that get read out are correct- a lot of the discrepancies I found looked like transcription errors (swapped or altered digits) and I can imagine an error creeping in during the preparation of the results to be read out, or even the act of reading out itself, not just in the reporting of the results!
(I was particularly interested in your records of 5,791 in Morecambe and Lunesdale, 20,459 in Worcestershire West, 5,688 in Caerphilly!)
Mr Burning Ears, would it be possible for you to allow the moderators to pass me your email address, I'd like to ask a couple of things if that's alright.
It’s worth noting that US shale gas production is only about 8 BCF/day currently – i.e. the same as total UK consumption – so it’s not unreasonable to suggest we would probably need to have an shale gas industry the same size as the US’s. By the way, the US gas land rig count peaked at around 1,700. By way of comparison, there are 75 land rigs operating in all oil and gas in the whole of Europe.
This is not to say that shale gas (tight gas) is not extremely desirable and that we shouldn’t go full speed ahead. But those who think it is possible for our tiny (crowded) island to get to the same level of production as the US has (which, by the way, has taken 10 years) are living in cloud cuckoo land.
The LDs will be most vulnerable in seats being defended where the incumbent MP is not standing again.
But they could make gains - one I've identified for reasons I cannot disclose is Watford. The Labrokes price has moved in from 6/1 to 3/1 since the start of August.
At GE2010 I had an ongoing argument with JackW on Watford. He said the LDs would take it - I said otherwise.
At the 2015 GE will the Lib Dems lose more seats to Labour or the Conservatives?
The 12th Lib Dem seat on the Labour target list is Cardiff Central, which is held with a majority of 4576 (12.7%).
The 12th Lib Dem seat on the Conservative target list is Eastbourne, which is held with a majority of 3435 (6.6%).
Although the majority over the Conservatives is lower in Eastbourne, the Lib Dem - Labour swing required for the seat to change hands is higher there than in Cardiff Central [6.6% compared to 6.4%]. This suggests that even if the Lib Dem to Labour swing is uniform, this will not disproportionately benefit the Tories as we often assume on here.
Ha ha I was correct then Mike .... just five years late !!
"Jeremy Hunt's remarks about GPs and the elderly are another illustration of how he's recast the job of health secretary, and is even changing the politics of Conservative and the NHS. Mr Hunt is not kind about GPs and the service they provide: some A&E departments know patients better than their so-called family doctors, he suggests. Once, no Tory would have dared take on GPs, for fear of being seen as heartless health-bashers. In a nod that that legacy, Mr Hunt is careful in his criticism, pinning the blame on Labour's GP contract, not GPs themselves. But the broad point is the same: Mr Hunt is criticising NHS performance, and getting away with it. Not just getting away with it either: many patients will likely nod approvingly at his description of GP out-of-hours care. Mr Hunt is growing into his role as patients' champion, a political template he has partly borrowed from Michael Gove."
There's a mysticism about relationships between patients and "their" GP. Known them from cradle and all that. Do we actually know how long GP's stay in post? In my (pharmaceutical) experience GP's "know" the patients who have problems not the generality.
It is highly debatable that the system of GPs that we now have is in any way the best use of resources or the best way to get care to the patient.
Like many in the Health Industry they are overpaid, consider themselves more talented and valuable than they are, and are in need of reform, retraining and reallocation to better systems focused on patient orientated methods that are applicable to this centuary
@corporeal - there's a private message function in vanilla!
Yes, but does anyone check it? Every so often I accidentally end up in the vanilla bit of the site, and occasionally find messages or notifications from a way back in time.
Important to remember that at this point no voters have 'switched' - they have indicated their current views to pollsters at various stages post 2010. How they'll actually vote in 2 years time remains totally up for grabs. The polls have shown movement even when the economic backdrop seemed very negative. As this changes - slowly or more rapidly - expect the polls to reflect the new reality.
The LDs will be most vulnerable in seats being defended where the incumbent MP is not standing again.
But they could make gains - one I've identified for reasons I cannot disclose is Watford. The Labrokes price has moved in from 6/1 to 3/1 since the start of August.
At GE2010 I had an ongoing argument with JackW on Watford. He said the LDs would take it - I said otherwise.
At the 2015 GE will the Lib Dems lose more seats to Labour or the Conservatives?
The 12th Lib Dem seat on the Labour target list is Cardiff Central, which is held with a majority of 4576 (12.7%).
The 12th Lib Dem seat on the Conservative target list is Eastbourne, which is held with a majority of 3435 (6.6%).
Although the majority over the Conservatives is lower in Eastbourne, the Lib Dem - Labour swing required for the seat to change hands is higher there than in Cardiff Central [6.6% compared to 6.4%]. This suggests that even if the Lib Dem to Labour swing is uniform, this will not disproportionately benefit the Tories as we often assume on here.
Ha ha I was correct then Mike .... just five years late !!
"Jeremy Hunt's remarks about GPs and the elderly are another illustration of how he's recast the job of health secretary, and is even changing the politics of Conservative and the NHS. Mr Hunt is not kind about GPs and the service they provide: some A&E departments know patients better than their so-called family doctors, he suggests. Once, no Tory would have dared take on GPs, for fear of being seen as heartless health-bashers. In a nod that that legacy, Mr Hunt is careful in his criticism, pinning the blame on Labour's GP contract, not GPs themselves. But the broad point is the same: Mr Hunt is criticising NHS performance, and getting away with it. Not just getting away with it either: many patients will likely nod approvingly at his description of GP out-of-hours care. Mr Hunt is growing into his role as patients' champion, a political template he has partly borrowed from Michael Gove."
There's a mysticism about relationships between patients and "their" GP. Known them from cradle and all that. Do we actually know how long GP's stay in post? In my (pharmaceutical) experience GP's "know" the patients who have problems not the generality.
I honestly couldn't tell you who "my" GP is. On the thankfully rare occasions that I've had to see a GP, I ring the practice and arrange to see whoever has the earliest available appointment. GP practices are businesses, not somewhere to go and meet someone who has any real interest in you or your family, contrary to some peoples expectations.
We go to a two doctor, m&f, practice. Normally men are registered with the male, women with the female. However, when we first went there we were advised to keep away from "the witch" as the female was known, but now she's retired both my wife and I find her successor very pleasant, helpful and, unlike her partner, without the well-known attitude of "I am a doctor, I have a direct line to God!"
Important to remember that at this point no voters have 'switched' - they have indicated their current views to pollsters at various stages post 2010. How they'll actually vote in 2 years time remains totally up for grabs.
Yes, quite right, felix. And of course nothing is easier or more consequence-free than to tell a pollster you'll vote for X to make the point that you're temporarily disgruntled with Y.
Like Romney the great thing about the people at the top of the Tory party is that they just can't help letting slip the fact that they despise so many people.
@tom_watson: "Poor forced to use food banks? They've only got themselves to blame says Michael Gove" http://t.co/Np8A4shWo0 This guy wants to be PM.
A gift to Labour, and he's supposed to be one of the smarter ones
The headlines certainly do look bad but if you read the full story - assuming the Mail is reporting it correctly - it's a bit more nuanced. People do sometimes make silly financial decisions.
However, I tend to agree that MPs are the last people who should be criticising the poor for this. Particularly when MPs are very well paid and have subsidised restaurants and bars. This sort of de haut en bas heartlessness is stunningly insensitive coming from someone who does not have to count every penny. Why don't people think about how this comes across?
''With the Syrian intervention,fracking,attack on Guardian journalists,Lobbying bill and Snooping bill,it`s time for real Lib Dems to ask for their money back''
except of course in the lib dem/conservative/UKIP fights, where you would presumably want them to keep voting lib dem (such as Eastleigh).
I honestly couldn`t care less.I think Britain is in for four-party politics for a while and if Miliband gets in,he`s going to change the voting system anyway.
Very interesting to note that you have gone from "Our next prime minister" to "if he gets in". If even the true believers such as yourself are starting to have doubts, (consciously or other wise) it really is all to play for.
I would rather be considered a realist than Anecdote Joe.There are enough of them around here.
It is tim who particularly abhors anecdotes, I guess because they require a degree of engagement with other human beings rather than a keyboard
''With the Syrian intervention,fracking,attack on Guardian journalists,Lobbying bill and Snooping bill,it`s time for real Lib Dems to ask for their money back''
except of course in the lib dem/conservative/UKIP fights, where you would presumably want them to keep voting lib dem (such as Eastleigh).
I honestly couldn`t care less.I think Britain is in for four-party politics for a while and if Miliband gets in,he`s going to change the voting system anyway.
Very interesting to note that you have gone from "Our next prime minister" to "if he gets in". If even the true believers such as yourself are starting to have doubts, (consciously or other wise) it really is all to play for.
I would rather be considered a realist than Anecdote Joe.There are enough of them around here.
It is tim who particularly abhors anecdotes, I guess because they require a degree of engagement with other human beings rather than a keyboard
Or because of the many problems of generalising an analysis from an anecdote perhaps?
@Tim: Until quite recently, I did know who my GP was, him having treated me and my family since childhood. Then he retired and now there is a practice of several GPs so you just see who is available, unless you particularly want to see a specific doctor and are willing to wait.
So the family GP was not a myth just something that has, I suspect, disappeared as that generation of GPs retired.
Mr. Eek, that reminds me. Last year (when I backed Massa to stay) it was reported that Alonso definitely had a veto over his team mate. If Raikkonen replaces Massa, that suggests he's been stripped of that power.
"Labour admitted that it was likely that the only changes Mr Miliband is pushing for in the short term was to have a more direct financial relationship with union members.
Other reforms, such as curbing union influence over the party’s policies, will not be settled until after the 2015 general election, if at all."
"Labour later confirmed that the changes will only affect individual members, and will not address other issues such as the control of union leaders to cast votes on the behalf of their members at the party’s annual conference."
Twitter Lionel Barber @BarberLionel 2m #Osborne FT view upcoming is chancellor has won austerity debate, defeating Plan B on and off the football pitch. But UK econ not whole yet
Twitter Lionel Barber @BarberLionel 2m #Osborne FT view upcoming is chancellor has won austerity debate, defeating Plan B on and off the football pitch. But UK econ not whole yet
Disagree with the premise, the 36% Ed Miliband has got is the 36% Jim Callaghan got in 1979 pre-SDP and he still lost because Thatcher got 43%. So if Cameron cuts the UKIP vote back to about 5% and adds a few centrist 2010 LDs to the Tory total himself he can get a majority whether left-leaning 2010 LDs stick with Ed or not!
Ed looked good today and I said so. I suggest your post is more suitably directed to a number of posters who keep blathering `Tory majority nailed on` or `Ed will never be prime minister` without any evidence to support it.
SMukesh.
The evidence that 'Ed will never be prime minister' is Ed Miliband himself.
If you doubt me just switch the remote control to BBC News 24 or Sky News and wait a few minutes for Ed to appear in full glory on your TV screen.
Tom Watson can claim 400 pounds per month for food... anything above that he needs receipts.. which we then also pay for... do food banks provide receipts..Hypocrite..
@LiamByrneMP: Iain Duncan Smith's promises on Universal Credit just shot to pieces by his boss at the Liaison Committee.
Quite amazing given what IDS said last week. No wonder these people prefer to slag off trade unionists, disabled people, immigrants, the low paid etc etc rather than be judged by their performance
Hi evening tim - why is your syntax so different from your daytime posts ?
"Ed stopped WW3 - you read it here first - by Nick Palmer."
Clearly an exaggeration but what is true is that Ed prevented a brutal bombing of a sovereign nation certainly preventing a massive and unnecessary loss of life. Not bad for the leader of the opposition from a small island off the coast of Europe.
(And an action that will certainly earn him my vote)
"Ed stopped WW3 - you read it here first - by Nick Palmer."
Clearly an exaggeration but what is true is that Ed prevented a brutal bombing of a sovereign nation certainly preventing a massive and unnecessary loss of life. Not bad for the leader of the opposition from a small island off the coast of Europe.
(And an action that will certainly earn him my vote)
Cobblers 1. You'd have voted Labour anyway.
Cobblers 2. Miliband put forward a motion that supported military action himself. The only difference was that it had the rider 'but only when we say so too'.
Cobblers 3. There's no evidence that Obama, never mind Hollande or Cameron, was planning a major campaign. The attacks wouldn't have killed people on a massive scale, and it's unlikely that in the big picture they'd have made much difference to the number killed in the Syrian Civil War.
"Ed stopped WW3 - you read it here first - by Nick Palmer."
Clearly an exaggeration but what is true is that Ed prevented a brutal bombing of a sovereign nation
Horse feathers! Ed wanted the motion to pass - just not with his finger prints on it - hence his dumbstruck performance at PMQs - in any case the motion was only about the principle of military action - but it's pretty clear Ed does not do "principles".....
Comments
Two problems: The positied premise is wishful thinking and, secondly, ignores the possibility that the electorate may re-engage with the political process. The latter are the bigger prize and the one that the major British parties - Conservative, Labour and UKIP - should be most concerned with.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/election2010/results/region/48.stm
The CPS obviously have to exercise some degree of discretion on the cases that they choose to send to trial, but in general it is preferable for a case to be decided by a jury than a CPS lawyer I think.
For whom should I vote?
Ye gods, I hadn't realised the Guardian intends to pay Huhne to write on a regular basis pressgazette.co.uk/content/guardi… Wasn't yesterday bad enough?
http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/Bristol-trade-unionist-calls-Unite-leadership/story-19775792-detail/story.html
Alex Massie is a Scot, and we are regularly informed that fitalass is the only Scottish Tory left alive.
But they could make gains - one I've identified for reasons I cannot disclose is Watford. The Labrokes price has moved in from 6/1 to 3/1 since the start of August.
At GE2010 I had an ongoing argument with JackW on Watford. He said the LDs would take it - I said otherwise.
Net Agree
Trade Unions are good for Britain:
England: +25
Scotland: +45
Trade Unions have too much say over what happens in Britain:
England: +2
Scotland: -24
Trade Unions represent the views of people like me:
England: +1
Scotland: +20
http://comres.co.uk/polls/ComRes_ITV_News_Index_9_September_2013.pdf
Some disputes were over whether to include the Thirsk and Malton result (which was run later due to a candidate's death), whether Bercow counted as a "Conservative" in Buckingham, and whether the North Ayrshire and Arran candidate for the Tories counted as official after the party disowned him. Some spreadsheets mistakenly conflated the Northern Ireland Green Party with the England and Wales Green Party.
Other problems I never solved! Derby South for instance, UKIP and an Independent got 1821 and 1357 votes, but which way round? The BBC, the PA/Guardian, the parliamentary website, and Derby CC reckoned that UKIP got 1821 and the indy 1357, whereas Pippa Norris reckoned it was UKIP 1357 and the indy 1821. I'm tempted to think Pippa Norris was wrong on this one.
In Morecambe and Lunesdale did the Lib Dems get 5791 votes (BBC, Lancaster Council, the parliamentary website), or 5971 votes (Pippa Norris, PA/Guardian, and ukpollingreport)?
In Worcestershire West, did the Lib Dems get 20,409 votes (Pippa Norris, Worcs CC) or 20,459 votes (the BBC site, and parliament.uk)?
Other places where Guardian/PA differ from Pippa Norris: in Cambridgeshire North East did UKIP get 2791 votes, or 2991? In Caerphilly, did the Lib Dems get 5688 or 5988? In Buckingham, did UKIP get 8401 or 8410?
I know these are only small errors but it's frustrating not to have a single reliable source for something as basic as election results!
Secret Courts
Lobbying Bill
As for Ed never being prime minister, I think there is a greater than 50% chance he will be, but and it's a big but, he will need to up his game. This far into his leadership and very little indication of actually being able to lead rather than react, does not bode well. It's all very well setting ambushes about micro issues at PMQ's but he will have to start setting out his policies, and more importantly, what he's for, rather than against.
I think almost all of us Scots on here who aren't SNP are Tories - no Labour or Lib Dem Scots here.
I'm sure the LDs will still put more resources into seats they hold, albeit with a fresh candidate, than they will into seats they don't, aside from a couple of targets. In percentage terms, what do you reckon is the value of incumbency bonus to the Lib Dems?
http://politicalscrapbook.net/2013/09/eric-pickles-called-councillor-little-shit-in-front-of-young-child/
New Labour was appallingly authoritarian and the Coalition too have fallen away from a reasonable start to not much better.
Politicians need to be braver but the fear of being held responsible when some terrorist or criminal might have been stopped by overbearing powers is irresistible. It is not easy to see an answer to this but sunset clauses on any restrictions of liberty requiring a review as to their efficacy and utility would be some sort of a start.
Personally, I would start with Enhanced Disclosure Certificates. Is there any evidence that they have done any good at all?
... get them all to turn out with the same enthusiasm that they turned out for Clegg in 2010.
Even if Clegg has lost them and they say they will vote Labour, that is still a long way from getting them to turn out.
As such I would say that Ed still has a lot to do.
[We will] curb the improper influence of lobbyists by introducing a statutory register of lobbyists, changing the Ministerial Code so that ministers and officials are forbidden from meeting MPs on issues where the MP is paid to lobby, requiring companies to declare how much they spend on lobbying in their annual reports, and introducing a statutory register of interests for parliamentary candidates based on the current Register of Members’ Interests
(so did Labour, come to that).
In any case, why on earth would anyone concerned about Civil Liberties want to switch to helping Labour, of all parties, into government? The party which wanted 90 days detention not only without trial, but even without a vague indication of what you're suspected of, the party which wanted ID cards, the party which made it illegal to let anyone know you were thinking you might sell your house without having a government-approved inspector writing a dumb and completely useless report first, the party which passed and then abused anti-terrorism laws, the party which gave us not only Iraq but the fraudulent justification for Iraq, the party which made it illegal for a plumber to smoke in his own van even if he was the only occupant, the party which cosied up to Murdoch, the party which wanted not just one but two entire obtrusive databases for criminal and even gossip record checking, etc etc etc.
http://www.hks.harvard.edu/fs/pnorris/Data/Data.htm
http://www.hks.harvard.edu/fs/pnorris/datafiles/British General Election May 2010/British_Parliamentary_Constituency_General_Election_2010_Version_5.xlsx Thanks, and @RichardNabavi for Sir Alan Beith in Berwick. I had a look and couldn't find any stories saying Campbell is stepping down, actually. Perhaps he runs and runs and runs....
Unsubstantiated stories from an internet back water don't really cut it as evidence of "authoritarian" behavior.
Standards of bad behavior are really falling since this Government came into power.
Here are the 2010 election results, ordered by declaration. At the moment it just has Con, Lab, LD and Others.
(Of course you could copy the data into another spreadsheet and reorder it by constituency name).
I'm going to add the regions to the data soon:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0At91c3wX1Wu5dE9GYzdTNDJBVklJeXV4MV9DN3YzRmc#gid=0
* (doing the dirty on fellow ministers- ‘just don’t mention my name’)
"Jeremy Hunt's remarks about GPs and the elderly are another illustration of how he's recast the job of health secretary, and is even changing the politics of Conservative and the NHS.
Mr Hunt is not kind about GPs and the service they provide: some A&E departments know patients better than their so-called family doctors, he suggests.
Once, no Tory would have dared take on GPs, for fear of being seen as heartless health-bashers. In a nod that that legacy, Mr Hunt is careful in his criticism, pinning the blame on Labour's GP contract, not GPs themselves.
But the broad point is the same: Mr Hunt is criticising NHS performance, and getting away with it. Not just getting away with it either: many patients will likely nod approvingly at his description of GP out-of-hours care.
Mr Hunt is growing into his role as patients' champion, a political template he has partly borrowed from Michael Gove."
Thinking about it, are we even sure that the results that get read out are correct- a lot of the discrepancies I found looked like transcription errors (swapped or altered digits) and I can imagine an error creeping in during the preparation of the results to be read out, or even the act of reading out itself, not just in the reporting of the results!
(I was particularly interested in your records of 5,791 in Morecambe and Lunesdale, 20,459 in Worcestershire West, 5,688 in Caerphilly!)
In my (pharmaceutical) experience GP's "know" the patients who have problems not the generality.
http://www.ukip.org/newsroom/news/872-ukip-in-tune-with-public-opinion-according-to-survey-2
Someone commented on the last thread that fracc’ed gas could supply 100% of British needs for some indeterminate period of time. I would like to give people some numbers, so they can understand what would be required for that to be the case. (And just as full disclosure, I am a fund manager, with extensive energy sector interests. If you Google for “economics of oil” you will discover than an article I wrote is about the second or third link. I’ve also spoken at a number of energy conferences on the impact of tight oil. That said, for technicals, Richard Tyndall who works in the industry, is much more knowledgable than me.)
Anyway: over the period 2010 to 2012, the UK has average gas consumption of around 8.4 billion cubic feet per day. Gas production in the UK is in sharp decline, having been as high as 10 bcf/day in 2003, and now runs at around 4 bcf (or maybe even a little lower). [Source: 1]
A typical horizontal Barnett shale gas well will produce around 2 million cubic feet per day at peak production (and peak is about a month in). First year production declines are between 50 and 75%. [2] The consequence of high decline rates is that maintaining production is incredibly drilling and services intensive. If the UK produced 100% of its gas from shale gas / fracc’ed gas it would (conservatively) need to replace half that production every year.
So, to get 4 billion cubic feet of new capacity coming on a year would require at least 2,000 new wells to be drilled every year (and perhaps . If we assume each well takes six weeks (which is optimistic, I suspect) then we need around 300 rigs constantly drilling in the UK. I’d like to put that in context for a second: there are between 100 and 225 rigs operating in the Bakken [3] - an area more than 70x larger than Cheshire, but with similar populations – and this has put enormous strain on local resources, with particular difficulties on sand and water availability.
...contninued...
It’s worth noting that US shale gas production is only about 8 BCF/day currently – i.e. the same as total UK consumption – so it’s not unreasonable to suggest we would probably need to have an shale gas industry the same size as the US’s. By the way, the US gas land rig count peaked at around 1,700. By way of comparison, there are 75 land rigs operating in all oil and gas in the whole of Europe.
This is not to say that shale gas (tight gas) is not extremely desirable and that we shouldn’t go full speed ahead. But those who think it is possible for our tiny (crowded) island to get to the same level of production as the US has (which, by the way, has taken 10 years) are living in cloud cuckoo land.
Sources:
1: BP Statistical Review of Energy 2013, http://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/about-bp/statistical-review-of-world-energy-2013.html
2: Schlumberger, The American Oil & Gas Reporter, May 2011, http://www.slb.com/~/media/Files/dcs/industry_articles/201105_aogr_shale_baihly.ashx
3: http://grandemotte.wordpress.com/2013/06/19/bakken-production-to-top-1-million-barrels-per-day/
LOL.
Like many in the Health Industry they are overpaid, consider themselves more talented and valuable than they are, and are in need of reform, retraining and reallocation to better systems focused on patient orientated methods that are applicable to this centuary
Important to remember that at this point no voters have 'switched' - they have indicated their current views to pollsters at various stages post 2010. How they'll actually vote in 2 years time remains totally up for grabs. The polls have shown movement even when the economic backdrop seemed very negative. As this changes - slowly or more rapidly - expect the polls to reflect the new reality.
However, I tend to agree that MPs are the last people who should be criticising the poor for this. Particularly when MPs are very well paid and have subsidised restaurants and bars. This sort of de haut en bas heartlessness is stunningly insensitive coming from someone who does not have to count every penny. Why don't people think about how this comes across?
OMG !
Bigger news was Ed promising that 'we are not going to have Free Schools under a Labour Government.
Shocking.
So the family GP was not a myth just something that has, I suspect, disappeared as that generation of GPs retired.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband/10299593/Unions-set-to-retain-block-vote-despite-Ed-Milibands-funding-reforms.html
"Labour admitted that it was likely that the only changes Mr Miliband is pushing for in the short term was to have a more direct financial relationship with union members.
Other reforms, such as curbing union influence over the party’s policies, will not be settled until after the 2015 general election, if at all."
"Labour later confirmed that the changes will only affect individual members, and will not address other issues such as the control of union leaders to cast votes on the behalf of their members at the party’s annual conference."
Lionel Barber @BarberLionel 2m
#Osborne FT view upcoming is chancellor has won austerity debate, defeating Plan B on and off the football pitch. But UK econ not whole yet
Especially given that he is as pink as his paper.
Ed looked good today and I said so. I suggest your post is more suitably directed to a number of posters who keep blathering `Tory majority nailed on` or `Ed will never be prime minister` without any evidence to support it.
SMukesh.
The evidence that 'Ed will never be prime minister' is Ed Miliband himself.
If you doubt me just switch the remote control to BBC News 24 or Sky News and wait a few minutes for Ed to appear in full glory on your TV screen.
http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/factcheck-people-ae-staff-gps/15766
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/sep/10/survery-britons-individual-liberal
"Ed stopped WW3 - you read it here first - by Nick Palmer."
Clearly an exaggeration but what is true is that Ed prevented a brutal bombing of a sovereign nation certainly preventing a massive and unnecessary loss of life. Not bad for the leader of the opposition from a small island off the coast of Europe.
(And an action that will certainly earn him my vote)
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/scotland/article3864837.ece
Cobblers 2. Miliband put forward a motion that supported military action himself. The only difference was that it had the rider 'but only when we say so too'.
Cobblers 3. There's no evidence that Obama, never mind Hollande or Cameron, was planning a major campaign. The attacks wouldn't have killed people on a massive scale, and it's unlikely that in the big picture they'd have made much difference to the number killed in the Syrian Civil War.