politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Looking at the 2010 CON voters whom Cameron has to win back
Comments
-
Interesting facts, admittedly from the mail, on energy.
ed Davey is set to announce massive investment in the nuclear energy industry from abroad with 60bn in nuclear building programmes.
What isn;t so widely broadcast is that this is only being achieved by guaranteeing french and chinese constructors a price double the current rate for electricity for 35 years.
I bet these foreign companies can hardly believe their luck. They must think the brits, sitting on a huge reservoir of gas for fracking, have lost their minds.
And there's ed davey telling voters energy bills are high and going higher for the foreseeable future for no return other than the satisfaction of reducing our carbon emissions. Does he want to lose his seat?
Quite astonishing really.
0 -
EIT, thanks for that link, one of the more interesting articles I have read for many a long day.edmundintokyo said:Taleb is worth reading on GMO. I don't think I agree, but it's a serious argument rather than luddite-bonkers.
http://longplayer.org/what/whatelse/letters.php
I do tend to come down strongly on the side of Taleb in this debate, he articulates the views that I have had within me, but I lack the intelligence and education to express with such clarity. My views are those that I have formulated over a long period working as a plant breeder, so GM is an area that I have more than a passing interest in.
An additional problem (although covered by the theory Taleb explains without mentioning it as a specific) with successful GM crops is the inevitable progress towards monoculture and a reduction of diversity in both regions and internationally. That is a sure was to create future a food crisis and a dependency on the munificence of a small number of corporations.0 -
The point you have just made is very similar to the conclusion of Enoch Powells January 1977 speech "The Road To National Suicide". A must read for anyone who wants to sensibly debate the effects of mass immigration on both the migrants and the original population.Morris_Dancer said:Miss Plato, it's perhaps because of the truncated (and therefore false) approach to freedom taken recently.
Want to wear a veil? That's your choice, this is a free society.
Want to march with placards declaring "Death to the West"? We'll let it go ahead.
Whereas, EDL marches are heavily policed and the Danish cartoons were shown nowhere.
Neither set of marches are acceptable, and I believe the cartoons should've been shown, and veils are acceptable with certain exceptions. But freedom only tilts one way. So people are frustrated, and if they try and air a view that is not considered acceptable they're often ignored or called racist (we saw this with Labour's despicable immigration ploy). A head of steam builds up and people want somewhere to express views that the political mainstream don't accept, which may well explain UKIP's rise and the resilience of its support.
UKIP, a top tip: draft a very simple, easily understandably and broad law guaranteeing freedom of speech. The right to criticise, ridicule and mock has been reduced recently, with the rise of the stupid "I am offended" counter-argument, and must be reinforced.0 -
-
Boris admits motoring offence.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10376382/Its-a-vigorous-voracious-press-that-keeps-our-country-honest.html
"So I hope the press will tell the Privy Council to stick it in the privy; and if you are bothered by those nasty people from the media, and they won’t go away, and they continue to sit outside your house asking questions to which you have already told them the answer, may I recommend that you do as my children and I once did years ago.
We imitated Eddie Murphy in Beverly Hills Cop, and we stuffed bananas secretly up the reporter’s tailpipe, and I remember us laughing helplessly at her air of puzzlement as she kaboing-ed up the road. Far better than regulation."0 -
Off Thread but Amusing:
Churchill tops poll of history's funniest insults with 'My dear you are ugly, but tomorrow I shall be sober and you will still be ugly'
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2458430/Winston-Churchill-tops-poll-historys-best-insults.html#ixzz2hgX9PMMP
0 -
Is that a new policy? Capping the Ice?Bobajob said:
I presume you are referring to the ice cap.Plato said:
I quite agree - he'd please many Tory voters, and those who are irked but not Blue Team yet. I wrote to Mr Cameron before the last GE and expressed my WTF? view here and got a pat on the head and told about how AGW was terribly important... I hope its now finally sinking in.TGOHF said:taffys said:This would all be great were it not for the fact that Ozzy is responsible for putting up green taxes.
Will ed be supporting tory attempts to trim green taxes in the face of suicidal lib dem opposition?
That'll be an interesting call for consumer champion ed. wonder which way he will jump.
Green taxes - can argue until the cows come home who brought them in but only one chap can cut them before the GE.
Time to see how big GO's balls are.
0 -
This is a crucially important point, and I think is one that is missed in the whole "nuclear good, wind bad" lovefest on this site. We're paying £92/MWh for new nuclear, guaranteed for THIRTY FIVE years. That's twice the current price of baseload electricity (£49.50, as of 09:58 this morning). And, it's worth noting, we are also offering free insurance for these sites and free interconnection.taffys said:Interesting facts, admittedly from the mail, on energy.
ed Davey is set to announce massive investment in the nuclear energy industry from abroad with 60bn in nuclear building programmes.
What isn;t so widely broadcast is that this is only being achieved by guaranteeing french and chinese constructors a price double the current rate for electricity for 35 years.
I bet these foreign companies can hardly believe their luck. They must think the brits, sitting on a huge reservoir of gas for fracking, have lost their minds.
And there's ed davey telling voters energy bills are high and going higher for the foreseeable future for no return other than the satisfaction of reducing our carbon emissions. Does he want to lose his seat?
Quite astonishing really.
The cheap forms of electricity generation are coal and gas. In general gas is better, because it is much more flexible (turning coal plants on and off is not generally advisable, as they are designed to act as baseload power all the time, and you cause maintenance issues in the longer-term by turning them on and off). Plus there is the reasonable view that - given exploitation of shale gas in the UK and (probably rather more importantly) the building of LNG export terminals from North America, Australia and East Africa, the price of gas could well fall in the medium term. This makes signing up for very expensive, typically quite unreliable (availability rates for nuclear are usually only 80-85%, and that's for mature rather than new plant) a bad thing for our electricity bills.
Oh well: another pointless, politically motivated decision that will raise our electricity bills.0 -
Kirkup is (deliberately?) conflating two issues - 'visiting' - which is what Osborne's announcement in Beijing is about and 'immigration and permanent settlement'.tim said:Good piece on Tory immigration hypocrisy
It was Labour which enabled mass immigration and permanent settlement without addressing the infrastructure & housing needs associated.
This has understandably led to widespread concern about "immigration". Which is unfortunate, to put it mildly.
Because 'visiting' is an almost unalloyed 'good thing' - as can be appropriately managed settlement.
The Tories may have swung too far on the 'visiting' aspects - now being unwound - but their errors on the settlement side do not remotely approach those of Labour.
0 -
Postal voting ought to be restricted in the way it used to be IMO to reduce the chances of fraud. The one good thing about voting in a polling booth is that you know voters aren't being pressurised into voting a certain way by dominant personalities in their household.0
-
@PlatoPlato said:
I quite agree - he'd please many Tory voters, and those who are irked but not Blue Team yet. I wrote to Mr Cameron before the last GE and expressed my WTF? view here and got a pat on the head and told about how AGW was terribly important... I hope its now finally sinking in.TGOHF said:taffys said:This would all be great were it not for the fact that Ozzy is responsible for putting up green taxes.
Will ed be supporting tory attempts to trim green taxes in the face of suicidal lib dem opposition?
That'll be an interesting call for consumer champion ed. wonder which way he will jump.
Green taxes - can argue until the cows come home who brought them in but only one chap can cut them before the GE.
Time to see how big GO's balls are.
If the LDs try to block Green Tax reduction, then DC could put it to the House and let the LDs vote against it. I am sure that he would get enough support from the rest of the House to pass it. How many MPs would want to be identified as having voted against it and thus in favor of increasing energy costs (beyond markets forces). Seat preservation in 2015 (or even deselection) is a marvellous motivator for concentrating on what the e;lector require and what British industry needs
0 -
And if you block the tax, how will you fund the £92/MWh promised to new nuclear?Financier said:
@PlatoPlato said:
I quite agree - he'd please many Tory voters, and those who are irked but not Blue Team yet. I wrote to Mr Cameron before the last GE and expressed my WTF? view here and got a pat on the head and told about how AGW was terribly important... I hope its now finally sinking in.TGOHF said:taffys said:This would all be great were it not for the fact that Ozzy is responsible for putting up green taxes.
Will ed be supporting tory attempts to trim green taxes in the face of suicidal lib dem opposition?
That'll be an interesting call for consumer champion ed. wonder which way he will jump.
Green taxes - can argue until the cows come home who brought them in but only one chap can cut them before the GE.
Time to see how big GO's balls are.
If the LDs try to block Green Tax reduction, then DC could put it to the House and let the LDs vote against it. I am sure that he would get enough support from the rest of the House to pass it. How many MPs would want to be identified as having voted against it and thus in favor of increasing energy costs (beyond markets forces). Seat preservation in 2015 (or even deselection) is a marvellous motivator for concentrating on what the e;lector require and what British industry needs0 -
@CarlottaVance
My post appears to have disappeared - the gist was I agree with you, Mr Kirkup conflated two entirely different issues of tourism/inward investment and permanent immigration.
The DT's readers aren't taken in by it and neither was I. There aren't even that many saying Vote UKIP!! which is always a good sign that they've spotted a howler.0 -
The pricing of Davey's deal is surely a point about davey's imbecility rather than nuclear energy per se? I understand nuclear generated electricity is cheap in France. it's also irrelevant as far as the Warmist argument is concerned because doubling the price of electricity is surely a small price to pay to avert the End of the World predicted by 955 of Ther Scientists.rcs1000 said:
This is a crucially important point, and I think is one that is missed in the whole "nuclear good, wind bad" lovefest on this site. We're paying £92/MWh for new nuclear, guaranteed for THIRTY FIVE years. That's twice the current price of baseload electricity (£49.50, as of 09:58 this morning). And, it's worth noting, we are also offering free insurance for these sites and free interconnection.taffys said:Interesting facts, admittedly from the mail, on energy.
ed Davey is set to announce massive investment in the nuclear energy industry from abroad with 60bn in nuclear building programmes.
Quite astonishing really.
The cheap forms of electricity generation are coal and gas. In general gas is better, because it is much more flexible (turning coal plants on and off is not generally advisable, as they are designed to act as baseload power all the time, and you cause maintenance issues in the longer-term by turning them on and off). Plus there is the reasonable view that - given exploitation of shale gas in the UK and (probably rather more importantly) the building of LNG export terminals from North America, Australia and East Africa, the price of gas could well fall in the medium term. This makes signing up for very expensive, typically quite unreliable (availability rates for nuclear are usually only 80-85%, and that's for mature rather than new plant) a bad thing for our electricity bills.
Oh well: another pointless, politically motivated decision that will raise our electricity bills.
Wind farms enrich the very rich who own the land,impoverish the very poor through subsidies paid by electricity consumers, and achieve virtually nothing else. They might have been dreamed up by Goldman Sachs.
0 -
Except:tim said:
The Tories are leading the biggest green tax wave, nuclear subsidiesFinancier said:Plato said:
I quite agree - he'd please many Tory voters, and those who are irked but not Blue Team yet. I wrote to Mr Cameron before the last GE and expressed my WTF? view here and got a pat on the head and told about how AGW was terribly important... I hope its now finally sinking in.TGOHF said:taffys said:This would all be great were it not for the fact that Ozzy is responsible for putting up green taxes.
Will ed be supporting tory attempts to trim green taxes in the face of suicidal lib dem opposition?
That'll be an interesting call for consumer champion ed. wonder which way he will jump.
Green taxes - can argue until the cows come home who brought them in but only one chap can cut them before the GE.
Time to see how big GO's balls are.
If the LDs try to block Green Tax reduction, then DC could put it to the House and let the LDs vote against it. I am sure that he would get enough support from the rest of the House to pass it. How many MPs would want to be identified as having voted against it and thus in favor of increasing energy costs (beyond markets forces). Seat preservation in 2015 (or even deselection) is a marvellous motivator for concentrating on what the e;lector require and what British industry needs
"(Reuters) - British Chancellor George Osborne will sign a deal in China next week allowing a Chinese state-run nuclear power company to help build a new plant in Britain, the Financial Times reported on Saturday."
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/10/12/uk-britain-china-nuclear-idUKBRE99B02O20131012
35 years of green taxes that the Tories are signing up to, 35 years, get it?
a) Many greens don't see nuclear power as green *or* renewable. They may have a point.
b) It generates oodles of baseload energy, which is what we need. Wind and solar does not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_proposed_as_renewable_energy0 -
Mr. Financier, I prefer (in conversation with a woman at a dinner):
Woman: Sir, if you were my husband I would poison your tea.
Churchill: Madam, if you were my wife I'd drink it.
Mr. Isam, don't know the speech well enough to comment on the comparison, but the name of Enoch Powell alone would be enough to stir up the "anti-immigration = pro-racism" line from some quarters.0 -
No Ismael_X it is not. Nobody will build a new nuclear plant for less than £92/MWh in the UK.Ishmael_X said:
The pricing of Davey's deal is surely a point about davey's imbecility rather than nuclear energy per se? I understand nuclear generated electricity is cheap in France. it's also irrelevant as far as the Warmist argument is concerned because doubling the price of electricity is surely a small price to pay to avert the End of the World predicted by 955 of Ther Scientists.
Wind farms enrich the very rich who own the land,impoverish the very poor through subsidies paid by electricity consumers, and achieve virtually nothing else. They might have been dreamed up by Goldman Sachs.
(And, in fact, UK companies pulled out from the project because they thought the price was too low.)
Nuclear is expensive, because the initial capital costs are enormous. Flamenville unit 3 - one of the first few EPRs, the same type as will be built in the UK, I believe - currently looks like it will cost at least $11billion, for a 1.6GW plant. That's more than 10x the price of a similar CCGT. And while the running costs of nuclear are lower than that of gas, they are not sufficiently lower to justify the initial expense.0 -
The FT has another article this morning on the theme of bustling booming big-bang Britain:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/72ae473c-3401-11e3-af0f-00144feab7de.html#axzz2hg2tgYDY
Sample extracts:
"Business investment and exports are likely to take over from housing and consumption as the driving force of economic recovery next year, according to the autumn forecast of the Ernst & Young Item Club, giving the UK economy a better balance...
The consensus of economic forecasts for growth in 2014 has recovered from an average forecast of 1.5 per cent in May to 2.1 per cent in September, but more recent forecasts such as the Item Club’s are even more hopeful.
The Item Club expects the initial recovery to be led by household consumption and borrowing, as continued rising employment and higher house prices encourage people into the shops. Despite meagre real disposable income growth this year, spending is likely to grow 1.6 per cent as savings are reduced.
Professor Peter Spencer, chief economic adviser to the Item Club, said that one of the most important reasons for the upturn in sentiment and spending was the government’s initiatives to get the housing market moving again.
Coming to the aid of George Osborne, chancellor, who has been under fire from the vast majority of economists for artificially stoking up demand in the housing market, Prof Spencer said the interventions into the mortgage market were well-timed and targeted.
“Despite the recent criticism of these initiatives, the chances of seeing another housing market bubble are extremely slim,” he said."
0 -
Sorry: and another thing. Electricity in France costs almost exactly the same as in the UK. (It's around 20p/Kwh at retail.) It has historically been "cheaper" because the French government paid for buildout of nuclear in the 1970s. Essentially, the cost was borne by taxpayers: this does not make it "cheap", it merely makes it subsidised by income taxpayers, rather than by consumer of electrons.Ishmael_X said:The pricing of Davey's deal is surely a point about davey's imbecility rather than nuclear energy per se? I understand nuclear generated electricity is cheap in France. it's also irrelevant as far as the Warmist argument is concerned because doubling the price of electricity is surely a small price to pay to avert the End of the World predicted by 955 of Ther Scientists.
Wind farms enrich the very rich who own the land,impoverish the very poor through subsidies paid by electricity consumers, and achieve virtually nothing else. They might have been dreamed up by Goldman Sachs.0 -
The Telegraph can't spell and the Mail can't tell a joke. Churchill stopped at, "but tomorrow I shall be sober". Tacking on, "and you will still be ugly," detracts from the quip by ruining its cadence.Financier said:Off Thread but Amusing:
Churchill tops poll of history's funniest insults with 'My dear you are ugly, but tomorrow I shall be sober and you will still be ugly'
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2458430/Winston-Churchill-tops-poll-historys-best-insults.html#ixzz2hgX9PMMP
There is a card you can buy which similarly wrecks Bob Monkhouse's joke about wanting to die peacefully in his sleep, like his father, not screaming in terror like his passengers. That is funny, unlike the tone-deaf rewrite which changes the end to "like the passengers on his bus/plane".
The Mail needs to overcome its hatred of the BBC and watch some of the wall-to-wall comedy panel shows that now blight its output.
Here is Simon Hoggart on politicians telling jokes:
http://www.totalpolitics.com/print/1623/itand39s-the-way-they-telland39-em.thtml0 -
And for balance, it has an article on the working poor of London:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/97407728-33f7-11e3-af0f-00144feab7de.html#axzz2hg2tgYDY
"More working Londoners are falling into poverty, according to research that suggests the uneven distribution of the capital’s economic gains is worsening.
A majority of those in poverty in the capital are now in working families – a rate of 57 per cent compared with 40 per cent in 2000."
"London’s educational performance has improved over the decade, with the capital’s schoolchildren achieving better results than elsewhere in England. However, the trust [Trust for London] raised concerns that this was not translating into jobs for young people."
And something for psephologists to note:
"The London Property Profile, which tracks 60 indicators of poverty expressed in official statistics, also found that the concentration of hardship was shifting from the centre to the periphery. Some 58 per cent of the 2.1m people in poverty in the capital live in outer London, up from 50 per cent 10 years ago."0 -
You are quite right regarding Enoch Powell. It suits extremists of both sides for him to be misunderstood and misquoted. You should try and watch his interview with David Frost on YouTube, if only we had people like him in Parliament today.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Financier, I prefer (in conversation with a woman at a dinner):
Woman: Sir, if you were my husband I would poison your tea.
Churchill: Madam, if you were my wife I'd drink it.
Mr. Isam, don't know the speech well enough to comment on the comparison, but the name of Enoch Powell alone would be enough to stir up the "anti-immigration = pro-racism" line from some quarters.0 -
It's a shame that Cardiff Airport is struggling. The approach to the runway atop a cliff on the Bristol Channel is a fun experience, and the taxi driver to Cardiff rail station was listening to a Radio 4 broadcast on the placebo effect. All in all one of the best airport experiences I've ever had.Financier said:....spent over £60m on a loss-making airport that requires an equal or greater sum in infrastructure to make it even a feasible airport...
0 -
How do nuclear costs stack up against wind, etc?rcs1000 said:
No Ismael_X it is not. Nobody will build a new nuclear plant for less than £92/MWh in the UK.Ishmael_X said:
The pricing of Davey's deal is surely a point about davey's imbecility rather than nuclear energy per se? I understand nuclear generated electricity is cheap in France. it's also irrelevant as far as the Warmist argument is concerned because doubling the price of electricity is surely a small price to pay to avert the End of the World predicted by 955 of Ther Scientists.
Wind farms enrich the very rich who own the land,impoverish the very poor through subsidies paid by electricity consumers, and achieve virtually nothing else. They might have been dreamed up by Goldman Sachs.
(And, in fact, UK companies pulled out from the project because they thought the price was too low.)
Nuclear is expensive, because the initial capital costs are enormous. Flamenville unit 3 - one of the first few EPRs, the same type as will be built in the UK, I believe - currently looks like it will cost at least $11billion, for a 1.6GW plant. That's more than 10x the price of a similar CCGT. And while the running costs of nuclear are lower than that of gas, they are not sufficiently lower to justify the initial expense.
Seems to me that the best thing to do is to have a mix of different energy sources, even accepting that some will be more expensive that others. One of the advantages of nuclear, for example, is that we are not dependent on imports from volatile parts of the world.
That has strategic value, but I'm not sure how you would account for it in the price0 -
Woman was Nancy Astor, I believeMorris_Dancer said:Mr. Financier, I prefer (in conversation with a woman at a dinner):
Woman: Sir, if you were my husband I would poison your tea.
Churchill: Madam, if you were my wife I'd drink it.
Mr. Isam, don't know the speech well enough to comment on the comparison, but the name of Enoch Powell alone would be enough to stir up the "anti-immigration = pro-racism" line from some quarters.0 -
Mr. Charles, I tip my hat to your historical knowledge.0
-
Interesting debate re China - I'm pretty chilled about it.
"...Mr Osborne talked up today China cash going in to Manchester to create 16,000 jobs. Next stop could be High Speed 2. Or future nuclear plants.
And that’s where the argument will be. Are we comfortable with the idea of China owning part – parts even – of us? David Cameron has talked of the importance of winning the global race, and that includes the race to secure investment. Some countries have shied away from allowing China to invest in their economies. They have concerns about human rights and more pressingly industrial espionage and intellectual property theft. Underlying that is an uncertainty about how china might turn out. Good guy? Bad guy? Friend or foe? > http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/benedictbrogan/100241199/george-osborne-wants-to-give-chinese-investors-an-access-all-areas-pass-to-britain/0 -
F1: interesting little video perhaps explaining why Red Bull have been able to dominate:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/24511950
I think this won't happen (in this way, at least) next year because rear exhaust gases will have to leave the car much higher, making it harder (maybe impossible) to use them to generate downforce at the rear.0 -
Brilliant
David Lammy @DavidLammy
A School bans Children's use of the so called Urban Dictionary."innit""cuz""bare".Can they add"Sup Blud " ? pic.twitter.com/yiIuHrZi1z0 -
And possibly apocryphal.....Charles said:
Woman was Nancy Astor, I believeMorris_Dancer said:Mr. Financier, I prefer (in conversation with a woman at a dinner):
Woman: Sir, if you were my husband I would poison your tea.
Churchill: Madam, if you were my wife I'd drink it.
Mr. Isam, don't know the speech well enough to comment on the comparison, but the name of Enoch Powell alone would be enough to stir up the "anti-immigration = pro-racism" line from some quarters.
'Winston, if you were my husband I'd put poison in your coffee!'
Nancy - if you were my wife - I'd drink it'
My favourite was his (again, possibly apocryphal) riposte to an American society matron berating him over the iniquities of the British Empire in the 1930s:
Mr Churchill - what are you going to do with your Indians?
Leastways, madam, not what you did with yours!
I had quite a good riposte once, when brought in to a former location to help review a project. My host explained my presence, to my former co-workers over morning coffee, ending with 'But I can't tell you what the project is, or I'd have to shoot you!' I replied 'If you knew what it was, you'd shoot yourself!'
0 -
Bring it on. Polls show that most people support green subsidies - specifically for wind - even when it's explicitly pointed out that the subsidies increase the cost of their energy.Financier said:
If the LDs try to block Green Tax reduction, then DC could put it to the House and let the LDs vote against it. I am sure that he would get enough support from the rest of the House to pass it. How many MPs would want to be identified as having voted against it and thus in favor of increasing energy costs (beyond markets forces). Seat preservation in 2015 (or even deselection) is a marvellous motivator for concentrating on what the e;lector require and what British industry needs
As a matter of interest, these are the issues that came up most in my latest 8 hours of doorstep canvassing:
a) Would an energy price cap be a good idea? (opinion divided)
b) Is the aid to get 95% mortgages a good idea? (everyone against)
c) Should we be intervening in Syria and other hot spots? (majority against but everyone struggling to define an ideal intervention policy)
Nobody mentioned any local issues. The deficit and immigration got one mention each. I gather that this isn't a universal canvassing experience and some people swear that all politics is local - just shows that every constituency is different. Obviously the usual response is none of these things, just "Yeah, I'll vote for you" or "Nah, sorry" or "Haven't thought about it yet, mate", but it's always interesting to see what people who are wavering are quoting as their key issues.
0 -
The SKY charts on their Survation Immigration poll:
http://interactive.news.sky.com/PDF/Immigration.pdf
On the illegal immigration vans net approval is +25.......0 -
Were these spontaneously mentioned, or in response to questions from you?NickPalmer said:
As a matter of interest, these are the issues that came up most in my latest 8 hours of doorstep canvassing:Financier said:
If the LDs try to block Green Tax reduction, then DC could put it to the House and let the LDs vote against it. I am sure that he would get enough support from the rest of the House to pass it. How many MPs would want to be identified as having voted against it and thus in favor of increasing energy costs (beyond markets forces). Seat preservation in 2015 (or even deselection) is a marvellous motivator for concentrating on what the e;lector require and what British industry needs
a) Would an energy price cap be a good idea? (opinion divided)
b) Is the aid to get 95% mortgages a good idea? (everyone against)
c) Should we be intervening in Syria and other hot spots? (majority against but everyone struggling to define an ideal intervention policy)
0 -
I note you called them former co-workers...CarlottaVance said:
And possibly apocryphal.....Charles said:
Woman was Nancy Astor, I believeMorris_Dancer said:Mr. Financier, I prefer (in conversation with a woman at a dinner):
Woman: Sir, if you were my husband I would poison your tea.
Churchill: Madam, if you were my wife I'd drink it.
Mr. Isam, don't know the speech well enough to comment on the comparison, but the name of Enoch Powell alone would be enough to stir up the "anti-immigration = pro-racism" line from some quarters.
'Winston, if you were my husband I'd put poison in your coffee!'
Nancy - if you were my wife - I'd drink it'
My favourite was his (again, possibly apocryphal) riposte to an American society matron berating him over the iniquities of the British Empire in the 1930s:
Mr Churchill - what are you going to do with your Indians?
Leastways, madam, not what you did with yours!
I had quite a good riposte once, when brought in to a former location to help review a project. My host explained my presence, to my former co-workers over morning coffee, ending with 'But I can't tell you what the project is, or I'd have to shoot you!' I replied 'If you knew what it was, you'd shoot yourself!'
I always liked Churchill's comment: 'the best off-the-cuff ripostes take at least 15 minutes preparation"0 -
And the French (damn them!) have the perfect description; l'espirit de l'escalier!Charles said:
I note you called them former co-workers...CarlottaVance said:
And possibly apocryphal.....Charles said:
Woman was Nancy Astor, I believeMorris_Dancer said:Mr. Financier, I prefer (in conversation with a woman at a dinner):
Woman: Sir, if you were my husband I would poison your tea.
Churchill: Madam, if you were my wife I'd drink it.
Mr. Isam, don't know the speech well enough to comment on the comparison, but the name of Enoch Powell alone would be enough to stir up the "anti-immigration = pro-racism" line from some quarters.
'Winston, if you were my husband I'd put poison in your coffee!'
Nancy - if you were my wife - I'd drink it'
My favourite was his (again, possibly apocryphal) riposte to an American society matron berating him over the iniquities of the British Empire in the 1930s:
Mr Churchill - what are you going to do with your Indians?
Leastways, madam, not what you did with yours!
I had quite a good riposte once, when brought in to a former location to help review a project. My host explained my presence, to my former co-workers over morning coffee, ending with 'But I can't tell you what the project is, or I'd have to shoot you!' I replied 'If you knew what it was, you'd shoot yourself!'
I always liked Churchill's comment: 'the best off-the-cuff ripostes take at least 15 minutes preparation"
0 -
The generally accepted fully loaded, and included capital costs for various power sources are around:Charles said:
How do nuclear costs stack up against wind, etc?rcs1000 said:
No Ismael_X it is not. Nobody will build a new nuclear plant for less than £92/MWh in the UK.Ishmael_X said:
The pricing of Davey's deal is surely a point about davey's imbecility rather than nuclear energy per se? I understand nuclear generated electricity is cheap in France. it's also irrelevant as far as the Warmist argument is concerned because doubling the price of electricity is surely a small price to pay to avert the End of the World predicted by 955 of Ther Scientists.
Wind farms enrich the very rich who own the land,impoverish the very poor through subsidies paid by electricity consumers, and achieve virtually nothing else. They might have been dreamed up by Goldman Sachs.
(And, in fact, UK companies pulled out from the project because they thought the price was too low.)
Nuclear is expensive, because the initial capital costs are enormous. Flamenville unit 3 - one of the first few EPRs, the same type as will be built in the UK, I believe - currently looks like it will cost at least $11billion, for a 1.6GW plant. That's more than 10x the price of a similar CCGT. And while the running costs of nuclear are lower than that of gas, they are not sufficiently lower to justify the initial expense.
Seems to me that the best thing to do is to have a mix of different energy sources, even accepting that some will be more expensive that others. One of the advantages of nuclear, for example, is that we are not dependent on imports from volatile parts of the world.
That has strategic value, but I'm not sure how you would account for it in the price
£55 coal
£65 gas
£90 nuclear
£80 on-shore wind (best)
£100 on-shore wind (average) - and I believe, including ROCs, the figure for new wind today is about £98
£150 off-shore wind
£250 solar
(*However*, it is worth remembering with solar that as it's distributed, you don't need to factor in distribution cost, and that in many parts of the world, the sun correlates with peak demand.)
0 -
As a famous recipient of farming subsidies I would expect you to hold that opinion.tim said:0 -
Surprised it is as low as 67%TwistedFireStopper said:Sky News going big on immigration this week. They have a poll saying that 67% believe the UK population is too large, and the government should take "drastic" action to reduce immigration.
0 -
Spontaneously. I generally just ask about VI and let people raise issues if they want to. My experience when I've tried asking people in the past is that most struggle to come up with anything in particular when some bloke on the doorstep asks them out of the blue what political or local issues concern them, so you get a more realistic picture if you let them raise anything that's bothering them.CarlottaVance said:
Were these spontaneously mentioned, or in response to questions from you?NickPalmer said:
As a matter of interest, these are the issues that came up most in my latest 8 hours of doorstep canvassing:
a) Would an energy price cap be a good idea? (opinion divided)
b) Is the aid to get 95% mortgages a good idea? (everyone against)
c) Should we be intervening in Syria and other hot spots? (majority against but everyone struggling to define an ideal intervention policy)
0 -
Morris, Only Westminster have a blank cheque book to spend where they wish. Devolution only allows Scotland to borrow from Westminster and since they don't like anybody else having any say it does not happen. So there is ZERO chance of having to pick up any bill just as there is ZERO chance of Westminster allocating Scotland a fair budget.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. G, don't many places pay in more than they get out? That doesn't legitimise (in a moral sense) the right to borrow what you like knowing someone else will pick up the bill if everything goes wrong.
0 -
Mr. G, if you desire to borrow without restriction then that's a matter for independence. It's unacceptable, in my view, in a devolved Scotland.
As for a fair budget, that's obviously subjective, but you did have 13 years of Scottish Chancellors quite recently.0 -
Fascinating - have shared that.rcs1000 said:
The generally accepted fully loaded, and included capital costs for various power sources are around:Charles said:
How do nuclear costs stack up against wind, etc?rcs1000 said:
No Ismael_X it is not. Nobody will build a new nuclear plant for less than £92/MWh in the UK.Ishmael_X said:
The pricing of Davey's deal is surely a point about davey's imbecility rather than nuclear energy per se? I understand nuclear generated electricity is cheap in France. it's also irrelevant as far as the Warmist argument is concerned because doubling the price of electricity is surely a small price to pay to avert the End of the World predicted by 955 of Ther Scientists.
Wind farms enrich the very rich who own the land,impoverish the very poor through subsidies paid by electricity consumers, and achieve virtually nothing else. They might have been dreamed up by Goldman Sachs.
(And, in fact, UK companies pulled out from the project because they thought the price was too low.)
Nuclear is expensive, because the initial capital costs are enormous. Flamenville unit 3 - one of the first few EPRs, the same type as will be built in the UK, I believe - currently looks like it will cost at least $11billion, for a 1.6GW plant. That's more than 10x the price of a similar CCGT. And while the running costs of nuclear are lower than that of gas, they are not sufficiently lower to justify the initial expense.
Seems to me that the best thing to do is to have a mix of different energy sources, even accepting that some will be more expensive that others. One of the advantages of nuclear, for example, is that we are not dependent on imports from volatile parts of the world.
That has strategic value, but I'm not sure how you would account for it in the price
£55 coal
£65 gas
£90 nuclear
£80 on-shore wind (best)
£100 on-shore wind (average) - and I believe, including ROCs, the figure for new wind today is about £98
£150 off-shore wind
£250 solar
(*However*, it is worth remembering with solar that as it's distributed, you don't need to factor in distribution cost, and that in many parts of the world, the sun correlates with peak demand.)0 -
ICM due out this week ?
0 -
@Morris_Dancer, @malcolmg
Councils around the country are allowed to borrow from banks - or even to issue bonds, I believe. Is this not true for Scotland?0 -
Only income tax though IIRC ?Neil said:
Devolution allowed Scotland to raise more funds through taxation. No Scottish government ever chose to do so.malcolmg said:Devolution only allows Scotland to borrow from Westminster and since they don't like anybody else having any say it does not happen.
Real power would be to reduce corp tax for Scotland - would give a much needed boost.
Can Holyrood do that with present powers ?0 -
F1: Ricciardo bitter about his drive-through. He passed someone or other on the outside of 130R (superfast corner) but went off the track and was deemed to have gained an advantage after he didn't give the place back:
http://www.espn.co.uk/japan/motorsport/story/130177.html
He has little room to complain, in my book. The precedent was set when earlier this season Grosjean brilliantly passed Massa but was a few inches outside the track and got penalised. That was harsh, but Ricciardo was miles over the line *and* had the precedent to look back on.0 -
The question of IP (intellectual property) theft has been cited by American companies as one reason for bringing off-shored manufacturing back to the United States.Plato said:Interesting debate re China - I'm pretty chilled about it.
"...Mr Osborne talked up today China cash going in to Manchester to create 16,000 jobs. Next stop could be High Speed 2. Or future nuclear plants.
And that’s where the argument will be. Are we comfortable with the idea of China owning part – parts even – of us? David Cameron has talked of the importance of winning the global race, and that includes the race to secure investment. Some countries have shied away from allowing China to invest in their economies. They have concerns about human rights and more pressingly industrial espionage and intellectual property theft. Underlying that is an uncertainty about how china might turn out. Good guy? Bad guy? Friend or foe? > http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/benedictbrogan/100241199/george-osborne-wants-to-give-chinese-investors-an-access-all-areas-pass-to-britain/
I very much doubt the United States would allow a Chinese-built nuclear power station on American soil, on national security grounds. Indeed, in the past America has blocked the sale of ports and airports for that reason. Some might go further and suggest we must be wary of all foreign technology since we cannot be sure it will not contain back doors or viruses to be activated at times of international conflict. Look at the (American) Stuxnet and Flame viruses which targeted the Iranian nuclear programme.
We live in interesting times.
0 -
@Plato - it's worth noting that wind is not quite as good value as it would appear from the table, as the wind blows most often at night, when electricity demand is lowest.
Also, because (most) gas can be turned on-and-off at will (with no 'warm up period' as happens with coal), it is more valuable to the system than the raw numbers suggest.0 -
No surprise, as it would quickly lead to a brain drain to England...Neil said:
Devolution allowed Scotland to raise more funds through taxation. No Scottish government ever chose to do so.malcolmg said:Devolution only allows Scotland to borrow from Westminster and since they don't like anybody else having any say it does not happen.
0 -
4th Earl of Sandwich: "Sir, I do not know whether you will die on the gallows or of the pox," Wilkes is reported to have replied, "That depends, my lord, on whether I embrace your lordship's principles or your mistress."0
-
Isn't another potential problem with wind - during a high pressure spell in winter when temperatures can drop very low (Thus the nation needs more heat/energy), wind speed (And thus turbine output) also drops alot ? Over time the power outputs will b achieved, but I would think wind power output has more variance than other forms ?rcs1000 said:@Plato - it's worth noting that wind is not quite as good value as it would appear from the table, as the wind blows most often at night, when electricity demand is lowest.
Also, because (most) gas can be turned on-and-off at will (with no 'warm up period' as happens with coal), it is more valuable to the system than the raw numbers suggest.0 -
Dr. Spyn, I've also read that, but attributed to Disraeli and Gladstone.
Speaking of whom, I enjoyed Disraeli's explanation of the difference between a misfortune and a calamity.
"If Gladstone fell in the Thames, that would be a misfortune. If someone pulled him out, that would be a calamity."0 -
The proposed UK power plants are to be built by Areva and operated by EDF, both French companies. The actual entity that owned the reactors would be a British limited company, albeit one where the shareholders were companies outside the UK. While the Chinese would own a stake in the plant, no Chinese workers would be involved. In any case, if the Chinese wanted to steal the designs for Areva's EPR, they could do so very simply by asking them to build a plant in China, and having Chinese workers do the building. Which, in fact, is exactly what they've already done: http://www.areva.com/EN/operations-2404/china--taishan-12.htmlDecrepitJohnL said:I very much doubt the United States would allow a Chinese-built nuclear power station on American soil, on national security grounds. Indeed, in the past America has blocked the sale of ports and airports for that reason. Some might go further and suggest we must be wary of all foreign technology since we cannot be sure it will not contain back doors or viruses to be activated at times of international conflict. Look at the (American) Stuxnet and Flame viruses which targeted the Iranian nuclear programme.
We live in interesting times.0 -
No. Stormont has been agitating for this power for years but wont get it because then Holyrood would have to have it. I'm not sure that a race to the bottom on corporation tax between the countries of the UK would be beneficial overall.TGOHF said:
Real power would be to reduce corp tax for Scotland - would give a much needed boost.
Can Holyrood do that with present powers ?
Ps any shortfall on corporation tax would have to be made up from other sources0 -
A bigger brain drain you meanSlackbladder said:
No surprise, as it would quickly lead to a brain drain to England...Neil said:
Devolution allowed Scotland to raise more funds through taxation. No Scottish government ever chose to do so.malcolmg said:Devolution only allows Scotland to borrow from Westminster and since they don't like anybody else having any say it does not happen.
0 -
Thanks for that.rcs1000 said:@Plato - it's worth noting that wind is not quite as good value as it would appear from the table, as the wind blows most often at night, when electricity demand is lowest.
Also, because (most) gas can be turned on-and-off at will (with no 'warm up period' as happens with coal), it is more valuable to the system than the raw numbers suggest.0 -
Increased NI and IT take would make up for itNeil said:
No. Stormont has been agitating for this power for years but wont get it because then Holyrood would have to have it. I'm not sure that a race to the bottom on corporation tax between the countries of the UK would be beneficial overall.TGOHF said:
Real power would be to reduce corp tax for Scotland - would give a much needed boost.
Can Holyrood do that with present powers ?
Ps any shortfall on corporation tax would have to be made up from other sources
0 -
Fascinating - have shared that.rcs1000 said:
The generally accepted fully loaded, and included capital costs for various power sources are around:
£55 coal
£65 gas
£90 nuclear
£80 on-shore wind (best)
£100 on-shore wind (average) - and I believe, including ROCs, the figure for new wind today is about £98
£150 off-shore wind
£250 solar
(*However*, it is worth remembering with solar that as it's distributed, you don't need to factor in distribution cost, and that in many parts of the world, the sun correlates with peak demand.)
Does this include ALL the costs for nuclear (Future Decommisioning costs factored in at an inflation adjusted NPV) and insurance costs for all the various energies ?
Are any 'carbon' costs included in this lot ? (I'm not debating them in this post just want to know if they are in there) if so what is the breakdown ?0 -
Well indeed...TGOHF said:
A bigger brain drain you meanSlackbladder said:
No surprise, as it would quickly lead to a brain drain to England...Neil said:
Devolution allowed Scotland to raise more funds through taxation. No Scottish government ever chose to do so.malcolmg said:Devolution only allows Scotland to borrow from Westminster and since they don't like anybody else having any say it does not happen.
0 -
Today's Populus Lab 39 Con 34 LD 12 UKIP 8 All figures unchanged from Friday0
-
Popcorn sales will rise
Nicholas Watt @nicholaswatt
No 10: PM has some sympathy for view that full pack of hounds should be allowed to flush out foxes. No 10 doesn't rule out commons vote0 -
Because it would result in a concomitant reduction to the block grant, and all extra costs of raising the tax would be on the Scottish exchequer.Neil said:
Devolution allowed Scotland to raise more funds through taxation. No Scottish government ever chose to do so.malcolmg said:Devolution only allows Scotland to borrow from Westminster and since they don't like anybody else having any say it does not happen.
Aka a pig in a poke.
0 -
Mr. Divvie, does this income tax mechanism allow for a reduction in taxation?
If higher taxes = corresponding cut in the block grant then presumably a lower tax would result in a larger sum in the block grant to compensate for it. Net, you'd be as well off as before, but you would've made Scotland a more tempting place to do business.
Assuming you're allowed to cut income tax, of course (I still dislike devolution, it must be said).0 -
Ignoring the rights or wrongs of the argument (and I do believe that landowners have the right to deal with pests, which foxes certainly are), this'll do nothing for the tories image.Plato said:Popcorn sales will rise
Nicholas Watt @nicholaswatt
No 10: PM has some sympathy for view that full pack of hounds should be allowed to flush out foxes. No 10 doesn't rule out commons vote0 -
Haven't been on for a while, as no time to be seduced into sinking into the comment stream. However, hope you are all flourishing. I am.0
-
I see little difference between those that want to ban pest killing and those that want to ban GM golden rice.tim said:
Those photos of Dave in his hunting gear that he's so successfully kept out of the media so far would be nice in the election run up.Slackbladder said:
Ignoring the rights or wrongs of the argument (and I do believe that landowners have the right to deal with pests, which foxes certainly are), this'll do nothing for the tories image.Plato said:Popcorn sales will rise
Nicholas Watt @nicholaswatt
No 10: PM has some sympathy for view that full pack of hounds should be allowed to flush out foxes. No 10 doesn't rule out commons vote
Wonder if theres one of the twit with blood smeared on his face.
Both inflicting their narrow world view on matters which don't affect them on the rest of us.
0 -
I quite agree - I can see a nod to it being useful but nothing more. I don't like hunting as I'm a bit squeamish but I've a terrible rural fox problem - they've killed a dozen of my cats, break into the house, steal food, crap all over and my dogs regularly chase them out every night or so.Slackbladder said:
Ignoring the rights or wrongs of the argument (and I do believe that landowners have the right to deal with pests, which foxes certainly are), this'll do nothing for the tories image.Plato said:Popcorn sales will rise
Nicholas Watt @nicholaswatt
No 10: PM has some sympathy for view that full pack of hounds should be allowed to flush out foxes. No 10 doesn't rule out commons vote
I used to treat foxes for mange before they became an issue - now if I hear a gunshot I hope its got one of them. There's a natural balance and its way out here. They're a menace.0 -
What happened to the free vote on repealing the Hunting Act?0
-
Funny how it’s always left to Guido to point these things out. With the news that the Red Cross will be collecting food and handing it to the needy in the UK for the first time since the war, Labour were cock-a-hoop, crowing about evil Tories and welfare cuts. Guido is sure that it is a complete coincidence that the chairman of the Red Cross is Sir Charles Allen – the television tycoon who also happens to be the executive chairman of the Labour Party. Nice hit.
http://order-order.com/2013/10/14/the-red-red-cross/0 -
MrsB, nice to see you on. Busy plotting your ascension to Lib Dem leadership?0
-
ICM this week ?0
-
I was at Dinorwig yesterday, where they boasted of 75% efficiency in converting cheap electricity at night into more expensive electricity at day.rcs1000 said:@Plato - it's worth noting that wind is not quite as good value as it would appear from the table, as the wind blows most often at night, when electricity demand is lowest.
Also, because (most) gas can be turned on-and-off at will (with no 'warm up period' as happens with coal), it is more valuable to the system than the raw numbers suggest.
I wonder if the plans for new nuclear will involve more pumped storage, or if it will be merely to replace the old nuclear plants that will be decommissioned?0 -
Yes, I believe so, but I think the maximum -3p in the pound would have been tokenistic at best, and difficult to sell to the electorate before the economy went tits up let alone after. If Scotland wanted a low tax, neo-liberal economy, presumably the Tories and their little friends should be beating off voters with a stick, both at Westminster and Holyrood.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Divvie, does this income tax mechanism allow for a reduction in taxation?
If higher taxes = corresponding cut in the block grant then presumably a lower tax would result in a larger sum in the block grant to compensate for it. Net, you'd be as well off as before, but you would've made Scotland a more tempting place to do business.
Assuming you're allowed to cut income tax, of course (I still dislike devolution, it must be said).0 -
That Red Cross revelation reminds me of the MacMillan incident at PMQs a couple of years ago, whereby the head of MacMillan's PR (I believe) was a Labour chap who had collaborated with Red Ed to score some political points.0
-
This is an issue, which is why one would not want to power a grid on wind alone, but one advantage with wind is that you can produce reasonably good forecasts of the wind days in advance, which allows you to plan for low and high periods of output.Pulpstar said:
Isn't another potential problem with wind - during a high pressure spell in winter when temperatures can drop very low (Thus the nation needs more heat/energy), wind speed (And thus turbine output) also drops alot ? Over time the power outputs will b achieved, but I would think wind power output has more variance than other forms ?rcs1000 said:@Plato - it's worth noting that wind is not quite as good value as it would appear from the table, as the wind blows most often at night, when electricity demand is lowest.
Also, because (most) gas can be turned on-and-off at will (with no 'warm up period' as happens with coal), it is more valuable to the system than the raw numbers suggest.
Sometimes a large conventional power station will simply drop off the grid with no warning at all.0 -
How would you feel about legislation permitting foxhounds to retrain as cathounds?tim said:
Those photos of Dave in his hunting gear that he's so successfully kept out of the media so far would be nice in the election run up.Slackbladder said:
Ignoring the rights or wrongs of the argument (and I do believe that landowners have the right to deal with pests, which foxes certainly are), this'll do nothing for the tories image.Plato said:Popcorn sales will rise
Nicholas Watt @nicholaswatt
No 10: PM has some sympathy for view that full pack of hounds should be allowed to flush out foxes. No 10 doesn't rule out commons vote
Wonder if theres one of the twit with blood smeared on his face.
0 -
I'd forgotten about that - but it did make me cancel my DDebit at the time. It never does charities good in the end - look at the mess the RSPCA are in.Morris_Dancer said:That Red Cross revelation reminds me of the MacMillan incident at PMQs a couple of years ago, whereby the head of MacMillan's PR (I believe) was a Labour chap who had collaborated with Red Ed to score some political points.
0 -
Just had it confirmed - the October ICM phone poll, the survey with the widest potential reach, is out tonight
In July LAB and CON level-pegging
In Aug LAB 3% ahead
In Sept LAB 4% ahead0 -
It's not made up, whether its accurate or not is another matter:tim said:What the hell is Osborne on about claiming 160 million Chinese people watch Downton Abbey.
Thats more obviously made up nonsense than his 2010 forecasts
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/downton-abbey/10364221/Downton-Abbeys-Michelle-Dockery-wins-Chinese-TV-award.html
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/419508/China-falls-for-the-Downton-Abbey-effect0 -
Would expect a bigger labour lead.MikeSmithson said:Just had it confirmed - the October ICM phone poll, the survey with the widest potential reach, is out tonight
In July LAB and CON level-pegging
In Aug LAB 3% ahead
In Sept LAB 4% ahead0 -
Daily Politics - Government are scaremongering re immigrants
Whol'd have thunk it0 -
Migrants massive net contributors
Little Englanders the opposite0 -
No, it's the other way round - it's the New Statesman which is presenting the data in a barmy and biased way. Of course there are more economically inactive UK nationals than EU nationals - what on earth else would anyone expect? Most of the economically inactive are pensioners. Well, surprise, surprise, not many pensioners in the UK are EU nationals.tim said:
"· The “non-activity” rate among EU nationals in Britain is 30%. For UK nationals it is 43%;"bigjohnowls said:Daily Politics - Government are scaremongering re immigrants
Whol'd have thunk it
Looks like they were including students, pensioners and partners of rich French bankers looking after the children as unemployed.
That doesn't alter the facts that the Sunday Telegraph has drawn attention to. It's not much consolation to know that the proportion of economically inactive immigrants is lower than the proportion of some other group - it's the number which matters.0 -
RichardNabavi said:
That doesn't alter the facts that the Sunday Telegraph has drawn attention to. It's not much consolation to know that the proportion of economically inactive immigrants is lower than the proportion of some other group - it's the number which matters.tim said:
"· The “non-activity” rate among EU nationals in Britain is 30%. For UK nationals it is 43%;"bigjohnowls said:Daily Politics - Government are scaremongering re immigrants
Whol'd have thunk it
Looks like they were including students, pensioners and partners of rich French bankers looking after the children as unemployed.
Indeed, and I'm surprised that the unemployment rate differential between the two is so low.
"while 7.5% are out of work, compared to 7.9% of UK nationals (the unemployment rate at the time the study was conducted). "
0 -
The Sunday Telegraph drew attention to nothing besides its own prejudices.RichardNabavi said:
That doesn't alter the facts that the Sunday Telegraph has drawn attention to.0 -
Surely the Lab leccy bill surge will filter through ?Slackbladder said:
Would expect a bigger labour lead.MikeSmithson said:Just had it confirmed - the October ICM phone poll, the survey with the widest potential reach, is out tonight
In July LAB and CON level-pegging
In Aug LAB 3% ahead
In Sept LAB 4% ahead0 -
Both sides of the immigration debate would be well advised to accept that there are good and bad aspects to immigration.
It's about how we can have more of the good, and less of the bad.0 -
Yes, but so what? You seem to think that is some kind of killer stat. All it shows is that, in addition to our home-grown unemployment problem, we've also imported the unemployed. That's hardly something to be pleased with.tim said:The employment rate (for those age 16-64) among EU nationals is 77%. For UK nationals it is 68%;
0 -
True, and the same is true of the New Statesman.Neil said:
The Sunday Telegraph drew attention to nothing besides its own prejudices.RichardNabavi said:
That doesn't alter the facts that the Sunday Telegraph has drawn attention to.0 -
Was it left to Guido because no-one else in the media or the Conservative Party realised a Labour life peer was a Labour life peer, or because not even the Conservative Party thought it in any way relevant?Plato said:Funny how it’s always left to Guido to point these things out. With the news that the Red Cross will be collecting food and handing it to the needy in the UK for the first time since the war, Labour were cock-a-hoop, crowing about evil Tories and welfare cuts. Guido is sure that it is a complete coincidence that the chairman of the Red Cross is Sir Charles Allen – the television tycoon who also happens to be the executive chairman of the Labour Party. Nice hit.
http://order-order.com/2013/10/14/the-red-red-cross/0 -
Well, this has been gone over time and time again, the proportion of over 65's is increasing, but then immigration to 'service' that will just lead to bigger issues down the road as that increased population also ages.tim said:
With the EU we get people who are much more likely to be working and less likely to be claiming benefits or using the NHS.Slackbladder said:Both sides of the immigration debate would be well advised to accept that there are good and bad aspects to immigration.
It's about how we can have more of the good, and less of the bad.
And we export a load of pensioners.
Getting out of the EU/EEA would obviously result in a huge strain on public services as the over 65's population rose
It may be that what you say 'is' the only solution, but the question is, is that sustainable? Or is it kicking the can down the road a generation?
I have yet to see an argument that convinces me it is.0 -
Not yet - but 20 years time there will be - will all be part of Labours "golden legacy"...RichardNabavi said:
. Well, surprise, surprise, not many pensioners in the UK are EU nationals.tim said:
"· The “non-activity” rate among EU nationals in Britain is 30%. For UK nationals it is 43%;"bigjohnowls said:Daily Politics - Government are scaremongering re immigrants
Whol'd have thunk it
Looks like they were including students, pensioners and partners of rich French bankers looking after the children as unemployed.
.
0 -
immigrants get old - need the NHS more, take a pension...tim said:
With the EU we get people who are much more likely to be working and less likely to be claiming benefits or using the NHS.Slackbladder said:Both sides of the immigration debate would be well advised to accept that there are good and bad aspects to immigration.
It's about how we can have more of the good, and less of the bad.
And we export a load of pensioners.
Getting out of the EU/EEA would obviously result in a huge strain on public services as the over 65's population rose
A fact single data point junkies ignore..0 -
Yes but they've generally produced enough children to pay for their NHS and unfunded pension obligations etc. A fact that people who overlook the contribution immigration makes to meeting the UK's demographic challenges ignore.TGOHF said:
immigrants get old - need the NHS more, take a pension...
A fact single data point junkies ignore..0 -
@tim - The figure we actually need is the number of UK citizens claiming benefits in other EU countries compared with the number of citizens from other EU countries claiming benefits here, and the total amount claimed in each case. I don't know the figures, but I strongly suspect we're making a huge loss on this part of the EU deal, because our welfare system is so broken. Are you suggesting we're making a profit on it?
0 -
So the population of the UK will just continue to get bigger and bigger then...Neil said:
Yes but they've generally produced enough children to pay for their NHS and unfunded pension obligations etc. A fact that people who overlook the contribution immigration makes to meeting the UK's demographic challenges ignore.TGOHF said:
immigrants get old - need the NHS more, take a pension...
A fact single data point junkies ignore..0 -
In the latest projections the UK population is expected to grow with or without immigration (which is obviously difficult to make assumption about).Slackbladder said:
So the population of the UK will just continue to get bigger and bigger then...0
