TopGun

BNP set to implode http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/may/14/general-election-2010-fall-bnp

The interesting part is the proposal that it requires 55% of MPs to vote down this government in a vote of no confidence. This keeps the Tories safe if the LDs fall out of bed. It's pretty unconstitutional as a proposal compared with the accepted 50% + 1 vote to bring about a vote of no confidence and protects the Executive (Tory led govt) against the Legislature (House of Commons with an LD fallout). This is a proposal that will be passed by the Con-LD alliance in the House of Commons as it serves current purposes for them both to retain power at the moment but it is very unlikely to be sanctioned by the House of Lords. If the Lords turn it down in time, as I expect, there will be huge pressure on the LD MPs to reject it when it returns to the House of Commons for the final vote.

This is a fair point. I think it is very silly to call Salmond a tool etc as posters have done above. Salmond is a smart politician who is representing the Scots very well. People like Dune say why do the Scots have so much influence. It is partly to do with the West Lothian question as Ian highlights above but ultimately the UK includes Scotland, Wales and NI. There seems to be much paradox and contradiction with English First posters here. Do you want England as a single political nation and the Scots as another political nation? Salmond would rip your arm off to agree if that's the case. Scotland has enough renewable and conventional energy potential to exist as an individual nation with its own economy without a doubt and that is becoming ever more clear. You have to make your minds up. UK or England. Scotland would do just fine alone and not have to call on "English subsidies" at all.

I'd back Colonel Sanders over Ronald McDonald any time.

Yes, because it is too late for candidate withdrawals. It will be friendly opposition apparently.

Remember that John Major had his "bastards" from his own party who were hell-bent on their agenda and were close to bringing him down at times. It is conceivable that another right-wing group of plotters might emerge.

There's lots of things that are altering so fast it is difficult to keep track a lot of the time! There is of course an argument for long distance DC lines instead of 400KV AC lines such as recently approved AC Beauly-Denny line that will carry much energy from north of Scotland to south of Scotland, much originating at wind farms. DC lines lose less power via transmission but have their own drawbacks too - safety and power conversion. That said, I am aware that the Beauly-Denny line has already stirred an interest to develop/expand windfarms in the Highlands as extra required transmission capability will be in place in a few years. An interesting update on the Con-LD nuke issue here http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/rowenamason/100005630/britains-nuclear-industry-wakes-up-to-an-explosive-problem-as-chris-huhne-moves-in/ And now Huhne says the LDs will not oppose nukes provided no public subsidy is used to support them. This is an issue as companies like Eon say they need public money to kickstart the nuke programme. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8679827.stm

David Miliband is the man.

I have an interest in all forms of power, not just wind. It is sensible that wind is part of the mix. I certainly did not say that wind can single handedly power the UK either. I would expect a top of about 20%. The reactive power point is an absolute non-starter. My wind clients include Npower, Infinergy, Eon Renewables, Force 9 , Gamesa, Cornwall Light & Power and Novera. All agree that reactive power is a relative non-issue, no matter how the energy is distributed. Additionally it should be noted that last year across Europe more renewable energy capacity was installed than non-renewable energy capcity. Most of this is in the form of wind. Are you really trying to say that all these developers, which include mixed energy giants, are ****ing in the wind and don't know what they are up to?

Not exactly reassuring for the rest of us tbh!

You miss the point entirely. Wind is free and non-polluting. Therefore its efficiency is irrelevant provided there is sufficient spread. The reactive power point is disingenuous also. With cables designed for use at 275 or 400kV the reactive power generated by the electric field is always greater than the reactive power absorbed by the magnetic field and so cables are always net generators of reactive power. It makes no difference whatsoever from what source the energy comes from. Power is power is power. In the UK there are no court cases ongoing about wind farm safety either. This is more inaccurate spin designed by the anti-wind lobby and lapped up by their followers. I fully accept wind farms are designed to operate for 25 years. This helps close the energy gap which nuclear new build can not do. After that, new technologies will replace onshore wind. Anybody who decries wind verbatim is deluded. The UK is lucky enough to have huge resources available and we will end up making the most of them, despite the luddite protests of people such as Smirking Saint who have not done their research properly.

The club is in very private hands. Transparency does not fit with that. Just accept the improved finance IMO.

I have no problems with rational political conversation. You are just being 1976 Childish. It's your option to be public with it and I don't have an issue with that. As I repeat, good luck to the Tories and the LDs. If they prove they are good over the next 12 months, then excellent.

Not at all bitter and twisted 1976. I respect the constitution that we have which means the Tories now have a crack at the job. I can deal with it, no problems. I just don't like facile views.

You told me all about wind farms and green energy a few months back. Your views were laughable as they were based on pure ignorance. Your current statements seem very puerile atm. Happy to be put right of course. But anyone who says they have waited 13 years for this moment looks a bit daft tbh.

To call Labour socialist is also immature. I don't call the Tories fascist.

What proposals are loopy that Cable puts forward Whitey? The guy is a fully fledged economist...

So you would vote for him Dune? You may as well vote for Esther Rantzen.

I agree. DC deserves a chance with his coalition. And he has a tough task. I didn't vote for the Tories but they are the government and I wish him well for the moment.

You're the feller who told me you understand energy!!!!

Personally I think he was a politician who tried his best for the UK. I think his dedication came across in his leaving speech at Downing Street. As chancellor he gave the Bank of England independence so that mortgages and savings are not tied to the politicians of the day - a massive move that has helped everyone. As PM he had a tough role filling TB's shoes and he made a massive mistake by not calling an election after he took over. He would have waltzed that then and still be here now with an improved mandate. I also think it is unfair to single him out for a global financial crisis although I agree he should have acted on banks earlier... but there's retrospect eh? I think he did his very best with no personal agenda for legacy unlike TB. Thoughts?

Fairly immature thread. Why would anyone have waited 13 years for Labour to lose? They did an awful lot of good in the early days. * Hospital waiting lists are way down. * University grads are way up * Crime is down on 1997 * Bank of England is independent so mortgage rates are non-political I could go on. I wish DC well but people forget that Labour has done an awful lot of very good things in their tenure.

Most of the rooms at Number 10 are government state rooms so they will stay as they are although any PM can ask that pictures are altered etc. The living quarters will be refurbed as DC and Sam require. They can bring in stuff they want etc. It is a huge house/building anyway so the living quarters are very spacious.

I'm ignoring Dune's very silly start to this thread. I do think DC gave an excellent speech without notes at Downing Street though and picked up on some good points.

Well, Osborne it is seemingly. It will be a centre of huge contention as Osborne wants to slash and burn with spending to reduce deficit and Cable wants to continue spending to help support the economy and then cut later. Complete opposites!