Here’s a final post on the proposed boundary changes for the time being, I’ve had a chance to look at the marginality of seats. Now, as I said in an earlier post, on the levels of support at the 2010 election the proposed English boundaries would have given the Conservatives 5 fewer seats, Labour 18 fewer seats and the Liberal Democrats 7 fewer seats. That’s a gain of 13 seats for the Conservatives relative to Labour.

However, it doesn’t follow that there would be the same impact if levels of support had been different. What if, for example, Labour notionally lost lots of seats at 2010 levels of support, but the new boundaries produced lots of seats that could be won on a very small swing – it could be that the new boundaries were better for Labour than the current boundaries in a scenario where the Conservatives had slightly less support.

Hence the table below shows what the distribution of seats would be with various uniform swings between Labour and Conservative.

These suggest that while the proposed boundaries are beneficial to the Conservatives under 2010 levels of support, they would be much less beneficial to them compared to the current boundaries if there was a swing to the Conservatives (with a 2 point swing to the Tories – the equivalent of an 11 point GB lead – these boundaries would only see the Conservatives gain 3 seats relative to Labour). On the other hand, in a scenario where there was a swing towards Labour these proposed boundaries would be much better for the Tories. If there was a three point swing to Labour (putting the parties roughly neck and neck in GB support) then the Conservatives would win 2 more seats than on the current boundaries, Labour 26 less – a relative gain of 28 seats.

That particular level of support is most advantageous to the Tories, their gain declines again on bigger Labour swings. The point is, however, that in terms of marginality seats are not evenly distributed, so a particular set of boundaries that is good for a party when they are x% ahead in polls may not be good for them when they are y% behind.

The headline figures of gains and losses at 2010 levels of support can be somewhat misleading, given it ignores whether more seats become winnable marginals or safe seats. The best measure will probably be what percentage leads the two main parties need in order to get a majority on the new boundaries. Currently the Conservatives need about an 11 point lead, Labour about a 3 point lead.

We can’t tell exactly what leads they’ll need on the new boundaries until we see Scotland and Wales, but the Conservatives will need at most a lead of 9 points (since on these boundaries, that size swing would give over 300 seats in England alone) and I expect it will be a bit less unless the Welsh boundaries are truly horrific for them. On the old boundaries Labour could win an overall majority with a lead over the Tories of 3%, but given they win far more seats in Scotland and Wales than the Tories do, we really will need to wait for the other Commissions’ reports before we can make any estimates about how their target will change.

With all that done, below is a spreadsheet of the notional figures for all the proposed seats, carried out the same way – ready for people to crunch and experiment with in their own way.

Notional results for Provisional English Boundaries (excel) (csv)

I’ll add the caveat I provided last time I did this, these notionals are just the product of estimating how general election support is distributed throughout each seat, based up which are the stronger and weaker wards for each party in local elections, and then reallocating the wards to their new seats. There is little or no human judgement here – if just how the numbers stack up once they are all pumped into the spreadsheet, so if it is an area you know well you may very well have a better idea of how the party support in your area actually stacks up. It’s not a perfect system of projecting notional results, and sometimes later election results suggest individual seats were off, but one the whole it performs pretty well. That said, if you spot anything spectactularly odd do mention it – it may be an error.


273 Responses to “Full notional results for the provisional boundaries”

1 2 3 4 5 6
  1. Amberstar

    “I know Anthony mentioned this but, barring quite strong support in Wales, the Tories really are on a wing & a prayer… if they get the same support as 2010, they creep over the finish line.”

    If you take Angus Reid’s poll at face value (I don’t) you get the Armageddon scenario. There would be such a hole in Labour’s Scottish surplus that we could have a Labour government imposed on England by SNP votes on English matters on S&C.

    If that happens the SNP could finish off SLAB altogether by inviting Murdo Fraser’s new Conservatives into coalition (even though they won’t need one).

    They could throw into the mix a token Green and call it a National Government to prepare for independence.

    SLAB would be incapable of functioning. The English Nationalists in the Conservative party would be demanding independence on a shorter timescale than the SNP could manage it in an orderly way. Everybody else would assume that, like it or not, it was time to get ready for independence.

  2. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielknowles/100105623/if-the-ft-has-got-its-numbers-right-george-osbornes-political-strategy-lies-in-ruins/

    Doesn’t look very good for George, and it’s based on the same economic models that he is using.

    Prone as I am to saying ‘I told you so’, it was always going to be a very high risk strategy basing your entire deficit reduction strategy on maintaining a low currency and hoping foreigners would buy lots of UK exports, all the more so when the history of UK exporters post devaluations has always been to increase margins to pay higher share dividends rather than grow market share.

    Without tackling the fundamental issues of growth and export expansion, Osborne’s strategy was always more of a wing and a prayer approach. It’s unravelling spectacularly, and spectacularly quickly.

  3. Crossbat 11

    “My sense is that Hughes speaks for a large section of his party who, at the moment, sit in a rather sullen and unhappy aquiescence.”

    Tavish Scott speaks for a small (formerly large) section of his party, who, since May, have lost interest in coalition policy and are angry at having been casually, and perhaps ignorantly, sacrificed for the chance of ministerial office.

  4. @John B Dick

    large section of his party who, at the moment, sit in a rather sullen and unhappy aquiescence

    ____________________________________________

    You could also be talking about large sections of the Tory party who are equally if not more frustrated.

  5. Alec

    to defend George Osborne (eurgh), it ain’t too clear what the correct way back to growth IS. Or even if there IS one. The doomsday merchants are having a field day.

    Nobody much to export to. Interest rates cannot go down much more. Can’t compete with slave labour in the far east.

    We could sell things to ourselves, we are after all a pretty big market. But that would mean taking away the threat of redundancy, taking off the pay freeze, cutting VAT and cutting tax or NI for low and middle earners. It would work…but for how long?

  6. @Alec – “… Osborne’s strategy was always more of.a wing and a prayer approach.”

    This will be the issue that affects polling ( ;) ) eventually.

    Overwhelmingly the commentariat take Labour economic incompetence as the one given fact in the political landscape.

  7. @Billy Bob – Indeed. In fact, we had two ‘wing and a prayer’ comments in sucessive posts.

    Presumably that means we are now on a biplane and a Mass.

  8. Colin

    “It all seems pretty childish & petulant to me.”

    What’s fresh?

    This is the English parliament you are talking about. Everything is normal and according to tradition.

    Some months ago, my wife was waching live when Nicola Sturgeon apologised for doing something she shouldn’t have done, and flipped over to PMQ,also live.

    Oldnat saw it too.

    Whatever they were talking about in either parliament seemed of trivial importance compared with the illustration of the difference between a public school debating club for Bullingdon boys masquerading as a democratic check on the exercise of a Doge’s sofa government on the one hand and a bespoke modern parliament for a mature European nation with a strong and ancient democratic tradition and values on the other.

    I am not an English nationalist with romantic notions about 1688 and the superiority of “the mother of parliaments” which were replicated elsewhere simply because they were imposed by colonial power, so that may give you a clue to which parliament I prefer.

  9. Nick p

    I see your catching on, now all we need is some politicians not afraid to tell the uncomfortable truth to the public.

  10. John Fletcher @John B Dick

    “You could also be talking about large sections of the Tory party who are equally if not more frustrated.”

    True, but the difference is that the Cons are in government, if not as unrestrained as they might have hoped, and are disappointed but can hope to better their position next time or by gamesmanship in this parliament.

    Cons may think they could or should have got a better deal. Maybe they are right, but it could only have been marginally improved and it could just as easily have been a worse one or no deal at all or a Labour led government.

    SLD’s have suffered a grievous blow because of the action or inaction of their own side that has set them back decades.

    SLD’s are ex-MSP’s ex-coalition ministers and soon to be ex-councillors. These are people who by plodding localism over decades had built up their party from a low point in a part of the country where the two big parties were out of their depth.

    Now they see the upstart SNP, by copying the exactly the same methods, have put themselves in a position to collect SLD lost support, but their anger is directed towards their own leaders whose insouciant acceptance of highland casualties rivalled WW1 generals.

    I do not know whether they regard this as due to ignorance and gross incompetence, or to a view that Scotland is of no importance, but I am prepared to believe the former, as it seems to have been endemic at Westminster in all parties since we have had policy and strategy developed by PR, focus groups and think tanks, rather than by elected politicians.

    These people are not just disappointed, as are Cons whose overoptimistic expectations have not been realised, and who have lost nothing but unrealistic ambitions. The SLDs have had something which they had worked hard and long to achieve taken from them, not by the SNP, but by their own leaders.

    Scotish Conservatives have at last “got it” and have worked out what they should have done 13 if not 59 years ago. It may be too late.

    SLAB have lost the plot, but SLD’s should do what Murdo Fraser is proposing. They should go further and at once cut all links with the UK party in the most unequivocal way publically using language that could not be printed here to disown their MP’s as collaborators with the enemy.

    Labour has been in that situation in a coalition havn’t they?

  11. NickP: We could sell things to ourselves…

    Most of the country can’t afford much of what we produce; Aston Martins and Bentleys; salmon and scotch; quail and sirloin, yachts and motor cruisers…

    QE for individuals?

  12. Good article by Peter Kellner on “Why is Clegg so cheerful?” Follow the link under YouGovToday.

    …………………………..

    This morning, my wife (who is not into politics at all) commnented about an article in today’s Mirror about the LDs and Clegg: They need to leave the coalition if they want support to return.

    So, I wonder whether there are many people up and down the UK who take a similar view. If so, perhaps LDs are unduly and unnecessarily concerned (or perhaps they are mislead) that the public won’t forgive the party for leaving the coalition.

    …………………………….

  13. John B Dick

    Beautifully phrased, sir!

  14. John B Dick

    I was specifically referring to your

    ” their anger is directed towards their own leaders whose insouciant acceptance of highland casualties rivalled WW1 generals.”

  15. “If that happens the SNP could finish off SLAB altogether by inviting Murdo Fraser’s new Conservatives into coalition (even though they won’t need one).”

    ???

  16. I see the Telegraph has sussed what is happening to the LDs in Scotland

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/8773562/With-no-revising-chamber-SNP-must-beware-abuse-of-power.html

    Their picture of the Scottish Parliament, then

    “By By Malcolm Bruce, Liberal Democrat MP for Gordon”.

  17. Liz Hancock,

    “Wont Labour have the upper hand in these negotiations as LibDems can’t say we wont go into coalition with the party with most seats?”

    The Lib Dem position has never been that they would go into a coalition with the party with the most seats. Hence they negotiated with Brown (with no success) in 2010. IIRC, their position is that the party with the biggest mandate gets the first shot.

    There is nothing to stop the Lib Dems from simply doing what they did for about five years from 1974 to 1979. It would all depend on Labour’s willingness to go into minority government.

  18. @John B Dick

    ‘If you take Angus Reid’s poll at face value (I don’t) you get the Armageddon scenario. There would be such a hole in Labour’s Scottish surplus that we could have a Labour government imposed on England by SNP votes on English matters on S&C.’

    I doubt this is arithmetically possible, you clearly haven’t done the maths, the truth is that it will probably go one way or the other in Scotland. An SNP surge is only likely in the event of a more or less certain Tory win at Westminster (although it should not be ruled out).
    You might be right about Holyrood though.

  19. I note from the YG Lib Dems & Coalition poll, that even those lost LD voters in GB think more highly of Clegg than the Scots do.

    “Do you think that Nick Clegg is doing well or badly as leader of the Liberal Democrats?”

    Well , Badly,
    18%, 71%, Scots sample
    24%, 65%, lost LD voters

  20. Some talk of the Lib/Dems may only hang onto the Northern isles seats after the next election.

    Can I just remind people that two independents stood in Orkney and Shetland and won 25% and 30% of the vote and almost certainly taking votes away from the SNP who could had at least taken Orkney in May 2011.

    Liberal Democrats
    Liam McArthur
    2,912
    35.7
    -11.8

    Independent

    James Stockan

    2,052

    25.2

    +25.2

    SNP

    Donna Heddle

    2,044

    25.1

    +6.2
    Conservative

    Jamie Halcro-Johnson

    686

    8.4

    -10.4

    Labour

    William Sharkey

    458

    5.6

    -7.5
    Unless the new boundaries take in parts of Western Norway then I think the Lib/Dems in Scotland could disappear altogether. :)

  21. @Bill Patrick
    “The Lib Dem position has never been that they would go into a coalition with the party with the most seats.”

    You say that but another LibDem person was giving me the exact opposite answer. This is what Robert C said to me in one of the other threads (15/9 @5.22pm):
    “Just out of interest, Liz, when Nick Clegg said he would try to form a government with the party that won the most support in the election, was that something that you considered when deciding how to vote?”

  22. Allen Christie

    These parts of westen Norway are quite conservative, so no help there

  23. Liz

    The “would try” is the clue, its not definite, a commitment to try is not the same as a commitment to do. But we could have said we tried and we failed, and indeed we still can

  24. richard in norway.

    Oh dear not looking too good then lol. ;)

  25. @RIN
    Take your point but it would be nice to know what it was the Tories offered that made the LibDems decide it was the better deal. I am sure that I have read that it was always to do with the numbers. Going in with Labour would not form a stable government because the numbers would be made up of a mish mash of Coalitions. Is this true. If so then my point is valid.

  26. liz hancock

    I think the Tories offered a seat at the table for a full five years.

  27. A Cairns @ John B Dick

    “I doubt this is arithmetically possible, you clearly haven’t done the maths,”

    I didn’t. I put the Angus Reid voodoo poll into Weber Shandwick Scotland Votes.

    There is no doubt that next time the SNP will improve on their 2010 position.

    They may well equal the 2011 FPTP result. That would not be uncharted territory.

    It is entirely possible that the 2011 result was a point on a rising trend which has not yet peaked but will soon be slowing as it does so.

    I said I didn’t accept the projection of the Angus Reid percentages as credible, and yes I would have said that about the 2011 result if anyone had predicted it, but there comes a point where further SNP growth is impossible, and the incumbency vote must limit the potential.

    I am one of those who see that elections are not won, and so long as the SNP can avoid major errors I have great confidence in the ablity of SLAB to make a messs of things, but even so they can’t possibly do as badly as the projection of the Angus Reid poll. It did not even make it clear that it was about Westminster VI.

    I will never again give any credence to any poll by this company on any topic. Whoever paid for it should get their money back. It’s work not of merchantable quality.

  28. @NickP – “to defend George Osborne (eurgh), it ain’t too clear what the correct way back to growth IS. Or even if there IS one. The doomsday merchants are having a field day.”

    The route out of recession always involves substantial investment, if you want a recovery that expands capacity, delays the onset of inflation and prepares a vibrant economy for the next economic cycle. This is one reason why historically the US economy has been so resilient and bounces back rapidly.

    One of the more frightening aspects of Osborne’s plans which I have been banging on about since late last year, is the fact that investment is falling – very sharply in the last GDP figures. My view is that this is in large part directly due to Osborne’s business taxation policies.

    He scrapped many tax reliefs, most notable cutting the Annual Investment Allowance in half, meaning SME’s were no longer able to claim 100% tax relief in the current financial year for investments. The reason he gave for scrapping these was to raise money to pay for the 4% cut in large company corporation tax and other changes to the taxation of multinationals. In effect he has made taxes on profits lower but taxes on investments higher.

    Like most politicians, particularly those on the right, he is far too close to the big business end of the spectrum and hasn’t a clue about SMEs, who are the backbone of the economy. Micro businesses are particularly important during recessions as this is how many redundant people can get back into productive employment and undercut established firms with lower prices, more innovation and new products. It’s tough (as I know from first hand experience) but it’s how the economy is shaped for the next cycle.

    In terms of assisting business expansion, investment and new business creation, Osborne has been about as much use as a chocolate fire guard, and he’s been there long enough for us to see this coming through in the figures (investment was falling well before we hit the summer economic dip).

    I won’t pretend this is the only cause – of course it isn’t, and improved demand is essential for growth. But what is increasingly clear to me is that Osborne’s strategy means that we are getting less investment led growth in the short term, and in the long term, when demand does pick up, the UK will not benefit as much as we should as we will not be well placed to capitalise on the upswing as we cut off investment support in the recession.

  29. Alex

    Good points, I like it when a business man points out the unfair tax advantages the big corporations have and the fact that they, how should I put this delicately without using the word “bribes”, that they use their position and influence to gain ever greater competitive advantage, in doing so they make a mockery of the free market

  30. oldnat

    “I see the Telegraph has sussed what is happening to the LDs in Scotland”

    I remember seeing Angus Maude being handbagged for a similar insight.

    Apart from girning that another party has policies that he doesn’t agree with, there isn’t much to argue with here and the SNP have taken the point.

    Remember that the SNP’s objective is not the same as the coalition parties who want power so that they can exercise it to implement their economic and political faiths. The SNP’s overarching objective is to bring about independence, and creating a reputation for sober, responsible pragmatic and practical government is the way to get the electorate to entrust them with the whole of government.

    There is a difference. UK governments want to please themselves and change society. The SNP aren’t interested in using power, only in acquiring more.

    Enjoying the spoils of office would be like eatig the seed corn. They are smart enough to see that doing things that are popular isn’t what’s wanted. They need to demonstrate that they are competent and responsible, and popular could be irresponsible at times.

    By providing a distinctive alternative, SLAB are a huge help.

  31. John B Dick

    It was actually the “By[e] By[e] Malcolm Bruce” typo that I was drawing attention to.

  32. @ John B Dick

    The danger for Salmond is that SLAB actually elect a competent pragmatic leader anhd the the Murphy/Boyack reforms free the labour party in Scotland to ensure that they look credible and relevant – these ought to be achievable goals – evenb for the Scotiish Labour party. At that point, and if an independence vote has been l;ost and we don’t have a Tory government then there will be a credible election in 2016 – with a genuine possibility of a Labour party larger than the NATS.

    I think Alec should hold the referendum early – hope the coalition try to front the Union campaign ( DC and Clegg fighting against it ought to give Independence at least a ten point boost I’d say) and that SLAB are still in their state of shock from whicvh they are very slowly beginning to emerge. Later on I think a resurrected if not exactly resurgent Labour party will be able to front a broad based pro-union coalition to defeat his question. Either he goes in the next six months ( I would say a May 2012 poll) or he sits it out and gambles on a Tory majority down south in 2015 and then goes for a vote when Scots may flock to indepencence as a final defence. 2013/2014 will be bad timing – it will likely be lost as Labour will have recovered – somewhat- and seem likely to be the next wesminster government thereby giving the fearties amongst us sound reasons not to vote for independence then.

    Salmond should certainly give a timetable – if not he runs the risk of the next Labour leader taunting him with it for months and years – as well to launch it early with all of the advantages that he has at present. I can’t see he will get a better occasion to go to the country. I think he’ll lose anytime ( I thought Labour and Nats were about tied pre May though!) but now would be very close and force pressure for more concessions from westminster.

  33. @MIKE N

    “They need to leave the coalition if they want support to return.

    So, I wonder whether there are many people up and down the UK who take a similar view. If so, perhaps LDs are unduly and unnecessarily concerned (or perhaps they are mislead) that the public won’t forgive the party for leaving the coalition. ”

    It seems strange to me that they would consider leaving the coalition. For the first time in 90 years they are in government, and they have to leave to gain the support to probably not get into government again. A no-brainer.

    imho, the people suggesting that the Lib Dems leave the coalition tend to be those on the left of politics and many of them not Lib Dems at that.

  34. http://www.economicpopulist.org/content/pirate-party-scores-big-win-berlin-elections for fascinating review of the Pirate Party who were the real winners in Berlin’s elections yesterday.

  35. @Bill Patrick.

    One factor some are forgetting is that the SNP might be the 3rd party (seat wise) in 2015, depending on if one believes the Angus Reid polls.

    The Libs are set to lose 6-10 of their eleven Scottish seats if their VI stays as it is, more so after the boundary commission I assume. Add to that the lost seats in England and Wales, and they might go from 57 to 25-35 seats. The SNP could have a similar number.

    I honestly can’t wait to see if there’s going to be a multitude of coalition options, with parties having to be nice to each other, in the scramble for No.10 :)

  36. Stategeek

    The point I was seeking to make is that LD posters here have repeatedly suggested that the voters would not support the LDs leaving the coalition (on some whim) and the LD vote would not recover from such action. It may well be that, based on the comments from my wife – who finds politics boring – this notion is mistaken and misinformed.

  37. iceman @ John B Dick

    The danger for Salmond is that SLAB actually elect a competent pragmatic leader and the the Murphy/Boyack reforms free the Labour party in Scotland to ensure that they look credible and relevant – these ought to be achievable goals – evenb for the Scotiish Labour party.

    Quite so, but there are two hurdles, maybe three.

    Firstly, though I don’t know who might stand, there is a limited pool of talent in the reduced number of MSP’s The leading members of the last parliament are gone and SLAB look down on the list as something for aprentices or as a reward for long and compliant service. Maybe Iain Gray is the best leader they have.

    Secondly they may have a problem getting the leader elected.

    Thirdly, if they do have someone who could to what’s needed, they are very unlikely to be willing to accept the radical approach, willing the ends but not the means. That’s why the area where they are isn’t it?

    They need their own Murdo Fraser. My suggestion (and OldNat’s sublminal slip, showing what he fears) would be Susan Deacon, but apart from 2, and 3 above, would she want it? Would anyone who was up to the task want to take it on with the risk of being hamstrung by London and then blamed for failing.

    I do take a very negative view of the competence of the managmeny of the three UK parties over most of my lifetime and the customs, procedures and culture of Westminster. My long running argument with Donald Dewar was that only a masochist or a lunatic would have anything to do with any it.

    I’m glad he didn’t takemy advice.

    We shall see what emerges. Don’t bet on the outcome.

  38. Ahh. In that case, I agree. A modicum of influence/power is better than none at all. In that sense, I don’t see them leaving the coalition unless some major issue that they can’t agree with happens (not including economic ones, which few want to agree with, but have to).

    An illegal war would be an extreme example.

  39. @RiN – “…….the unfair tax advantages the big corporations have and the fact that they, how should I put this delicately without using the word “bribes”, that they use their position and influence to gain ever greater competitive advantage, in doing so they make a mockery of the free market”

    What I find fascinating about the current politic signals being sent out is the fact that, while virtually everyone has failed to notice it, I believe we have just lived through a revolution in the way we think about the economy.

    It hasn’t yet filtered through to the policy making level, but I find it astonishing that where Ed Milliband led, a number of other right wing commentators have followed. Ed picked up the notion of responsibility at the high end of society, and he got support from such notable sources as Charles Moore and a clutch of right wing MPs.

    Some of the quotes from these people regarding the ‘free market’ would have been eye watering if they had come from the mouth of Arthur Scargill, but here we have pillars of the right wing establishment agreeing that the Tory/New Labour big business version of free markets has failed, and worse, has downright harmed ordinary people.

    I’ve learned many times not to over estimate the cleverness of politicians, but I am led to believe Ed is a thinker, and he has shown a level of bravery absent in many of his colleagues and foes. He may sense this opportunity to recraft how we think about economic affairs, business and how society views and treats wealth and wealth creation.

    Parts of the Lib Dems have got this (they always had it, in many ways) Labour are rediscovering it (they were the historical masters of this analysis, but took fright and dropped it) and some elements of Tory thinking understand it also, but not the leadership.

    As Osborne’s threadbare fiscal and economic policy fails, I suspect the need for radical new alternatives will bring this mode of thought to the fore, and there will be an increasing battle within the coalition, but primarily between the opposition and government, as to who can command a coherent policy framework that captures the new thinking and places it into a meaningful way to manage the new economy.

    It’s as big a revolution as the 1980s were.

  40. Iceman

    “Either he goes in the next six months ( I would say a May 2012 poll) or he sits it out and gambles on a Tory majority down south in 2015 and then goes for a vote when Scots may flock to indepencence as a final defence.”

    He should wait for 2015. A Tory majority is not the only favourable outcome. Almost any outcome suits the SNP except a clear Labour majority. Comment on this thread doesn’t favour that as being the most likely.

    Is a Lab/Lib coalition much more likely?

    A Con majority or a continuation of the coalition will do the SNP’s work for them equally well and a Lab minority government with S&C from SNP+PC would be just as good in a different way.

  41. John B Dick

    I’m not sure which of my many slips (not all of them subliminal) you are referring to.

    I’ve made no secret of the fact that I think Susan Deacon has considerable ability. Her appearance on Newsnicht, presenting the SLAB changes was so abysmal in contrast, that I was convinced that she thought they were either minimalist and pointless, or dangerously radical. :-)

  42. I wouldn’t bank on it Alec, the “feral elite” stuff strikes me as a lot of warm words to mollify the embittered voters who’re expected to tighten their belts while the rich continue to fill their boots. Check out this story in the Mail:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2038898/Samantha-Camerons-father-plans-wind-turbines-Britains-glorious-landscapes–YOU-helping-pay-it.html

    Sam Cam’s dad enjoys a 350K public subsidy for letting developers build a wind farm on his inherited estate. That’s money from the straight from the pockets of everyone in the country who pays an electricity bill. He didn’t even have to risk anything except the ire of his neighbours or get off his backside and sweat for that small fortune. Old landed money made an absolute mint off CAP then set aside and now they’ve found a new bandwagon to leap on.

    Business as usual.

  43. For anyone who doesn’t know much about the Pirates I understand they are a party of men who believe technologists and engineers should have a much bigger role in law making.

    @ John B Dick – Judging by recent events pride comes before a fall as far as the SNP go.

  44. BERIOUS

    Maybe England needs to consider its own Land Reform Act.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-12805830

    Though considering John Dick’s comments on “deference” up thread, maybe that aspect of thinking would need to change first.

  45. BERIOUS

    “Business as usual.”

    Foreign business mostly it would seem :-

    Of the 3419 UK turbines, 2276 are owned by companies based overseas.

    The largest of these is DONG, a Danish company with an interest in three large offshore arrays which pull in £98 Million pa in subsidies-thats subsidies ON TOP OF the wholesale price of the electricity they generate.

    These are the subsidies being paid by UK electricity consumers for the benefit of electricity generated when the wind blows-which isn’t necessarily the same as “when it is needed”-eg during last winters long cold windless periods.

    These are the subsidies which are making utility bills a source of financial nightmare for low/fixed income families-the financial nightmare which our LibDem Secretary of State says is our own fault, because we don’t switch utility suppliersenough.

  46. @BERIOUS
    Do you wish to explain the Kinnock family’s financial position Mr B ? Not old money I grant, but a siht pot full of new money AND ALL FROM PUBLIC SERVICE.

  47. Should public subsidy discriminate based on how an individual came by their land?

    If DC’s father in law should be banned from receiving subsidy for the installation of wind turbines, then so should every other landowner, surely? What’s being argued against is the principle of subsidising the use of wind turbines.

    I can go with that. I hate wind turbines.

  48. @ John B Dick

    Your scenario of SNP instigating a melt-down at Westminster is a non-starter, given the SNP’s comittment not to vote at Westminster on English issues.

    It also seems not have occurred to you that preserving the union would be seen as an all-party issue between Labour, Tory & LDs. IMO, they would come to an arrangement amongst themselves, rather than have their arm twisted by the SNP.
    8-)

  49. Chouenlai
    Once again, your use of language is deplorable.

    Why are you so aggressive and unpleasant? If you were my dad I would be so ashamed.

    The Kinnock family fortune is chicken feed compared with that of the heads of the privatised industries or the nationalised banks for example.

  50. Is there any reliable polling evidence to suggest that the SNP could win sufficient Westminster seats in 2015 such that they could have a major influence there in the event of a hung parliament?

1 2 3 4 5 6