Best Of

On climate, the previous thread (Jokingly) reckons a Venus scenario is possible.

Taking global reserves of 1.77 Tn barrels of oil, 200 Tn cubic metres of gas, 1 Tn tonnes of coal if you burnt all of it it would yield 3.7 Tn tonnes of CO2 (Oil 0.8, Gas 0.4, Coal 2.5).

@ 44% absorption corresponds to ~ 260 ppm additional CO2 (3364 Bn tonnes in atmosphere = 430 ppm) which gets us to about 690 ppm by 2126. So a way away from the 998000 ppm of Venus

Historically 690 ppm is fine for the earth tbh, & everyone is using solar at that point.

The problem is solved because we've run out of fossil fuels.

It might fine for the Earth, but at 690 ppm it'll be warm enough to melt virtually all the ice at the poles, raising the sea level by around 60 m. So not so great for coastal settlements and low-lying plains like the ones where we grow most of our food. We'll just have to manage our population down and make Birmingham our new capital city.

Action on climate change is not needed to save the Earth. The Earth will be fine. It is needed to save human civilisation on Earth. It is all about protecting our economic wellbeing and our way of life for the long term. I think it has been missold as a mission to protect polar bears or whatever. It is not an act of altruism. It is hard nosed self interest. It is all about maybe taking a small economic hit now so that our grandchildren inherit a planet they can live on. You'd have to be either incredibly short-sighted or just not understand the nature of the trade-offs involved to oppose it, IMHO.

From the previous thread header: "Labour’s former deputy leader Harriet Harman say the party’s MPs should now decide the leadership - with no say for the party members - in order to preserve the ‘stability of government’ "

No. Once again Harman gets it wrong. It must be done by the book, and Burnham will actually get a boost by being seen to be responsible for dragging Starmer kicking and screaming away from No 10. Those who voted for Burnham yesterday weren't voting for more of the same, anything but.

Burnham must be acutely aware that Harriet Harman's actions led to the demise of his leadership campaign in 2015, after she overstepped her brief as acting temporary leader by trying to force through policy to the agenda of the right of the party and gave him the dilemma of whether or not to resign from the Shadow Cabinet. He made the wrong choice to stay in and the left of the party turned against him, paving the way for Corbyn.

Harman is the last person who should be offering him advice on this.

So when 11 years later Harriet Harman is advising a particular course of action, Burnham's first recourse should be to look to follow the exact opposite course. Give Starmer the weekend to announce his planned departure, in the knowledge that on Monday Burnham will regardless announce that he is standing for the leadership with the support of way over the required 81 MPs. Very likely a simple Burnham v Starmer contest according to party rules, because Streeting can't I think muster 81 supporters now that Burnham is a dead cert.

Can he launch a leadership bid Monday?
Technically he isn't an MP until swearing in.
Or am I wrong?

Streeting could, though, and Burnham could announce even if his formal entry would be delayed a bit.

If Streeting had 81 names we'd already have a contest.
He'll have considerably fewer now. He'll need loans.

Streeting's path to power is somewhat rickety to say the least.

Here's a scenario for him:

Streeting's pitch to Burnham's support could be "You don't want Andy wielding the dagger, lend your vote to me". Someone gets in Keir's ear "Do not put yourself through the humiliation of a contest which Burnham is going to beat you handily in" and he resigns

Nominations count:
Streeting 85
Burnham 80

Streeting becomes PM.

Burnham will get the support of the 81+ MPs who are his natural supporters in the PLP. He will also now pick up the support of a large chunk of the rest of the PLP whose main concern will be seen to back the winner now that Starmer is seen as a dead man walking and Burnham as a shoe-in. If Streeting couldn't get 81 nominations before, when he had to pull his challenge, he certainly can't now.

Meanwhile Burnham won't be lending votes to anyone. He has nothing to lose by forcing a formal leadership contest, in which Labour will quickly unite around him, and quite a lot to gain by being credited as the one who did for Starmer especially from those who are not natural Labour supporters and see Starmer as toxic.

Morning all! Let’s talk Aberdeen South first. SNP absolutely scunnered by the usual collapse in SNP vote combined with all other party voters going tactical to oust them. Exactly what I was discussing with Tory activists at the Aberdeen count for the Holyrood election a few weeks.

People like me voting Tory - or them voting Labour or LibDem - is how we stop the nationalist menace. Can I also gently remind our Tory friends on here who rightly want to talk bout how their oil and gas policies won this that their previous policies were the same as SNP and Labour policies…

Congratulations to James Adams who gets elected to Holyrood in Lumsden’s place.

Yes, it's pretty clear a lot of that Conservative vote isn't really "real" but tactical unionist voting from Labour and LDs.

Still, a win is a win.

Lord almighty, I kinda agree with Aaron Bastani

Why did the Tories die?

Partly because they spent 14 years trying to destroy anyone who, sociologically speaking, might vote for them in the future.

That’s right. They purposefully tried to stop the re-production of the middle class.



https://x.com/AaronBastani/status/2067666479319793932

Wow, he's actually right for once.

I've been banging the drum on this for years. As have others.

The problem is we are so utterly inconsistent now in our tax rates, and heavily penalise those with the highest costs (eg young parents) with the highest tax rates, all to featherbed certain voters into not having to pay those taxes.

Everyone on the same income should pay the same taxes.

Student loans/tax is a disaster that just keeps killing political parties. Although Liberals have managed to come back from that near death experience.

From the previous thread header: "Labour’s former deputy leader Harriet Harman say the party’s MPs should now decide the leadership - with no say for the party members - in order to preserve the ‘stability of government’ "

No. Once again Harman gets it wrong. It must be done by the book, and Burnham will actually get a boost by being seen to be responsible for dragging Starmer kicking and screaming away from No 10. Those who voted for Burnham yesterday weren't voting for more of the same, anything but.

Burnham must be acutely aware that Harriet Harman's actions led to the demise of his leadership campaign in 2015, after she overstepped her brief as acting temporary leader by trying to force through policy to the agenda of the right of the party and gave him the dilemma of whether or not to resign from the Shadow Cabinet. He made the wrong choice to stay in and the left of the party turned against him, paving the way for Corbyn.

Harman is the last person who should be offering him advice on this.

So when 11 years later Harriet Harman is advising a particular course of action, Burnham's first recourse should be to look to follow the exact opposite course. Give Starmer the weekend to announce his planned departure, in the knowledge that on Monday Burnham will regardless announce that he is standing for the leadership with the support of way over the required 81 MPs. Very likely a simple Burnham v Starmer contest according to party rules, because Streeting can't I think muster 81 supporters now that Burnham is a dead cert.

Can he launch a leadership bid Monday?
Technically he isn't an MP until swearing in.
Or am I wrong?

Streeting could, though, and Burnham could announce even if his formal entry would be delayed a bit.

If Streeting had 81 names we'd already have a contest.
He'll have considerably fewer now. He'll need loans.

Streeting's path to power is somewhat rickety to say the least.

Here's a scenario for him:

Streeting's pitch to Burnham's support could be "You don't want Andy wielding the dagger, lend your vote to me". Someone gets in Keir's ear "Do not put yourself through the humiliation of a contest which Burnham is going to beat you handily in" and he resigns

Nominations count:
Streeting 85
Burnham 80

Streeting becomes PM.

er... members vote?

Not if there's only 1 candidate above the threshold. Would not be the case though since you are never going to stop the clock with only 165 MPs nominating.

I doubt SNP will lose a lot of sleep over Aberdeen South. Arbroath and Broughty Ferry is a more typical constituency for them and they won it easily.

Indeed, there's a risk of taking the wrong lesson from a good result, as happened after Uxbridge.

Everyone, including Starmer and Burnham, concluded that bring the drivers' friend was the way to go, ignoring the detail that Zone 6 is an unusual bit of London. Chasing that vote was one of the signs of Sunak going mad.

Potentially, it's the same here, except eking out oil and gas for a bit longer. Obviously plays well in Aberdeen, not sure about nationwide.

Nobody will bring Aberdeen's glory days back. Geology prevents it even if saving the planet isn't your thing. But it's an emotional thing. People who made a good living out of the oil boom no longer do. Kemi Badenoch is playing the unlikely role of Arthur Scargill in his opposition to an unfeeling Margaret Thatcher towards the miners.

Collapsing the industry there, with high energy prices, is especially stupid.

We're talking about extracting maybe 5% more out of North Sea than we would otherwise do when production is reducing by about a third every five years. I think we should do it but it's irrelevant in the scheme of things. The future is elsewhere.

The point that is being missed is we should maximise our own oil and gas whilst transitioning to the future

Indeed I expect Burnham will authorise the continuing development of the North Sea