While the thread is on the Greens, 2019 was the first GE where the Greens received more votes than UKIP/The Farage Publicity Party, since UKIP was founded in the 90s.
What odds would people suggest on the Greens receiving more votes in the next election than Reform UK?
It would be an interesting market for a bookie to set up. Personally, I think RefUK will underperform their polling significantly, but will finish narrowly ahead of the Greens in overall vote (even treating the Scottish Greens as the same party as English/Welsh Greens).
I think Reform is a busted flush. The Greens may not win in Brighton, but in Norwich, Bristol and possibly Stroud they have some prospects, so off the top of my head, I would suggest Greens get about 5-6% and a chance of a couple of seats but Reform will get about the same as the Referendum Party in 1997; about 3% and no seats at all.
“I expect a semi-dystopian future with substantial pain and suffering for the people of the global south,” said a South African scientist, who chose not to be named. “The world’s response to date is reprehensible – we live in an age of fools.”
Maybe I am just naïve, but I think part of why the Greens are growing (slowly) is because it is clear that the current consensus is not going to provide a safely habitable planet in the near or long term future. We have seen more fossil fuel usage since 2008 then prior to it. It is not a byproduct of the current system we live under that the environment is being destroyed - it is the only outcome. There is a saying in engineering "the purpose of a system is what it does". Well, if that's the case, the purpose of modern states is to destroy the world.
As for Sian Berry - this hardly seems to rank in the cynical moves of politicians, in my view. The entire point of a list system is that you aren't voting for individuals - you're voting for a party and, sure, you know who you're likely to get based on the vote, but at the end of the day you also know who will replace people in the event they drop out. Is it a good look? Of course not. But I wouldn't call it antidemocratic, nor would I compare it to the cynical actions of politicians who do material harm to people to progress their own careers. In two weeks no one will care; yet we will still have a government trying to put human beings seeking refuge in ships or on planes to Rwanda in the hope they can up their vote share by 2-3%.
Tend to agree all of with this tbh.
But the first half is why I’m desperate for Greens to not be opportunistic on policy and become an outlet for disgruntled trots. It should - and has shown it can - be a party that can attract support across the spectrum. There is plenty in the conservative ethos that leans green. The focus should be on environmental issues always. Not wittering around on toilets and Gaza.
You shouldn't stand for something you know you won't be doing - but I guess resigning immediately is better than trying to be an Assembly member when you don't have the time to give it justice?
It is blindingly obvious this was her plan all along
It is. But having stood (which she shouldn't have) it is now better to resign than do the job badly because she's focused on something else. I mean, that would be even worse, wouldn't it. Or would it? Not sure really.
If you ignore all the bad things she did then her behaviour was exemplary.
Lol - sort of. She's done the least bad thing of the two things she could have done having done a bad thing in the first place.
Yours, Mr Charitable.
Much like one of those kidnappers who charitably decides, after a three day seige, to release rather than kill their hostage. People are a bit harsh on them... in fact, they've done the least bad of the two things they could have done having done a bad thing in the first place.
Yes it's like that. Such a person would get a considerably shorter jail sentence and rightly so.
She shouldn't have stood - no question about that - but having done so she faced a choice:
(i) Take up the London job and do it with no commitment or focus or energy, prioritising Brighton but still picking up the London salary, blocking somebody else from doing it who would give it their all.
(ii) Resign immediately.
In opting for (ii) she chose the nobler course. At least arguably. If we're looking for a generous-minded take (since it's the Greens and they're on the right side of history) I think this would be it.
But still, standing for election when you know you're going to resign straightaway - that's pretty poor.
The other possibility would have been to have used the Assembly seat as a back-up plan, in case she fails to be elected as MP. Plenty of people wouldn't like they, but I think it's understandable from a human point of view, and it's not dishonest.
I really don't think you can separate the choice to stand for election from the decision to stand down when they were so clearly part of the same decision for Berry.
since it's the Greens and they're on the right side of history
LOL
I was told that a number of ex-Labour Corbynites had joined the Greens and were turning it into ultra left organization with a "green" wrapper.
The Corbynite entryists are being pushed aside by the Hamas entryists these days.
That Venn diagram is a perfect circle
It isn't really though. Take Corbyn's scathing response to Galloway's overtures. They may be united by support for Palestine, but there is some startling religious conservatism on the Galloway side of the fence. There's a bit of utterly insane, "Trans for Hamas" stuff that goes on, but a lot of Corbynists are painfully aware of the obvious contradiction.
“I expect a semi-dystopian future with substantial pain and suffering for the people of the global south,” said a South African scientist, who chose not to be named. “The world’s response to date is reprehensible – we live in an age of fools.”
Maybe I am just naïve, but I think part of why the Greens are growing (slowly) is because it is clear that the current consensus is not going to provide a safely habitable planet in the near or long term future. We have seen more fossil fuel usage since 2008 then prior to it. It is not a byproduct of the current system we live under that the environment is being destroyed - it is the only outcome. There is a saying in engineering "the purpose of a system is what it does". Well, if that's the case, the purpose of modern states is to destroy the world.
As for Sian Berry - this hardly seems to rank in the cynical moves of politicians, in my view. The entire point of a list system is that you aren't voting for individuals - you're voting for a party and, sure, you know who you're likely to get based on the vote, but at the end of the day you also know who will replace people in the event they drop out. Is it a good look? Of course not. But I wouldn't call it antidemocratic, nor would I compare it to the cynical actions of politicians who do material harm to people to progress their own careers. In two weeks no one will care; yet we will still have a government trying to put human beings seeking refuge in ships or on planes to Rwanda in the hope they can up their vote share by 2-3%.
If you want to sort global warming, take on Beijing, not Brighton or Bristol.
Given Chinese emissions now, and into the foreseeable future, our best bet in Britain is (1) strategic independence, or at least, co-dependence with Europe, on energy and security, and (2) mitigation of the inevitable effects that will result from large regimes that have no interest in cutting emissions and can't be pressured into it. Reducing our reliance on carbon is sensible on that count - and helpfully plays a part on global heating too - but Britain's contribution either way is pretty minimal and while setting an example is useful, more important is anticipating and reacting to the hostile actions of others.
As an island nation, the UK ultimately has more than most to lose from a failure to curb global greenhouse gas emissions. If humanity goes ahead and burns all the fossil fuels that can be exploited, then the resulting rise in global temperature will eventually melt almost all of the surface ice and raise the sea level by around 60 m. This will take a long time - hundreds of years - but once started is very difficult to stop, even if the global will can be found to do so. We need to do everything in our power to persuade the big emitters to wind down their emissions, and I doubt that backtracking on our own commitments is going to do much to bolster our arguments.
Dan Shafer @DanRShafer Haley is getting more than 120,000 votes in Indiana's Republican presidential primary. It was one thing to see this in the immediate wake of ending her campaign, but it's been more than two months now. Seems like kind of a big deal!
Matt McDermott @mattmfm · 9h If Joe Biden were losing 1 in 4 voters in every primary, it would be the top headline across America. There is a massive protest vote against Trump, and it should be the top headline.
LOL at the Democrats with more spin than Monty Panesar.
Haley has been getting Democrat voters, who have a paper primary thanks to their own party’s refusal to hold debates or hustings, to register as republicans for months now, just to provide totally meaningless results like this.
Mike Tapp, a former soldier, has already been selected by Labour for Dover: https://miketapp.co.uk/ There's no way he's replaced, or that any CLP would go for Elphicke.
I thought Starmer seemed not too excited by this particular defection at PMQs - rather underplayed. Fuck knows what's in it for Elphicke, but we don't really want her.
Sea temperatures set record levels every single day in the last year.
Is a poll of scientists really the best way to work out how much the average global temperature is going to increase?
It’s not dissimilar to how the IPCC projections get made: they take submissions from multiple scientists all working on their own modelling and sensitivity studies and find a consensus.
However: the single biggest source of uncertainty on climate change now is not the equilibrium sensitivity or the impact of physical feedbacks. It’s the emissions scenario. That is one area where scientists really don’t know anymore than the rest of us.
Emissions have consistently undercut the central projections - we are actually succeeding in reducing them (or rather, slowing the increase - for now). When someone points to a BAU projection from the 1990s and says we haven’t warmed as much, the reason is we’ve not emitted as much. Largely for two reasons: the massive shift from coal to gas and huge increases in energy efficiency in the developed world, and the collapse of the Soviet Union in the 1999s.
Bizarre defection by Elphicke who was on the right of the conservative and very pro Johnson and Truss.
Apparently she has affirmed in her statement that Starmer has accepted Brexit so we have a right wing pro Johnson Truss politician welcomed at PMQs endorsing Starmer pro Brexit stance whilst the left of Labour look on in astonishment
Mike Tapp, a former soldier, has already been selected by Labour for Dover: https://miketapp.co.uk/ There's no way he's replaced, or that any CLP would go for Elphicke.
I thought Starmer seemed not too excited by this particular defection at PMQs - rather underplayed. Fuck knows what's in it for Elphicke, but we don't really want her.
Quite bizarre her record's hard right but then she's one of these volatile ones. Suella for Labour next?
You shouldn't stand for something you know you won't be doing - but I guess resigning immediately is better than trying to be an Assembly member when you don't have the time to give it justice?
It is blindingly obvious this was her plan all along
It is. But having stood (which she shouldn't have) it is now better to resign than do the job badly because she's focused on something else. I mean, that would be even worse, wouldn't it. Or would it? Not sure really.
If you ignore all the bad things she did then her behaviour was exemplary.
Lol - sort of. She's done the least bad thing of the two things she could have done having done a bad thing in the first place.
Yours, Mr Charitable.
Much like one of those kidnappers who charitably decides, after a three day seige, to release rather than kill their hostage. People are a bit harsh on them... in fact, they've done the least bad of the two things they could have done having done a bad thing in the first place.
Yes it's like that. Such a person would get a considerably shorter jail sentence and rightly so.
She shouldn't have stood - no question about that - but having done so she faced a choice:
(i) Take up the London job and do it with no commitment or focus or energy, prioritising Brighton but still picking up the London salary, blocking somebody else from doing it who would give it their all.
(ii) Resign immediately.
In opting for (ii) she chose the nobler course. At least arguably. If we're looking for a generous-minded take (since it's the Greens and they're on the right side of history) I think this would be it.
But still, standing for election when you know you're going to resign straightaway - that's pretty poor.
The other possibility would have been to have used the Assembly seat as a back-up plan, in case she fails to be elected as MP. Plenty of people wouldn't like they, but I think it's understandable from a human point of view, and it's not dishonest.
I really don't think you can separate the choice to stand for election from the decision to stand down when they were so clearly part of the same decision for Berry.
since it's the Greens and they're on the right side of history
LOL
Well compared to most they are. Certainly on the big one - the climate crisis.
You don't get to be good by being classified as being good. You are good by virtue of doing good.
This is a small act of the Greens doing bad.
Ok but they are well in credit for me. I'd still be voting Green if I wasn't voting Labour.
Look at how many solar and wind farms the Greens oppose. They are not in favour of tackling the climate crisis. They are in favour of someone else tackling the climate crisis, as long as it doesn't impact them. It's like saying they're appalled by the housing crisis and then blocking all new developments. It's vegan cakism.
There are many streaks of rank hypocrisy that run through the Green Party and with growing support and representation, I expect the media (and social media) will start to flag these up more prominently.
Greens are happy to have more housing; we just want it to be affordable and preferably not on the Green belt. Having private development companies come in and build 3-4 bedroom houses that will go for £400k+ each is not what will solve the housing crisis. You need small houses, council housing, and some affordable family homes in most places - which are not being offered in most developments because they are not massive profit makers.
"we just want it to be affordable and preferably not on the Green belt".
Judging the Greens on their actions not words that should instead be "never on the Green belt", which stymies any serious attempt to tackle the housing crisis.
The effect of limiting the supply of land by avoiding Green belt development is to push up land prices dramatically, and that pushes up the subsidies you need to build genuine affordable housing too.
In addition, if you limit housing development to affordable housing only, you'll also end up with less affordable housing, because you lose funding earmarked for social housing. That is, you lose the opportunity to secure funds from developers to ensure that a share of new developments are in the form affordable social housing using s106 agreements.
That's why I wouldn't depend on private developers and s106 agreements and just have councils build more council homes. And there are some areas where the Greens have accepted we have to build on the green belt; like where I live. St Albans is 80% designated green belt - we have to build on some of it and the greens here have, reluctantly, accepted that. We just ask that the council prioritise the green belt land with the least ecological value.
I don't think it's either/or.
But you're probably correct that the best way to move the dial within a single parliament would be to turbocharge the local authority housing policy which so far has only been hinted at.
While the thread is on the Greens, 2019 was the first GE where the Greens received more votes than UKIP/The Farage Publicity Party, since UKIP was founded in the 90s.
What odds would people suggest on the Greens receiving more votes in the next election than Reform UK?
It would be an interesting market for a bookie to set up. Personally, I think RefUK will underperform their polling significantly, but will finish narrowly ahead of the Greens in overall vote (even treating the Scottish Greens as the same party as English/Welsh Greens).
I think Reform is a busted flush. The Greens may not win in Brighton, but in Norwich, Bristol and possibly Stroud they have some prospects, so off the top of my head, I would suggest Greens get about 5-6% and a chance of a couple of seats but Reform will get about the same as the Referendum Party in 1997; about 3% and no seats at all.
I'm not massively more positive than you on RefUK's prospects but am enough... there are plenty of hard right-wingers who can't bring themselves to vote for a failed Government but have nowhere else to go. Many will sit it out, but RefUK probably has a core vote that will reel in 6-7% if they stand everywhere.
On the Greens, a tiny handful of hotspots amongst 650 seats doesn't amount to a huge number of votes although 5-6% is just about plausible on a good night. I am fairly sceptical of their chances of adding to their number of MPs -it's possible but I think it is more likely they will lose representation. Brighton is going to be a close one, and I suspect the Labour MP in Bristol is too strong. Stroud and Norwich are cloud cuckoo land.
“I expect a semi-dystopian future with substantial pain and suffering for the people of the global south,” said a South African scientist, who chose not to be named. “The world’s response to date is reprehensible – we live in an age of fools.”
Maybe I am just naïve, but I think part of why the Greens are growing (slowly) is because it is clear that the current consensus is not going to provide a safely habitable planet in the near or long term future. We have seen more fossil fuel usage since 2008 then prior to it. It is not a byproduct of the current system we live under that the environment is being destroyed - it is the only outcome. There is a saying in engineering "the purpose of a system is what it does". Well, if that's the case, the purpose of modern states is to destroy the world.
As for Sian Berry - this hardly seems to rank in the cynical moves of politicians, in my view. The entire point of a list system is that you aren't voting for individuals - you're voting for a party and, sure, you know who you're likely to get based on the vote, but at the end of the day you also know who will replace people in the event they drop out. Is it a good look? Of course not. But I wouldn't call it antidemocratic, nor would I compare it to the cynical actions of politicians who do material harm to people to progress their own careers. In two weeks no one will care; yet we will still have a government trying to put human beings seeking refuge in ships or on planes to Rwanda in the hope they can up their vote share by 2-3%.
Tend to agree all of with this tbh.
But the first half is why I’m desperate for Greens to not be opportunistic on policy and become an outlet for disgruntled trots. It should - and has shown it can - be a party that can attract support across the spectrum. There is plenty in the conservative ethos that leans green. The focus should be on environmental issues always. Not wittering around on toilets and Gaza.
Environmentalism, social justice and anti imperialism go hand in hand. There is no solution to the climate crisis that also supports the war machine, in part, because the war machine is a massive cause of environmental destruction. There is no helping those impacted by climate change without social justice because we know that the wealth are those who consume the most and are most responsible for emissions and the evolution of a society dependent on emissions, and the poor and powerless are those most likely to be punished for it when climate catastrophe hits. We have seen what capitalism and neoliberalism has wrought and, again, the outcome of those systems is the climate crisis. We cannot do damage limitation, let alone start considering fixing the problem, with the same mentality and tools as what got us here in the first place.
Sea temperatures set record levels every single day in the last year.
Is a poll of scientists really the best way to work out how much the average global temperature is going to increase?
It’s not dissimilar to how the IPCC projections get made: they take submissions from multiple scientists all working on their own modelling and sensitivity studies and find a consensus.
However: the single biggest source of uncertainty on climate change now is not the equilibrium sensitivity or the impact of physical feedbacks. It’s the emissions scenario. That is one area where scientists really don’t know anymore than the rest of us.
Emissions have consistently undercut the central projections - we are actually succeeding in reducing them (or rather, slowing the increase - for now). When someone points to a BAU projection from the 1990s and says we haven’t warmed as much, the reason is we’ve not emitted as much. Largely for two reasons: the massive shift from coal to gas and huge increases in energy efficiency in the developed world, and the collapse of the Soviet Union in the 1999s.
It is different. You wouldn’t expect age and gender to change the output of a climate simulation, for example.
[checks news] Elphicke defects to Labour? [refreshes notes] Fuck Right Off. She is an absolute headbanger who has said the most profoundly stupid things about migration
What are Labour thinking? Unless the plan is to ditch her for a sane candidate???
Robert F Kennedy Jnr has stated that a parasitic worm seems of have eaten some of his brain some time before 2010 in a disclosure of his medical records.
[checks news] Elphicke defects to Labour? [refreshes notes] Fuck Right Off. She is an absolute headbanger who has said the most profoundly stupid things about migration
What are Labour thinking? Unless the plan is to ditch her for a sane candidate???
As reported on the BBC just, she is going to stand down at the general election, that is the Labour PPC already selected will contest the Dover seat.
[checks news] Elphicke defects to Labour? [refreshes notes] Fuck Right Off. She is an absolute headbanger who has said the most profoundly stupid things about migration
What are Labour thinking? Unless the plan is to ditch her for a sane candidate???
As reported on the BBC just, she is going to stand down at the general election, that is the Labour PPC already selected will contest the Dover seat.
In which case it's only absurd, and not quite criminal.
Robert F Kennedy Jnr has stated that a parasitic worm seems of have eaten some of his brain some time before 2010 in a disclosure of his medical records.
Regrettably, the worm was found to have died from malnutrition. Sad story.
Bizarre defection by Elphicke who was on the right of the conservative and very pro Johnson and Truss.
Apparently she has affirmed in her statement that Starmer has accepted Brexit so we have a right wing pro Johnson Truss politician welcomed at PMQs endorsing Starmer pro Brexit stance whilst the left of Labour look on in astonishment
Every day another weird development in politics
It isn't at all bizarre. Starmer is laser focused on winning over the kind of voters that previously went for Elphicke. He doesn't care about liberal people like me even though I'm sympathetic to his party.
Whether it's the right thing is a different question.
STARMER: I will give a peerage to any Tory MP who defects to us and announces they will stand down at the next election MPs: Phwoar, yes please Government loses a confidence vote. Labour win the election, Labour pass a law removing shithouse peerages sold to people for favours from the legislature
“I expect a semi-dystopian future with substantial pain and suffering for the people of the global south,” said a South African scientist, who chose not to be named. “The world’s response to date is reprehensible – we live in an age of fools.”
Maybe I am just naïve, but I think part of why the Greens are growing (slowly) is because it is clear that the current consensus is not going to provide a safely habitable planet in the near or long term future. We have seen more fossil fuel usage since 2008 then prior to it. It is not a byproduct of the current system we live under that the environment is being destroyed - it is the only outcome. There is a saying in engineering "the purpose of a system is what it does". Well, if that's the case, the purpose of modern states is to destroy the world.
As for Sian Berry - this hardly seems to rank in the cynical moves of politicians, in my view. The entire point of a list system is that you aren't voting for individuals - you're voting for a party and, sure, you know who you're likely to get based on the vote, but at the end of the day you also know who will replace people in the event they drop out. Is it a good look? Of course not. But I wouldn't call it antidemocratic, nor would I compare it to the cynical actions of politicians who do material harm to people to progress their own careers. In two weeks no one will care; yet we will still have a government trying to put human beings seeking refuge in ships or on planes to Rwanda in the hope they can up their vote share by 2-3%.
Tend to agree all of with this tbh.
But the first half is why I’m desperate for Greens to not be opportunistic on policy and become an outlet for disgruntled trots. It should - and has shown it can - be a party that can attract support across the spectrum. There is plenty in the conservative ethos that leans green. The focus should be on environmental issues always. Not wittering around on toilets and Gaza.
The only way that will happen is if more people with the view in your final two sentences join the Greens than ex-Labour Corbynistas.
Sea temperatures set record levels every single day in the last year.
It is highly depressing. Seriously starting to find it difficult to look at the children in my family and not feel heartbroken about what the future holds for them.
What do you think it holds for them? Serious question. We have challenges around climate change, but we are also good at solving them. Crop yields continue to increase. Population growth (the biggest contributor to climate change is too many humans) is going into reverse across the developed world. We are learning how to do without fossil fuels. Someone asked what the government(s) of the UK had done since 2010 - well look at how much renewable power we have now.
Its not enough yet, but there is a path. 2.5 degrees is a challenge, but the challenge is more about how we deal with human society.
Dan Shafer @DanRShafer Haley is getting more than 120,000 votes in Indiana's Republican presidential primary. It was one thing to see this in the immediate wake of ending her campaign, but it's been more than two months now. Seems like kind of a big deal!
Matt McDermott @mattmfm · 9h If Joe Biden were losing 1 in 4 voters in every primary, it would be the top headline across America. There is a massive protest vote against Trump, and it should be the top headline.
LOL at the Democrats with more spin than Monty Panesar.
Haley has been getting Democrat voters, who have a paper primary thanks to their own party’s refusal to hold debates or hustings, to register as republicans for months now, just to provide totally meaningless results like this.
As transparent as a Met Gala dress.
Nul points. 1. Indiana was a semi-closed primary, so Democrats can't simply shift across to the Republican primary, they have to change registration - and there's no sign in the numbers of that happening to any great degree. 2. Even in fully closed primaries, Haley has been getting 15-20% of the vote.
Conclusions: there is a significant minority of Republican voters who dont want Trump, and the spin on this is coming from the right, not the left.
Bizarre defection by Elphicke who was on the right of the conservative and very pro Johnson and Truss.
Apparently she has affirmed in her statement that Starmer has accepted Brexit so we have a right wing pro Johnson Truss politician welcomed at PMQs endorsing Starmer pro Brexit stance whilst the left of Labour look on in astonishment
Every day another weird development in politics
It isn't at all bizarre. Starmer is laser focused on winning over the kind of voters that previously went for Elphicke. He doesn't care about liberal people like me even though I'm sympathetic to his party.
Whether it's the right thing is a different question.
As a pragmatic liberal, I'd like to be on the side of a winning coalition, whether with a Labour, LD or Tory badge, more so than in an exclusive small band of perputual oppositions.
[checks news] Elphicke defects to Labour? [refreshes notes] Fuck Right Off. She is an absolute headbanger who has said the most profoundly stupid things about migration
What are Labour thinking? Unless the plan is to ditch her for a sane candidate???
As reported on the BBC just, she is going to stand down at the general election, that is the Labour PPC already selected will contest the Dover seat.
What seems to be emerging here is Elphicke's utter dislike of Sunak and for someone who is pro Johnson and Truss plus very much supports Jenricks views on the ECHR, that she wants to inflict maximum damage on Sunak but ironically she is exactly the wrong person Starmer should be accepting and I am sure many in labour will be furious and maybe it just adds to the narrative that Starmer just cannot see beyond a quick plus and the absolute incompatibility of Ekphicke and the labour party.
Sea temperatures set record levels every single day in the last year.
Is a poll of scientists really the best way to work out how much the average global temperature is going to increase?
It’s not dissimilar to how the IPCC projections get made: they take submissions from multiple scientists all working on their own modelling and sensitivity studies and find a consensus.
However: the single biggest source of uncertainty on climate change now is not the equilibrium sensitivity or the impact of physical feedbacks. It’s the emissions scenario. That is one area where scientists really don’t know anymore than the rest of us.
Emissions have consistently undercut the central projections - we are actually succeeding in reducing them (or rather, slowing the increase - for now). When someone points to a BAU projection from the 1990s and says we haven’t warmed as much, the reason is we’ve not emitted as much. Largely for two reasons: the massive shift from coal to gas and huge increases in energy efficiency in the developed world, and the collapse of the Soviet Union in the 1999s.
It is different. You wouldn’t expect age and gender to change the output of a climate simulation, for example.
The IPCC consensus projections are heavily debated over and a very contested process - a lot of the more alarming outliers get binned for the sake of consensus. So it’s far from a purely objective process. But it is nonetheless very helpful as a way of defining the likely range of outcomes.
My point is that a projection is the product of two things: the modelling of sensitivity and feedbacks, and assumptions about emissions scenarios. There’s been much more variation in the latter than the former, because economics and demographics are much harder to predict than transient or equilibrium sensitivity.
She's the MP who inherited the seat of Dover from her disgraced then husband who was convicted of sexual assault.
I had discounted the stories being put about of further defectors to Labour, because normally defections aren't publicised until they happen.
Makes you wonder how many other Tory MPs might be considering jumping ship.
It makes me wonder what is in it for the defectors. Or for Labour, come to that.
I agree. No CLP would take her as a candidate.
The CLP will be given a choice, will they?
Candidates can be imposed but there is no way that anyone in the local party would campaign for her.
Sounds like the point is moot as she's not standing.
But it does all rather depend where for that kind of thing. In safe Labour seats (such as Shaun Woodward was dropped into), it's not really a problem.
Also councillors sort of have to campaign if they are up. I remember being canvassed a long while ago in a seat where the Tories had chosen a real extremist and the councillor was a very moderate Tory who hated the bloke. He did his bit for why I should re-elect him to the Council then, as he was leaving, pushed a leaflet into my hand saying, "Oh, I'm apparently obliged to give you this from the Parliamentary candidate".
"Today, we take disagreement very personally. Not only issues that are entangled with our everyday lives, our feelings or how we see ourselves: even geopolitical issues or which political party we vote for are taken much more personally. People are less open to social connection with those who disagree with them politically. Survey after survey has shown that, increasingly, we are more likely to see those who disagree with us politically as closed-minded, selfish, hypocritical, immoral or lazy, and less likely to call them intelligent or honest. Negative feeling towards the other side, politically, has been steadily increasing since the Eighties."
I've come to this a little late, so apologies if this has been covered, but as a former member of the Green Party my thoughts my be useful.
It's been handled badly, even several Greens I know are annoyed, but is it more than clumsiness? I'm not convinced it is any more than that, Sian had already clearly signalled her intentions wrt Brighton. I'm not sure how far out the Assembly list had to be put together (internally, not for nominations), but given the way the party operates, it's quite possible that there are some rules that sitting AMs have to be at the top of the list in sneiority order, and that everyone just assumed that if Sian got the Brighton nomination, she'd just step down for the next Green - because that's how the list system works.
Carrying on from that, I';m not sure how this will cut through - as far as voters in London are concerned they voted for three Green assembly members and that's what they got. So, one was called Sian, and now they have Zoe instead. Big deal. AIUI, Sian didn't take any significant part in the campaign, whereas Zoe did, so it's not a case of riding coattails for more votes - Zoe earned it more than Sian did!
It might have some small impact in Brighton, not least if the Argus - which has always had a pro-Labour, anti-Green agenda, not leeast because their politics editor (not sure if he's still in place) was the father of a Labour councillor - pushes it, but I think that Gaza is likely to be more of an impactful issue for many leftie voters, plus the current Labour administration are not covering themselves in glory by closing primary schools,rolling back some popular Green initiatives, and reneging on promises to undo some unpopoular Green actions (because Labour actually like them, and because they're hard to undo).
Also, speaking to lefty friends in Brighton, of which I have a lot, there's really strong feeling even among the more Labour-leaning ones that they like supporting a Green voice in parliament, Not just Caroline, but any Green voice. So I think there are Labour voters (not members, just voters) who will back a Green locally because they see it as important.
The deadline for nomination papers for the Assembly election was 4pm on Wednesday 27 March 2024. She resigned as a councillor on 20 October 2023 because she was focused on Brighton, 5 months earlier. The logic of her not being a councillor is the same as the logic of her not being an Assembly member. So why stand for the Assembly? The Green Party had plenty of time to pick a replacement for their Assembly list, or indeed they could just have had one less candidate.
The election is for a specific list of people. OK, most voters aren't bothered by which names are on those lists, but there are names. You are voting for specific people. Garbett lost the mayoral vote and she lost in the Assembly vote: why the shenanigans to give her a seat?
STARMER: I will give a peerage to any Tory MP who defects to us and announces they will stand down at the next election MPs: Phwoar, yes please Government loses a confidence vote. Labour win the election, Labour pass a law removing shithouse peerages sold to people for favours from the legislature
Job done.
Elphicke has just said she has not been offered a peerage but who would believe anything a politician says these days
Most of us older than 2 would say that unironically. Screwing the economy of the largest country in Europe is only a benefit to Britain in the minds of those whose preferred reading matter remains Commando Comics.
The German idiocy of relying on Russian gas and abolishing nuclear has pushed their energy costs up thus destroying their industrial sector. We could, and should, have avoided that while avoiding our own native idiocy of Brexit.
It's more that the story of German businesses investing in the German economy slowly becoming a bit of a myth.
Increasingly, investment moved further East - when Ukraine was invaded, there were massive problems for industry in Germany due to components not arriving.
It's become quite noticeable, in the last few years, that for kitchen white goods (for example), some lines are not made in Germany and often have very poor quality.
The mad way in which the German car industry has approached electrification hasn't helped. Instead of taking it as a chance to explore new markets...
China is doing to Germany what Japan did to Britain (cf motorbikes)
Britain did it to itself on motorcycles. The Italian industry weathered the Japanese onslaught of the 70s and 80s by retreating to the top end of the market where margins were high. The sole German and US manufacturers (BMW and HD) also maintained healthy volumes right through that period partly on the sheer strength of the brands.
The British industry was badly managed, fragmented and horribly undercapitalised so they couldn't develop products of quality and relevance. Then Thatcher turned the pound into a petrocurrency in the 80s which killed all export potential.
Triumph are back now though and leaking slightly less oil than before.
Made in Thailand though, with the UK only doing R and D and customs work.
Bert Hopwoods book of how complacent and incompetent management turned a UK world beating industry into extinction in 2 decades is quite the eye opener.
I've come to this a little late, so apologies if this has been covered, but as a former member of the Green Party my thoughts my be useful.
It's been handled badly, even several Greens I know are annoyed, but is it more than clumsiness? I'm not convinced it is any more than that, Sian had already clearly signalled her intentions wrt Brighton. I'm not sure how far out the Assembly list had to be put together (internally, not for nominations), but given the way the party operates, it's quite possible that there are some rules that sitting AMs have to be at the top of the list in sneiority order, and that everyone just assumed that if Sian got the Brighton nomination, she'd just step down for the next Green - because that's how the list system works.
Carrying on from that, I';m not sure how this will cut through - as far as voters in London are concerned they voted for three Green assembly members and that's what they got. So, one was called Sian, and now they have Zoe instead. Big deal. AIUI, Sian didn't take any significant part in the campaign, whereas Zoe did, so it's not a case of riding coattails for more votes - Zoe earned it more than Sian did!
It might have some small impact in Brighton, not least if the Argus - which has always had a pro-Labour, anti-Green agenda, not leeast because their politics editor (not sure if he's still in place) was the father of a Labour councillor - pushes it, but I think that Gaza is likely to be more of an impactful issue for many leftie voters, plus the current Labour administration are not covering themselves in glory by closing primary schools,rolling back some popular Green initiatives, and reneging on promises to undo some unpopoular Green actions (because Labour actually like them, and because they're hard to undo).
Also, speaking to lefty friends in Brighton, of which I have a lot, there's really strong feeling even among the more Labour-leaning ones that they like supporting a Green voice in parliament, Not just Caroline, but any Green voice. So I think there are Labour voters (not members, just voters) who will back a Green locally because they see it as important.
The deadline for nomination papers for the Assembly election was 4pm on Wednesday 27 March 2024. She resigned as a councillor on 20 October 2023 because she was focused on Brighton, 5 months earlier. The logic of her not being a councillor is the same as the logic of her not being an Assembly member. So why stand for the Assembly? The Green Party had plenty of time to pick a replacement for their Assembly list, or indeed they could just have had one less candidate.
The election is for a specific list of people. OK, most voters aren't bothered by which names are on those lists, but there are names. You are voting for specific people. Garbett lost the mayoral vote and she lost in the Assembly vote: why the shenanigans to give her a seat?
One of the arguments against the party list system as it stands is the voter can't vote to reorder the list as well.
Will this help Labour’s chances in Dover? I would have thought that was one of the last redoubts of the Brexit-Conservative Party.
You'd have thought it's very helpful to them in Kent generally and to an extent more widely. Conservatives will run the small boats thing quite hard in the General Election... but now Labour can put out stuff that says the Tory MP for Dover - right at the heart of this - defected because Sunak was incompetent, didn't stop the boats, and is incapable of protecting our borders.
[checks news] Elphicke defects to Labour? [refreshes notes] Fuck Right Off. She is an absolute headbanger who has said the most profoundly stupid things about migration
What are Labour thinking? Unless the plan is to ditch her for a sane candidate???
As reported on the BBC just, she is going to stand down at the general election, that is the Labour PPC already selected will contest the Dover seat.
In which case it's only absurd, and not quite criminal.
You asked: "What is Labour thinking".
The answer is to improve the chances of the Labour candidate for Dover winning that key battleground seat, by getting the endorsement of the now outgoing Conservative incumbent. And to more generally encourage others who voted Conservative in 2019 to switch their vote directly to Labour, as she has done.
I am comfortable with her defection and that of Dan Poulter given that neither have been offered a seat. It shows that they are not opportunists and that their disdain for Sunak's government is genuine.
I appreciate that those on the Corbynite far left oppose any attempt by Labour to woo those who supported the Conservatives in 2019, regardless of the need to win the general election.
Uncle Monty has decided not to stand for George Galloways Workers Party
But after a series of disastrous media interviews, he has said he will no longer contest the seat and instead will “take some time to mature and find my political feet”.
I've come to this a little late, so apologies if this has been covered, but as a former member of the Green Party my thoughts my be useful.
It's been handled badly, even several Greens I know are annoyed, but is it more than clumsiness? I'm not convinced it is any more than that, Sian had already clearly signalled her intentions wrt Brighton. I'm not sure how far out the Assembly list had to be put together (internally, not for nominations), but given the way the party operates, it's quite possible that there are some rules that sitting AMs have to be at the top of the list in sneiority order, and that everyone just assumed that if Sian got the Brighton nomination, she'd just step down for the next Green - because that's how the list system works.
Carrying on from that, I';m not sure how this will cut through - as far as voters in London are concerned they voted for three Green assembly members and that's what they got. So, one was called Sian, and now they have Zoe instead. Big deal. AIUI, Sian didn't take any significant part in the campaign, whereas Zoe did, so it's not a case of riding coattails for more votes - Zoe earned it more than Sian did!
It might have some small impact in Brighton, not least if the Argus - which has always had a pro-Labour, anti-Green agenda, not leeast because their politics editor (not sure if he's still in place) was the father of a Labour councillor - pushes it, but I think that Gaza is likely to be more of an impactful issue for many leftie voters, plus the current Labour administration are not covering themselves in glory by closing primary schools,rolling back some popular Green initiatives, and reneging on promises to undo some unpopoular Green actions (because Labour actually like them, and because they're hard to undo).
Also, speaking to lefty friends in Brighton, of which I have a lot, there's really strong feeling even among the more Labour-leaning ones that they like supporting a Green voice in parliament, Not just Caroline, but any Green voice. So I think there are Labour voters (not members, just voters) who will back a Green locally because they see it as important.
The deadline for nomination papers for the Assembly election was 4pm on Wednesday 27 March 2024. She resigned as a councillor on 20 October 2023 because she was focused on Brighton, 5 months earlier. The logic of her not being a councillor is the same as the logic of her not being an Assembly member. So why stand for the Assembly? The Green Party had plenty of time to pick a replacement for their Assembly list, or indeed they could just have had one less candidate.
The election is for a specific list of people. OK, most voters aren't bothered by which names are on those lists, but there are names. You are voting for specific people. Garbett lost the mayoral vote and she lost in the Assembly vote: why the shenanigans to give her a seat?
One of the arguments against the party list system as it stands is the voter can't vote to reorder the list as well.
If you want to decide the order of a party's list, join the party.
Robert F Kennedy Jnr has stated that a parasitic worm seems of have eaten some of his brain some time before 2010 in a disclosure of his medical records.
You shouldn't stand for something you know you won't be doing - but I guess resigning immediately is better than trying to be an Assembly member when you don't have the time to give it justice?
It is blindingly obvious this was her plan all along
It is. But having stood (which she shouldn't have) it is now better to resign than do the job badly because she's focused on something else. I mean, that would be even worse, wouldn't it. Or would it? Not sure really.
If you ignore all the bad things she did then her behaviour was exemplary.
Lol - sort of. She's done the least bad thing of the two things she could have done having done a bad thing in the first place.
Yours, Mr Charitable.
Much like one of those kidnappers who charitably decides, after a three day seige, to release rather than kill their hostage. People are a bit harsh on them... in fact, they've done the least bad of the two things they could have done having done a bad thing in the first place.
Yes it's like that. Such a person would get a considerably shorter jail sentence and rightly so.
She shouldn't have stood - no question about that - but having done so she faced a choice:
(i) Take up the London job and do it with no commitment or focus or energy, prioritising Brighton but still picking up the London salary, blocking somebody else from doing it who would give it their all.
(ii) Resign immediately.
In opting for (ii) she chose the nobler course. At least arguably. If we're looking for a generous-minded take (since it's the Greens and they're on the right side of history) I think this would be it.
But still, standing for election when you know you're going to resign straightaway - that's pretty poor.
The other possibility would have been to have used the Assembly seat as a back-up plan, in case she fails to be elected as MP. Plenty of people wouldn't like they, but I think it's understandable from a human point of view, and it's not dishonest.
I really don't think you can separate the choice to stand for election from the decision to stand down when they were so clearly part of the same decision for Berry.
since it's the Greens and they're on the right side of history
LOL
Well compared to most they are. Certainly on the big one - the climate crisis.
You don't get to be good by being classified as being good. You are good by virtue of doing good.
This is a small act of the Greens doing bad.
Ok but they are well in credit for me. I'd still be voting Green if I wasn't voting Labour.
Look at how many solar and wind farms the Greens oppose. They are not in favour of tackling the climate crisis. They are in favour of someone else tackling the climate crisis, as long as it doesn't impact them. It's like saying they're appalled by the housing crisis and then blocking all new developments. It's vegan cakism.
There are many streaks of rank hypocrisy that run through the Green Party and with growing support and representation, I expect the media (and social media) will start to flag these up more prominently.
Greens are happy to have more housing; we just want it to be affordable and preferably not on the Green belt. Having private development companies come in and build 3-4 bedroom houses that will go for £400k+ each is not what will solve the housing crisis. You need small houses, council housing, and some affordable family homes in most places - which are not being offered in most developments because they are not massive profit makers.
Those new "3 bedroom" houses are small by any reasonable definition.
If you don't want to build on the so-called "green belt", where do you want to build?
There's only so many brown field sites and most of them are more interesting ecologically than green field.
I've come to this a little late, so apologies if this has been covered, but as a former member of the Green Party my thoughts my be useful.
It's been handled badly, even several Greens I know are annoyed, but is it more than clumsiness? I'm not convinced it is any more than that, Sian had already clearly signalled her intentions wrt Brighton. I'm not sure how far out the Assembly list had to be put together (internally, not for nominations), but given the way the party operates, it's quite possible that there are some rules that sitting AMs have to be at the top of the list in sneiority order, and that everyone just assumed that if Sian got the Brighton nomination, she'd just step down for the next Green - because that's how the list system works.
Carrying on from that, I';m not sure how this will cut through - as far as voters in London are concerned they voted for three Green assembly members and that's what they got. So, one was called Sian, and now they have Zoe instead. Big deal. AIUI, Sian didn't take any significant part in the campaign, whereas Zoe did, so it's not a case of riding coattails for more votes - Zoe earned it more than Sian did!
It might have some small impact in Brighton, not least if the Argus - which has always had a pro-Labour, anti-Green agenda, not leeast because their politics editor (not sure if he's still in place) was the father of a Labour councillor - pushes it, but I think that Gaza is likely to be more of an impactful issue for many leftie voters, plus the current Labour administration are not covering themselves in glory by closing primary schools,rolling back some popular Green initiatives, and reneging on promises to undo some unpopoular Green actions (because Labour actually like them, and because they're hard to undo).
Also, speaking to lefty friends in Brighton, of which I have a lot, there's really strong feeling even among the more Labour-leaning ones that they like supporting a Green voice in parliament, Not just Caroline, but any Green voice. So I think there are Labour voters (not members, just voters) who will back a Green locally because they see it as important.
The deadline for nomination papers for the Assembly election was 4pm on Wednesday 27 March 2024. She resigned as a councillor on 20 October 2023 because she was focused on Brighton, 5 months earlier. The logic of her not being a councillor is the same as the logic of her not being an Assembly member. So why stand for the Assembly? The Green Party had plenty of time to pick a replacement for their Assembly list, or indeed they could just have had one less candidate.
The election is for a specific list of people. OK, most voters aren't bothered by which names are on those lists, but there are names. You are voting for specific people. Garbett lost the mayoral vote and she lost in the Assembly vote: why the shenanigans to give her a seat?
One of the arguments against the party list system as it stands is the voter can't vote to reorder the list as well.
But you know ahead of when you vote the order of the list. So you have knowledge prior to your vote what your vote means. If you don't like the people on the list - don't vote for them! I don't understand why people are making this out to be much more abstract then it is other then just trying to be obtuse. You know what you're getting for your vote and if other people vote the same way - the more votes a party gets the more people from their list will be in the assembly. If you don't like the people at the top of the list - don't vote for that party! They're at the top of the list because they are who the party has chosen to represent them in order of how much they value their representation to the party.
I've come to this a little late, so apologies if this has been covered, but as a former member of the Green Party my thoughts my be useful.
It's been handled badly, even several Greens I know are annoyed, but is it more than clumsiness? I'm not convinced it is any more than that, Sian had already clearly signalled her intentions wrt Brighton. I'm not sure how far out the Assembly list had to be put together (internally, not for nominations), but given the way the party operates, it's quite possible that there are some rules that sitting AMs have to be at the top of the list in sneiority order, and that everyone just assumed that if Sian got the Brighton nomination, she'd just step down for the next Green - because that's how the list system works.
Carrying on from that, I';m not sure how this will cut through - as far as voters in London are concerned they voted for three Green assembly members and that's what they got. So, one was called Sian, and now they have Zoe instead. Big deal. AIUI, Sian didn't take any significant part in the campaign, whereas Zoe did, so it's not a case of riding coattails for more votes - Zoe earned it more than Sian did!
It might have some small impact in Brighton, not least if the Argus - which has always had a pro-Labour, anti-Green agenda, not leeast because their politics editor (not sure if he's still in place) was the father of a Labour councillor - pushes it, but I think that Gaza is likely to be more of an impactful issue for many leftie voters, plus the current Labour administration are not covering themselves in glory by closing primary schools,rolling back some popular Green initiatives, and reneging on promises to undo some unpopoular Green actions (because Labour actually like them, and because they're hard to undo).
Also, speaking to lefty friends in Brighton, of which I have a lot, there's really strong feeling even among the more Labour-leaning ones that they like supporting a Green voice in parliament, Not just Caroline, but any Green voice. So I think there are Labour voters (not members, just voters) who will back a Green locally because they see it as important.
The deadline for nomination papers for the Assembly election was 4pm on Wednesday 27 March 2024. She resigned as a councillor on 20 October 2023 because she was focused on Brighton, 5 months earlier. The logic of her not being a councillor is the same as the logic of her not being an Assembly member. So why stand for the Assembly? The Green Party had plenty of time to pick a replacement for their Assembly list, or indeed they could just have had one less candidate.
The election is for a specific list of people. OK, most voters aren't bothered by which names are on those lists, but there are names. You are voting for specific people. Garbett lost the mayoral vote and she lost in the Assembly vote: why the shenanigans to give her a seat?
One of the arguments against the party list system as it stands is the voter can't vote to reorder the list as well.
Would it have helped in this case, as she wasn't honest about her intentions?
It's also really complex. If there's to be a "top up" system, I'd personally have a "lucky loser" approach, so the three Green top ups in London (in this example) are the three who came closest to winning in the constituencies. That reduces party patronage - everyone is at least trying to win in a constituency with their own name on the paper.
“I expect a semi-dystopian future with substantial pain and suffering for the people of the global south,” said a South African scientist, who chose not to be named. “The world’s response to date is reprehensible – we live in an age of fools.”
Maybe I am just naïve, but I think part of why the Greens are growing (slowly) is because it is clear that the current consensus is not going to provide a safely habitable planet in the near or long term future. We have seen more fossil fuel usage since 2008 then prior to it. It is not a byproduct of the current system we live under that the environment is being destroyed - it is the only outcome. There is a saying in engineering "the purpose of a system is what it does". Well, if that's the case, the purpose of modern states is to destroy the world.
As for Sian Berry - this hardly seems to rank in the cynical moves of politicians, in my view. The entire point of a list system is that you aren't voting for individuals - you're voting for a party and, sure, you know who you're likely to get based on the vote, but at the end of the day you also know who will replace people in the event they drop out. Is it a good look? Of course not. But I wouldn't call it antidemocratic, nor would I compare it to the cynical actions of politicians who do material harm to people to progress their own careers. In two weeks no one will care; yet we will still have a government trying to put human beings seeking refuge in ships or on planes to Rwanda in the hope they can up their vote share by 2-3%.
If you want to sort global warming, take on Beijing, not Brighton or Bristol.
Given Chinese emissions now, and into the foreseeable future, our best bet in Britain is (1) strategic independence, or at least, co-dependence with Europe, on energy and security, and (2) mitigation of the inevitable effects that will result from large regimes that have no interest in cutting emissions and can't be pressured into it. Reducing our reliance on carbon is sensible on that count - and helpfully plays a part on global heating too - but Britain's contribution either way is pretty minimal and while setting an example is useful, more important is anticipating and reacting to the hostile actions of others.
As an island nation, the UK ultimately has more than most to lose from a failure to curb global greenhouse gas emissions. If humanity goes ahead and burns all the fossil fuels that can be exploited, then the resulting rise in global temperature will eventually melt almost all of the surface ice and raise the sea level by around 60 m. This will take a long time - hundreds of years - but once started is very difficult to stop, even if the global will can be found to do so. We need to do everything in our power to persuade the big emitters to wind down their emissions, and I doubt that backtracking on our own commitments is going to do much to bolster our arguments.
Considering that the UK has cut emissions more than any G20 member, I think we're in a pretty decent place from which to make the case.
But the reality of it is that the big emitters - and China especially: by *far* the biggest emitter - isn't interested in listening. Nor India. Nor the US, particularly, Nor Russia. Nor the Middle East. Electing Greens or anyone else in the UK isn't going to make a difference to that. What we can do is prepare for a hotter, wetter, stormier climate and higher sea levels (though not by 60m - Antarctica isn't going to melt to that extent).
I've come to this a little late, so apologies if this has been covered, but as a former member of the Green Party my thoughts my be useful.
It's been handled badly, even several Greens I know are annoyed, but is it more than clumsiness? I'm not convinced it is any more than that, Sian had already clearly signalled her intentions wrt Brighton. I'm not sure how far out the Assembly list had to be put together (internally, not for nominations), but given the way the party operates, it's quite possible that there are some rules that sitting AMs have to be at the top of the list in sneiority order, and that everyone just assumed that if Sian got the Brighton nomination, she'd just step down for the next Green - because that's how the list system works.
Carrying on from that, I';m not sure how this will cut through - as far as voters in London are concerned they voted for three Green assembly members and that's what they got. So, one was called Sian, and now they have Zoe instead. Big deal. AIUI, Sian didn't take any significant part in the campaign, whereas Zoe did, so it's not a case of riding coattails for more votes - Zoe earned it more than Sian did!
It might have some small impact in Brighton, not least if the Argus - which has always had a pro-Labour, anti-Green agenda, not leeast because their politics editor (not sure if he's still in place) was the father of a Labour councillor - pushes it, but I think that Gaza is likely to be more of an impactful issue for many leftie voters, plus the current Labour administration are not covering themselves in glory by closing primary schools,rolling back some popular Green initiatives, and reneging on promises to undo some unpopoular Green actions (because Labour actually like them, and because they're hard to undo).
Also, speaking to lefty friends in Brighton, of which I have a lot, there's really strong feeling even among the more Labour-leaning ones that they like supporting a Green voice in parliament, Not just Caroline, but any Green voice. So I think there are Labour voters (not members, just voters) who will back a Green locally because they see it as important.
The deadline for nomination papers for the Assembly election was 4pm on Wednesday 27 March 2024. She resigned as a councillor on 20 October 2023 because she was focused on Brighton, 5 months earlier. The logic of her not being a councillor is the same as the logic of her not being an Assembly member. So why stand for the Assembly? The Green Party had plenty of time to pick a replacement for their Assembly list, or indeed they could just have had one less candidate.
The election is for a specific list of people. OK, most voters aren't bothered by which names are on those lists, but there are names. You are voting for specific people. Garbett lost the mayoral vote and she lost in the Assembly vote: why the shenanigans to give her a seat?
One of the arguments against the party list system as it stands is the voter can't vote to reorder the list as well.
But you know ahead of when you vote the order of the list. So you have knowledge prior to your vote what your vote means. If you don't like the people on the list - don't vote for them! I don't understand why people are making this out to be much more abstract then it is other then just trying to be obtuse. You know what you're getting for your vote and if other people vote the same way - the more votes a party gets the more people from their list will be in the assembly. If you don't like the people at the top of the list - don't vote for that party! They're at the top of the list because they are who the party has chosen to represent them in order of how much they value their representation to the party.
Well, in this case, we didn't know ahead of when you vote the order of the list because Berry did a bait'n'switch.
Leaving that point aside, yes, you know the order of the list and can vote accordingly. However, the point is that you get a better system if you give more power to the voter with an open list approach of some sort. Vote for a list and then you get a vote from within the list.
STARMER: I will give a peerage to any Tory MP who defects to us and announces they will stand down at the next election MPs: Phwoar, yes please Government loses a confidence vote. Labour win the election, Labour pass a law removing shithouse peerages sold to people for favours from the legislature
Job done.
Elphicke has just said she has not been offered a peerage but who would believe anything a politician says these days
Where’s the evidence she wanted a long term political career, anyway? Given the circumstances of her original election. Maybe she just has some scores to settle?
If Boris had only got a majority like John Major did in 1992 we would have had an election some considerable time ago. The attrition rate has been remarkable.
You shouldn't stand for something you know you won't be doing - but I guess resigning immediately is better than trying to be an Assembly member when you don't have the time to give it justice?
It is blindingly obvious this was her plan all along
It is. But having stood (which she shouldn't have) it is now better to resign than do the job badly because she's focused on something else. I mean, that would be even worse, wouldn't it. Or would it? Not sure really.
If you ignore all the bad things she did then her behaviour was exemplary.
Lol - sort of. She's done the least bad thing of the two things she could have done having done a bad thing in the first place.
Yours, Mr Charitable.
Much like one of those kidnappers who charitably decides, after a three day seige, to release rather than kill their hostage. People are a bit harsh on them... in fact, they've done the least bad of the two things they could have done having done a bad thing in the first place.
Yes it's like that. Such a person would get a considerably shorter jail sentence and rightly so.
She shouldn't have stood - no question about that - but having done so she faced a choice:
(i) Take up the London job and do it with no commitment or focus or energy, prioritising Brighton but still picking up the London salary, blocking somebody else from doing it who would give it their all.
(ii) Resign immediately.
In opting for (ii) she chose the nobler course. At least arguably. If we're looking for a generous-minded take (since it's the Greens and they're on the right side of history) I think this would be it.
But still, standing for election when you know you're going to resign straightaway - that's pretty poor.
The other possibility would have been to have used the Assembly seat as a back-up plan, in case she fails to be elected as MP. Plenty of people wouldn't like they, but I think it's understandable from a human point of view, and it's not dishonest.
I really don't think you can separate the choice to stand for election from the decision to stand down when they were so clearly part of the same decision for Berry.
since it's the Greens and they're on the right side of history
LOL
Well compared to most they are. Certainly on the big one - the climate crisis.
You don't get to be good by being classified as being good. You are good by virtue of doing good.
This is a small act of the Greens doing bad.
Ok but they are well in credit for me. I'd still be voting Green if I wasn't voting Labour.
Look at how many solar and wind farms the Greens oppose. They are not in favour of tackling the climate crisis. They are in favour of someone else tackling the climate crisis, as long as it doesn't impact them. It's like saying they're appalled by the housing crisis and then blocking all new developments. It's vegan cakism.
There are many streaks of rank hypocrisy that run through the Green Party and with growing support and representation, I expect the media (and social media) will start to flag these up more prominently.
Greens are happy to have more housing; we just want it to be affordable and preferably not on the Green belt. Having private development companies come in and build 3-4 bedroom houses that will go for £400k+ each is not what will solve the housing crisis. You need small houses, council housing, and some affordable family homes in most places - which are not being offered in most developments because they are not massive profit makers.
We can't avoid building on the green belt; it's part of the problem. Indeed, the whole planning system designed to tickle Nimbys fancies and price small developers out is a major part of the crisis. Anyone who rejects that isn't serious about the problem.
And no, it doesn't really matter which houses are built; what matters is how many are built. It's nothing more than supply and demand. If enough are built, 3-4 bed houses won't go for £400k, they'll go for £250k - and because there's more supply there, it'd ease demand for smaller houses, which would drop in line.
The state does not need to plan what should be built; it just needs to get out of the way and let it be built, other than in ensuring that the infrastructure goes in alongside to support the growth.
Your second paragraph is wrong - as someone who worked for a local council and housing association for 3 years, that isn't how it works any more. Housing developer profits are protected in legislation - so if they think the house price will fall they will make a bigger house or fewer of them. And councils cannot block them from doing so. We cannot build our way out of this problem when the problem is with housing being commodified rather than treated as a human need. Landlords or asset managers will just buy up the houses and rent them at high rents - knowing that other landlords have a vested interest in rents staying high. This is why we have a housing crisis and you're increasingly seeing people, like Andy Burnham (who has never been on the very left of the Labour party), accept the reality that council houses that stay in council hands are what are needed most.
I'm sorry but that's communistic waffle. Food is commodified; it's not treated as a 'human need'. Yet supermarkets deliver decent choice at affordable prices. We don't need state planning. Indeed, that's exactly what's got the country *into* the mess. We need a free market.
That said, tax reform to favour home-owners over landlords would be one very welcome development.
As for rents, yes, landlords have an interest in rents being high but again, they can only do that if there is sufficient scarcity. As soon as vacancies start rising, they'll have to start cutting rents or see places go unlet.
I've come to this a little late, so apologies if this has been covered, but as a former member of the Green Party my thoughts my be useful.
It's been handled badly, even several Greens I know are annoyed, but is it more than clumsiness? I'm not convinced it is any more than that, Sian had already clearly signalled her intentions wrt Brighton. I'm not sure how far out the Assembly list had to be put together (internally, not for nominations), but given the way the party operates, it's quite possible that there are some rules that sitting AMs have to be at the top of the list in sneiority order, and that everyone just assumed that if Sian got the Brighton nomination, she'd just step down for the next Green - because that's how the list system works.
Carrying on from that, I';m not sure how this will cut through - as far as voters in London are concerned they voted for three Green assembly members and that's what they got. So, one was called Sian, and now they have Zoe instead. Big deal. AIUI, Sian didn't take any significant part in the campaign, whereas Zoe did, so it's not a case of riding coattails for more votes - Zoe earned it more than Sian did!
It might have some small impact in Brighton, not least if the Argus - which has always had a pro-Labour, anti-Green agenda, not leeast because their politics editor (not sure if he's still in place) was the father of a Labour councillor - pushes it, but I think that Gaza is likely to be more of an impactful issue for many leftie voters, plus the current Labour administration are not covering themselves in glory by closing primary schools,rolling back some popular Green initiatives, and reneging on promises to undo some unpopoular Green actions (because Labour actually like them, and because they're hard to undo).
Also, speaking to lefty friends in Brighton, of which I have a lot, there's really strong feeling even among the more Labour-leaning ones that they like supporting a Green voice in parliament, Not just Caroline, but any Green voice. So I think there are Labour voters (not members, just voters) who will back a Green locally because they see it as important.
The deadline for nomination papers for the Assembly election was 4pm on Wednesday 27 March 2024. She resigned as a councillor on 20 October 2023 because she was focused on Brighton, 5 months earlier. The logic of her not being a councillor is the same as the logic of her not being an Assembly member. So why stand for the Assembly? The Green Party had plenty of time to pick a replacement for their Assembly list, or indeed they could just have had one less candidate.
The election is for a specific list of people. OK, most voters aren't bothered by which names are on those lists, but there are names. You are voting for specific people. Garbett lost the mayoral vote and she lost in the Assembly vote: why the shenanigans to give her a seat?
Berry was selected as the Brighton candidate on 19 July 2023. So, that's 8 months before the Assembly nominations were in. She knew for over 8 months what her situation was.
Sea temperatures set record levels every single day in the last year.
It is highly depressing. Seriously starting to find it difficult to look at the children in my family and not feel heartbroken about what the future holds for them.
What do you think it holds for them? Serious question. We have challenges around climate change, but we are also good at solving them. Crop yields continue to increase. Population growth (the biggest contributor to climate change is too many humans) is going into reverse across the developed world. We are learning how to do without fossil fuels. Someone asked what the government(s) of the UK had done since 2010 - well look at how much renewable power we have now.
Its not enough yet, but there is a path. 2.5 degrees is a challenge, but the challenge is more about how we deal with human society.
One cousin has a 4 year old and a 7 year old, another cousin is expecting in August. By the time the youngest is my age, so 33 years from now, I would expect food shortages, mass migration, massive increases in severe weather events and general international unrest.
I don't think your assessment that crop yields are increasing is true - the last few years we have seen reduced crop yields due to extreme weather events caused by climate change:
We're already seeing some places hitting wet bulb temperatures for days on end in some countries - once that gets to weeks those places essentially can be designated as uninhabitable during the summer because if people cannot go outside at all, then society is unlikely to function.
And, of course, the response from many governments will be increased border fascism. The migrant crises of the last two decades will pale in comparison to those of the next two decades - and as we have seen from the UK, the US and the EU, our solution is to turn our states into fortresses and let those outside them die. And it won't stop there - as resource scarcity becomes more prominent we will see the arguments of "useless eaters" rear its head again and governments will turn on their own populations, pointing the finger most at the "undesirables".
“I expect a semi-dystopian future with substantial pain and suffering for the people of the global south,” said a South African scientist, who chose not to be named. “The world’s response to date is reprehensible – we live in an age of fools.”
Maybe I am just naïve, but I think part of why the Greens are growing (slowly) is because it is clear that the current consensus is not going to provide a safely habitable planet in the near or long term future. We have seen more fossil fuel usage since 2008 then prior to it. It is not a byproduct of the current system we live under that the environment is being destroyed - it is the only outcome. There is a saying in engineering "the purpose of a system is what it does". Well, if that's the case, the purpose of modern states is to destroy the world.
As for Sian Berry - this hardly seems to rank in the cynical moves of politicians, in my view. The entire point of a list system is that you aren't voting for individuals - you're voting for a party and, sure, you know who you're likely to get based on the vote, but at the end of the day you also know who will replace people in the event they drop out. Is it a good look? Of course not. But I wouldn't call it antidemocratic, nor would I compare it to the cynical actions of politicians who do material harm to people to progress their own careers. In two weeks no one will care; yet we will still have a government trying to put human beings seeking refuge in ships or on planes to Rwanda in the hope they can up their vote share by 2-3%.
If you want to sort global warming, take on Beijing, not Brighton or Bristol.
Given Chinese emissions now, and into the foreseeable future, our best bet in Britain is (1) strategic independence, or at least, co-dependence with Europe, on energy and security, and (2) mitigation of the inevitable effects that will result from large regimes that have no interest in cutting emissions and can't be pressured into it. Reducing our reliance on carbon is sensible on that count - and helpfully plays a part on global heating too - but Britain's contribution either way is pretty minimal and while setting an example is useful, more important is anticipating and reacting to the hostile actions of others.
As an island nation, the UK ultimately has more than most to lose from a failure to curb global greenhouse gas emissions. If humanity goes ahead and burns all the fossil fuels that can be exploited, then the resulting rise in global temperature will eventually melt almost all of the surface ice and raise the sea level by around 60 m. This will take a long time - hundreds of years - but once started is very difficult to stop, even if the global will can be found to do so. We need to do everything in our power to persuade the big emitters to wind down their emissions, and I doubt that backtracking on our own commitments is going to do much to bolster our arguments.
Considering that the UK has cut emissions more than any G20 member, I think we're in a pretty decent place from which to make the case.
But the reality of it is that the big emitters - and China especially: by *far* the biggest emitter - isn't interested in listening. Nor India. Nor the US, particularly, Nor Russia. Nor the Middle East. Electing Greens or anyone else in the UK isn't going to make a difference to that. What we can do is prepare for a hotter, wetter, stormier climate and higher sea levels (though not by 60m - Antarctica isn't going to melt to that extent).
“I expect a semi-dystopian future with substantial pain and suffering for the people of the global south,” said a South African scientist, who chose not to be named. “The world’s response to date is reprehensible – we live in an age of fools.”
Maybe I am just naïve, but I think part of why the Greens are growing (slowly) is because it is clear that the current consensus is not going to provide a safely habitable planet in the near or long term future. We have seen more fossil fuel usage since 2008 then prior to it. It is not a byproduct of the current system we live under that the environment is being destroyed - it is the only outcome. There is a saying in engineering "the purpose of a system is what it does". Well, if that's the case, the purpose of modern states is to destroy the world.
As for Sian Berry - this hardly seems to rank in the cynical moves of politicians, in my view. The entire point of a list system is that you aren't voting for individuals - you're voting for a party and, sure, you know who you're likely to get based on the vote, but at the end of the day you also know who will replace people in the event they drop out. Is it a good look? Of course not. But I wouldn't call it antidemocratic, nor would I compare it to the cynical actions of politicians who do material harm to people to progress their own careers. In two weeks no one will care; yet we will still have a government trying to put human beings seeking refuge in ships or on planes to Rwanda in the hope they can up their vote share by 2-3%.
If you want to sort global warming, take on Beijing, not Brighton or Bristol.
Given Chinese emissions now, and into the foreseeable future, our best bet in Britain is (1) strategic independence, or at least, co-dependence with Europe, on energy and security, and (2) mitigation of the inevitable effects that will result from large regimes that have no interest in cutting emissions and can't be pressured into it. Reducing our reliance on carbon is sensible on that count - and helpfully plays a part on global heating too - but Britain's contribution either way is pretty minimal and while setting an example is useful, more important is anticipating and reacting to the hostile actions of others.
As an island nation, the UK ultimately has more than most to lose from a failure to curb global greenhouse gas emissions. If humanity goes ahead and burns all the fossil fuels that can be exploited, then the resulting rise in global temperature will eventually melt almost all of the surface ice and raise the sea level by around 60 m. This will take a long time - hundreds of years - but once started is very difficult to stop, even if the global will can be found to do so. We need to do everything in our power to persuade the big emitters to wind down their emissions, and I doubt that backtracking on our own commitments is going to do much to bolster our arguments.
Considering that the UK has cut emissions more than any G20 member, I think we're in a pretty decent place from which to make the case.
But the reality of it is that the big emitters - and China especially: by *far* the biggest emitter - isn't interested in listening. Nor India. Nor the US, particularly, Nor Russia. Nor the Middle East. Electing Greens or anyone else in the UK isn't going to make a difference to that. What we can do is prepare for a hotter, wetter, stormier climate and higher sea levels (though not by 60m - Antarctica isn't going to melt to that extent).
Oh the US get it, and so do China. The US is spending upwards of a trillion dollars on tax incentives for green energy investment under the inflation reduction act and China is flooding the European market with cheap green tech. Unlike us and our European neighbours they actually understand the economic opportunities available from net zero.
As for the Middle East and Russia, the sooner we all get free from energy dependency on that lot (and we've already largely managed with Russia), the better.
You shouldn't stand for something you know you won't be doing - but I guess resigning immediately is better than trying to be an Assembly member when you don't have the time to give it justice?
It is blindingly obvious this was her plan all along
It is. But having stood (which she shouldn't have) it is now better to resign than do the job badly because she's focused on something else. I mean, that would be even worse, wouldn't it. Or would it? Not sure really.
If you ignore all the bad things she did then her behaviour was exemplary.
Lol - sort of. She's done the least bad thing of the two things she could have done having done a bad thing in the first place.
Yours, Mr Charitable.
Much like one of those kidnappers who charitably decides, after a three day seige, to release rather than kill their hostage. People are a bit harsh on them... in fact, they've done the least bad of the two things they could have done having done a bad thing in the first place.
Yes it's like that. Such a person would get a considerably shorter jail sentence and rightly so.
She shouldn't have stood - no question about that - but having done so she faced a choice:
(i) Take up the London job and do it with no commitment or focus or energy, prioritising Brighton but still picking up the London salary, blocking somebody else from doing it who would give it their all.
(ii) Resign immediately.
In opting for (ii) she chose the nobler course. At least arguably. If we're looking for a generous-minded take (since it's the Greens and they're on the right side of history) I think this would be it.
But still, standing for election when you know you're going to resign straightaway - that's pretty poor.
The other possibility would have been to have used the Assembly seat as a back-up plan, in case she fails to be elected as MP. Plenty of people wouldn't like they, but I think it's understandable from a human point of view, and it's not dishonest.
I really don't think you can separate the choice to stand for election from the decision to stand down when they were so clearly part of the same decision for Berry.
since it's the Greens and they're on the right side of history
LOL
Well compared to most they are. Certainly on the big one - the climate crisis.
You don't get to be good by being classified as being good. You are good by virtue of doing good.
This is a small act of the Greens doing bad.
Ok but they are well in credit for me. I'd still be voting Green if I wasn't voting Labour.
Look at how many solar and wind farms the Greens oppose. They are not in favour of tackling the climate crisis. They are in favour of someone else tackling the climate crisis, as long as it doesn't impact them. It's like saying they're appalled by the housing crisis and then blocking all new developments. It's vegan cakism.
There are many streaks of rank hypocrisy that run through the Green Party and with growing support and representation, I expect the media (and social media) will start to flag these up more prominently.
Greens are happy to have more housing; we just want it to be affordable and preferably not on the Green belt. Having private development companies come in and build 3-4 bedroom houses that will go for £400k+ each is not what will solve the housing crisis. You need small houses, council housing, and some affordable family homes in most places - which are not being offered in most developments because they are not massive profit makers.
Those new "3 bedroom" houses are small by any reasonable definition.
If you don't want to build on the so-called "green belt", where do you want to build?
There's only so many brown field sites and most of them are more interesting ecologically than green field.
High rise flats all the way?
Why would building a load of detached houses on some countryside miles away from our city centres fix the housing crisis? The evidence from the last 10 years suggests it has no effect.
Sea temperatures set record levels every single day in the last year.
It is highly depressing. Seriously starting to find it difficult to look at the children in my family and not feel heartbroken about what the future holds for them.
What do you think it holds for them? Serious question. We have challenges around climate change, but we are also good at solving them. Crop yields continue to increase. Population growth (the biggest contributor to climate change is too many humans) is going into reverse across the developed world. We are learning how to do without fossil fuels. Someone asked what the government(s) of the UK had done since 2010 - well look at how much renewable power we have now.
Its not enough yet, but there is a path. 2.5 degrees is a challenge, but the challenge is more about how we deal with human society.
One cousin has a 4 year old and a 7 year old, another cousin is expecting in August. By the time the youngest is my age, so 33 years from now, I would expect food shortages, mass migration, massive increases in severe weather events and general international unrest.
I don't think your assessment that crop yields are increasing is true - the last few years we have seen reduced crop yields due to extreme weather events caused by climate change:
We're already seeing some places hitting wet bulb temperatures for days on end in some countries - once that gets to weeks those places essentially can be designated as uninhabitable during the summer because if people cannot go outside at all, then society is unlikely to function.
And, of course, the response from many governments will be increased border fascism. The migrant crises of the last two decades will pale in comparison to those of the next two decades - and as we have seen from the UK, the US and the EU, our solution is to turn our states into fortresses and let those outside them die. And it won't stop there - as resource scarcity becomes more prominent we will see the arguments of "useless eaters" rear its head again and governments will turn on their own populations, pointing the finger most at the "undesirables".
"seeing some places hitting wet bulb temperatures"
That makes no sense, but I assume you mean a wet bulb temperature above human body temperature.
Where? Dubai? We all know Dubai is unsustainable - it doesn't take climate change to make that true.
[checks news] Elphicke defects to Labour? [refreshes notes] Fuck Right Off. She is an absolute headbanger who has said the most profoundly stupid things about migration
What are Labour thinking? Unless the plan is to ditch her for a sane candidate???
As reported on the BBC just, she is going to stand down at the general election, that is the Labour PPC already selected will contest the Dover seat.
In which case it's only absurd, and not quite criminal.
You asked: "What is Labour thinking".
The answer is to improve the chances of the Labour candidate for Dover winning that key battleground seat, by getting the endorsement of the now outgoing Conservative incumbent. And to more generally encourage others who voted Conservative in 2019 to switch their vote directly to Labour, as she has done.
I am comfortable with her defection and that of Dan Poulter given that neither have been offered a seat. It shows that they are not opportunists and that their disdain for Sunak's government is genuine.
I appreciate that those on the Corbynite far left oppose any attempt by Labour to woo those who supported the Conservatives in 2019, regardless of the need to win the general election.
On reflection, if asked I would have guessed two hours ago that if Elphicke were to defect it would have been to Reform. So it is good news for Labour - she could have given a boost to Reform in Dover (and elsewhere).
You shouldn't stand for something you know you won't be doing - but I guess resigning immediately is better than trying to be an Assembly member when you don't have the time to give it justice?
It is blindingly obvious this was her plan all along
It is. But having stood (which she shouldn't have) it is now better to resign than do the job badly because she's focused on something else. I mean, that would be even worse, wouldn't it. Or would it? Not sure really.
If you ignore all the bad things she did then her behaviour was exemplary.
Lol - sort of. She's done the least bad thing of the two things she could have done having done a bad thing in the first place.
Yours, Mr Charitable.
Much like one of those kidnappers who charitably decides, after a three day seige, to release rather than kill their hostage. People are a bit harsh on them... in fact, they've done the least bad of the two things they could have done having done a bad thing in the first place.
Yes it's like that. Such a person would get a considerably shorter jail sentence and rightly so.
She shouldn't have stood - no question about that - but having done so she faced a choice:
(i) Take up the London job and do it with no commitment or focus or energy, prioritising Brighton but still picking up the London salary, blocking somebody else from doing it who would give it their all.
(ii) Resign immediately.
In opting for (ii) she chose the nobler course. At least arguably. If we're looking for a generous-minded take (since it's the Greens and they're on the right side of history) I think this would be it.
But still, standing for election when you know you're going to resign straightaway - that's pretty poor.
The other possibility would have been to have used the Assembly seat as a back-up plan, in case she fails to be elected as MP. Plenty of people wouldn't like they, but I think it's understandable from a human point of view, and it's not dishonest.
I really don't think you can separate the choice to stand for election from the decision to stand down when they were so clearly part of the same decision for Berry.
since it's the Greens and they're on the right side of history
LOL
Well compared to most they are. Certainly on the big one - the climate crisis.
You don't get to be good by being classified as being good. You are good by virtue of doing good.
This is a small act of the Greens doing bad.
Ok but they are well in credit for me. I'd still be voting Green if I wasn't voting Labour.
Look at how many solar and wind farms the Greens oppose. They are not in favour of tackling the climate crisis. They are in favour of someone else tackling the climate crisis, as long as it doesn't impact them. It's like saying they're appalled by the housing crisis and then blocking all new developments. It's vegan cakism.
There are many streaks of rank hypocrisy that run through the Green Party and with growing support and representation, I expect the media (and social media) will start to flag these up more prominently.
Greens are happy to have more housing; we just want it to be affordable and preferably not on the Green belt. Having private development companies come in and build 3-4 bedroom houses that will go for £400k+ each is not what will solve the housing crisis. You need small houses, council housing, and some affordable family homes in most places - which are not being offered in most developments because they are not massive profit makers.
We can't avoid building on the green belt; it's part of the problem. Indeed, the whole planning system designed to tickle Nimbys fancies and price small developers out is a major part of the crisis. Anyone who rejects that isn't serious about the problem.
And no, it doesn't really matter which houses are built; what matters is how many are built. It's nothing more than supply and demand. If enough are built, 3-4 bed houses won't go for £400k, they'll go for £250k - and because there's more supply there, it'd ease demand for smaller houses, which would drop in line.
The state does not need to plan what should be built; it just needs to get out of the way and let it be built, other than in ensuring that the infrastructure goes in alongside to support the growth.
Your second paragraph is wrong - as someone who worked for a local council and housing association for 3 years, that isn't how it works any more. Housing developer profits are protected in legislation - so if they think the house price will fall they will make a bigger house or fewer of them. And councils cannot block them from doing so. We cannot build our way out of this problem when the problem is with housing being commodified rather than treated as a human need. Landlords or asset managers will just buy up the houses and rent them at high rents - knowing that other landlords have a vested interest in rents staying high. This is why we have a housing crisis and you're increasingly seeing people, like Andy Burnham (who has never been on the very left of the Labour party), accept the reality that council houses that stay in council hands are what are needed most.
I'm sorry but that's communistic waffle. Food is commodified; it's not treated as a 'human need'. Yet supermarkets deliver decent choice at affordable prices. We don't need state planning. Indeed, that's exactly what's got the country *into* the mess. We need a free market.
That said, tax reform to favour home-owners over landlords would be one very welcome development.
As for rents, yes, landlords have an interest in rents being high but again, they can only do that if there is sufficient scarcity. As soon as vacancies start rising, they'll have to start cutting rents or see places go unlet.
Landlords are already seeing places go unlet. The logic is that by having higher rents either one property can support an empty property, or that future rent will support the loss in past rent. Because people need somewhere to live and eventually people will turn up who are desperate enough to pay the price. And your food analogy is stupid - across the world food production is one of the most subsidised things around. Sure, it goes through private markets, but much food production would be completely unsustainable if various governments weren't giving money to farmers to keep growing it whilst it being cheap enough to afford (and even that is faltering with inflation and profiteering).
You shouldn't stand for something you know you won't be doing - but I guess resigning immediately is better than trying to be an Assembly member when you don't have the time to give it justice?
It is blindingly obvious this was her plan all along
It is. But having stood (which she shouldn't have) it is now better to resign than do the job badly because she's focused on something else. I mean, that would be even worse, wouldn't it. Or would it? Not sure really.
If you ignore all the bad things she did then her behaviour was exemplary.
Lol - sort of. She's done the least bad thing of the two things she could have done having done a bad thing in the first place.
Yours, Mr Charitable.
Much like one of those kidnappers who charitably decides, after a three day seige, to release rather than kill their hostage. People are a bit harsh on them... in fact, they've done the least bad of the two things they could have done having done a bad thing in the first place.
Yes it's like that. Such a person would get a considerably shorter jail sentence and rightly so.
She shouldn't have stood - no question about that - but having done so she faced a choice:
(i) Take up the London job and do it with no commitment or focus or energy, prioritising Brighton but still picking up the London salary, blocking somebody else from doing it who would give it their all.
(ii) Resign immediately.
In opting for (ii) she chose the nobler course. At least arguably. If we're looking for a generous-minded take (since it's the Greens and they're on the right side of history) I think this would be it.
But still, standing for election when you know you're going to resign straightaway - that's pretty poor.
The other possibility would have been to have used the Assembly seat as a back-up plan, in case she fails to be elected as MP. Plenty of people wouldn't like they, but I think it's understandable from a human point of view, and it's not dishonest.
I really don't think you can separate the choice to stand for election from the decision to stand down when they were so clearly part of the same decision for Berry.
since it's the Greens and they're on the right side of history
LOL
Well compared to most they are. Certainly on the big one - the climate crisis.
You don't get to be good by being classified as being good. You are good by virtue of doing good.
This is a small act of the Greens doing bad.
Ok but they are well in credit for me. I'd still be voting Green if I wasn't voting Labour.
Look at how many solar and wind farms the Greens oppose. They are not in favour of tackling the climate crisis. They are in favour of someone else tackling the climate crisis, as long as it doesn't impact them. It's like saying they're appalled by the housing crisis and then blocking all new developments. It's vegan cakism.
There are many streaks of rank hypocrisy that run through the Green Party and with growing support and representation, I expect the media (and social media) will start to flag these up more prominently.
Greens are happy to have more housing; we just want it to be affordable and preferably not on the Green belt. Having private development companies come in and build 3-4 bedroom houses that will go for £400k+ each is not what will solve the housing crisis. You need small houses, council housing, and some affordable family homes in most places - which are not being offered in most developments because they are not massive profit makers.
We can't avoid building on the green belt; it's part of the problem. Indeed, the whole planning system designed to tickle Nimbys fancies and price small developers out is a major part of the crisis. Anyone who rejects that isn't serious about the problem.
And no, it doesn't really matter which houses are built; what matters is how many are built. It's nothing more than supply and demand. If enough are built, 3-4 bed houses won't go for £400k, they'll go for £250k - and because there's more supply there, it'd ease demand for smaller houses, which would drop in line.
The state does not need to plan what should be built; it just needs to get out of the way and let it be built, other than in ensuring that the infrastructure goes in alongside to support the growth.
But the number of dwellings in England & Wales grew faster than the population (and the number of households) between 2011 and 2021. Despite what the first week of an economics degree might tell you, increased supply is not driving down prices.
And it does matter what type of housing is built - you can house more people more cheaply, and provide more efficient public services, with medium or high density.
That excellent ONS link posted by Carlotta proves that housing pressure is centred in a few economically productive parts of E&W. Elsewhere costs are not rising particularly fast. The housing crisis is a symptom of a lack of levelling up and the huge increase in landlordism under the Tories. A 28% increase in the number of people renting from 2011-2021.
Cheers. I did get past the first week of economics, thanks.
And while there are certainly a lot more factors than just a lack of housing, you can't ignore supply and demand either.
Interest rates and the returns on other investments drove money towards housing and drove house prices upwards because of 'affordability' based on a rather silly expectation of low interest rates indefinitely. Hence your landlord point. That can be addressed by making renting less profitable via the tax system but *only* if supply is increased too, otherwise you just push rents up. We're now seeing prices unwind a little but only because mortgage servicing costs - the true cost of buying - have risen even further.
I fully agree that a lack of levelling up and effective regional policy is a factor too. 100% with you on that.
But I disagree on the 'high density' thing. Planners *love* high-density because for them it links in with all sorts of other objectives, and governments like it because it protects the green belt and so appeases Nimbys. However, the people who end up living in it don't love it and generally try to move out whenever a better option is available, which leads to a lack of community and all sorts of social problems. Just build terraces and semis in the first place.
Sea temperatures set record levels every single day in the last year.
It is highly depressing. Seriously starting to find it difficult to look at the children in my family and not feel heartbroken about what the future holds for them.
What do you think it holds for them? Serious question. We have challenges around climate change, but we are also good at solving them. Crop yields continue to increase. Population growth (the biggest contributor to climate change is too many humans) is going into reverse across the developed world. We are learning how to do without fossil fuels. Someone asked what the government(s) of the UK had done since 2010 - well look at how much renewable power we have now.
Its not enough yet, but there is a path. 2.5 degrees is a challenge, but the challenge is more about how we deal with human society.
One cousin has a 4 year old and a 7 year old, another cousin is expecting in August. By the time the youngest is my age, so 33 years from now, I would expect food shortages, mass migration, massive increases in severe weather events and general international unrest.
I don't think your assessment that crop yields are increasing is true - the last few years we have seen reduced crop yields due to extreme weather events caused by climate change:
We're already seeing some places hitting wet bulb temperatures for days on end in some countries - once that gets to weeks those places essentially can be designated as uninhabitable during the summer because if people cannot go outside at all, then society is unlikely to function.
And, of course, the response from many governments will be increased border fascism. The migrant crises of the last two decades will pale in comparison to those of the next two decades - and as we have seen from the UK, the US and the EU, our solution is to turn our states into fortresses and let those outside them die. And it won't stop there - as resource scarcity becomes more prominent we will see the arguments of "useless eaters" rear its head again and governments will turn on their own populations, pointing the finger most at the "undesirables".
"seeing some places hitting wet bulb temperatures"
That makes no sense, but I assume you mean a wet bulb temperature above human body temperature.
Where? Dubai? We all know Dubai is unsustainable - it doesn't take climate change to make that true.
I mean, much of the Indian sub continent hit wet bulb temperatures above human body temperature last year - and look set to again this year.
[checks news] Elphicke defects to Labour? [refreshes notes] Fuck Right Off. She is an absolute headbanger who has said the most profoundly stupid things about migration
What are Labour thinking? Unless the plan is to ditch her for a sane candidate???
As reported on the BBC just, she is going to stand down at the general election, that is the Labour PPC already selected will contest the Dover seat.
In which case it's only absurd, and not quite criminal.
You asked: "What is Labour thinking".
The answer is to improve the chances of the Labour candidate for Dover winning that key battleground seat, by getting the endorsement of the now outgoing Conservative incumbent. And to more generally encourage others who voted Conservative in 2019 to switch their vote directly to Labour, as she has done.
I am comfortable with her defection and that of Dan Poulter given that neither have been offered a seat. It shows that they are not opportunists and that their disdain for Sunak's government is genuine.
I appreciate that those on the Corbynite far left oppose any attempt by Labour to woo those who supported the Conservatives in 2019, regardless of the need to win the general election.
On reflection, if asked I would have guessed two hours ago that if Elphicke were to defect it would have been to Reform. So it is good news for Labour - she could have given a boost to Reform in Dover (and elsewhere).
If her motivation is to damage her husband’s party, jumping to Reform might have been the better bet?
You shouldn't stand for something you know you won't be doing - but I guess resigning immediately is better than trying to be an Assembly member when you don't have the time to give it justice?
It is blindingly obvious this was her plan all along
It is. But having stood (which she shouldn't have) it is now better to resign than do the job badly because she's focused on something else. I mean, that would be even worse, wouldn't it. Or would it? Not sure really.
If you ignore all the bad things she did then her behaviour was exemplary.
Lol - sort of. She's done the least bad thing of the two things she could have done having done a bad thing in the first place.
Yours, Mr Charitable.
Much like one of those kidnappers who charitably decides, after a three day seige, to release rather than kill their hostage. People are a bit harsh on them... in fact, they've done the least bad of the two things they could have done having done a bad thing in the first place.
Yes it's like that. Such a person would get a considerably shorter jail sentence and rightly so.
She shouldn't have stood - no question about that - but having done so she faced a choice:
(i) Take up the London job and do it with no commitment or focus or energy, prioritising Brighton but still picking up the London salary, blocking somebody else from doing it who would give it their all.
(ii) Resign immediately.
In opting for (ii) she chose the nobler course. At least arguably. If we're looking for a generous-minded take (since it's the Greens and they're on the right side of history) I think this would be it.
But still, standing for election when you know you're going to resign straightaway - that's pretty poor.
The other possibility would have been to have used the Assembly seat as a back-up plan, in case she fails to be elected as MP. Plenty of people wouldn't like they, but I think it's understandable from a human point of view, and it's not dishonest.
I really don't think you can separate the choice to stand for election from the decision to stand down when they were so clearly part of the same decision for Berry.
since it's the Greens and they're on the right side of history
LOL
Well compared to most they are. Certainly on the big one - the climate crisis.
You don't get to be good by being classified as being good. You are good by virtue of doing good.
This is a small act of the Greens doing bad.
Ok but they are well in credit for me. I'd still be voting Green if I wasn't voting Labour.
Look at how many solar and wind farms the Greens oppose. They are not in favour of tackling the climate crisis. They are in favour of someone else tackling the climate crisis, as long as it doesn't impact them. It's like saying they're appalled by the housing crisis and then blocking all new developments. It's vegan cakism.
There are many streaks of rank hypocrisy that run through the Green Party and with growing support and representation, I expect the media (and social media) will start to flag these up more prominently.
Greens are happy to have more housing; we just want it to be affordable and preferably not on the Green belt. Having private development companies come in and build 3-4 bedroom houses that will go for £400k+ each is not what will solve the housing crisis. You need small houses, council housing, and some affordable family homes in most places - which are not being offered in most developments because they are not massive profit makers.
I think "Green Belt" is a bad symbol to use; it basically reflects how the country was just post-war, with a few adjustments.
Modern, relevant political parties need to do better than that in their analysis. Using lopsided insights from 70 years ago should be left to backward-looking knee jerkers such as Reform, Reform style Independents, or the Neanderthal wing of the Conservatives.
It could be argued that there is local relevance in *some* places, however.
You shouldn't stand for something you know you won't be doing - but I guess resigning immediately is better than trying to be an Assembly member when you don't have the time to give it justice?
It is blindingly obvious this was her plan all along
It is. But having stood (which she shouldn't have) it is now better to resign than do the job badly because she's focused on something else. I mean, that would be even worse, wouldn't it. Or would it? Not sure really.
If you ignore all the bad things she did then her behaviour was exemplary.
Lol - sort of. She's done the least bad thing of the two things she could have done having done a bad thing in the first place.
Yours, Mr Charitable.
Much like one of those kidnappers who charitably decides, after a three day seige, to release rather than kill their hostage. People are a bit harsh on them... in fact, they've done the least bad of the two things they could have done having done a bad thing in the first place.
Yes it's like that. Such a person would get a considerably shorter jail sentence and rightly so.
She shouldn't have stood - no question about that - but having done so she faced a choice:
(i) Take up the London job and do it with no commitment or focus or energy, prioritising Brighton but still picking up the London salary, blocking somebody else from doing it who would give it their all.
(ii) Resign immediately.
In opting for (ii) she chose the nobler course. At least arguably. If we're looking for a generous-minded take (since it's the Greens and they're on the right side of history) I think this would be it.
But still, standing for election when you know you're going to resign straightaway - that's pretty poor.
The other possibility would have been to have used the Assembly seat as a back-up plan, in case she fails to be elected as MP. Plenty of people wouldn't like they, but I think it's understandable from a human point of view, and it's not dishonest.
I really don't think you can separate the choice to stand for election from the decision to stand down when they were so clearly part of the same decision for Berry.
since it's the Greens and they're on the right side of history
LOL
Well compared to most they are. Certainly on the big one - the climate crisis.
You don't get to be good by being classified as being good. You are good by virtue of doing good.
This is a small act of the Greens doing bad.
Ok but they are well in credit for me. I'd still be voting Green if I wasn't voting Labour.
Look at how many solar and wind farms the Greens oppose. They are not in favour of tackling the climate crisis. They are in favour of someone else tackling the climate crisis, as long as it doesn't impact them. It's like saying they're appalled by the housing crisis and then blocking all new developments. It's vegan cakism.
There are many streaks of rank hypocrisy that run through the Green Party and with growing support and representation, I expect the media (and social media) will start to flag these up more prominently.
Greens are happy to have more housing; we just want it to be affordable and preferably not on the Green belt. Having private development companies come in and build 3-4 bedroom houses that will go for £400k+ each is not what will solve the housing crisis. You need small houses, council housing, and some affordable family homes in most places - which are not being offered in most developments because they are not massive profit makers.
We can't avoid building on the green belt; it's part of the problem. Indeed, the whole planning system designed to tickle Nimbys fancies and price small developers out is a major part of the crisis. Anyone who rejects that isn't serious about the problem.
And no, it doesn't really matter which houses are built; what matters is how many are built. It's nothing more than supply and demand. If enough are built, 3-4 bed houses won't go for £400k, they'll go for £250k - and because there's more supply there, it'd ease demand for smaller houses, which would drop in line.
The state does not need to plan what should be built; it just needs to get out of the way and let it be built, other than in ensuring that the infrastructure goes in alongside to support the growth.
Your second paragraph is wrong - as someone who worked for a local council and housing association for 3 years, that isn't how it works any more. Housing developer profits are protected in legislation - so if they think the house price will fall they will make a bigger house or fewer of them. And councils cannot block them from doing so. We cannot build our way out of this problem when the problem is with housing being commodified rather than treated as a human need. Landlords or asset managers will just buy up the houses and rent them at high rents - knowing that other landlords have a vested interest in rents staying high. This is why we have a housing crisis and you're increasingly seeing people, like Andy Burnham (who has never been on the very left of the Labour party), accept the reality that council houses that stay in council hands are what are needed most.
I'm sorry but that's communistic waffle. Food is commodified; it's not treated as a 'human need'. Yet supermarkets deliver decent choice at affordable prices. We don't need state planning. Indeed, that's exactly what's got the country *into* the mess. We need a free market.
That said, tax reform to favour home-owners over landlords would be one very welcome development.
As for rents, yes, landlords have an interest in rents being high but again, they can only do that if there is sufficient scarcity. As soon as vacancies start rising, they'll have to start cutting rents or see places go unlet.
Landlords are already seeing places go unlet. The logic is that by having higher rents either one property can support an empty property, or that future rent will support the loss in past rent. Because people need somewhere to live and eventually people will turn up who are desperate enough to pay the price. And your food analogy is stupid - across the world food production is one of the most subsidised things around. Sure, it goes through private markets, but much food production would be completely unsustainable if various governments weren't giving money to farmers to keep growing it whilst it being cheap enough to afford (and even that is faltering with inflation and profiteering).
Any votes for a windfall tax on landlords? Simply ‘like’ this post!
You shouldn't stand for something you know you won't be doing - but I guess resigning immediately is better than trying to be an Assembly member when you don't have the time to give it justice?
It is blindingly obvious this was her plan all along
It is. But having stood (which she shouldn't have) it is now better to resign than do the job badly because she's focused on something else. I mean, that would be even worse, wouldn't it. Or would it? Not sure really.
If you ignore all the bad things she did then her behaviour was exemplary.
Lol - sort of. She's done the least bad thing of the two things she could have done having done a bad thing in the first place.
Yours, Mr Charitable.
Much like one of those kidnappers who charitably decides, after a three day seige, to release rather than kill their hostage. People are a bit harsh on them... in fact, they've done the least bad of the two things they could have done having done a bad thing in the first place.
Yes it's like that. Such a person would get a considerably shorter jail sentence and rightly so.
She shouldn't have stood - no question about that - but having done so she faced a choice:
(i) Take up the London job and do it with no commitment or focus or energy, prioritising Brighton but still picking up the London salary, blocking somebody else from doing it who would give it their all.
(ii) Resign immediately.
In opting for (ii) she chose the nobler course. At least arguably. If we're looking for a generous-minded take (since it's the Greens and they're on the right side of history) I think this would be it.
But still, standing for election when you know you're going to resign straightaway - that's pretty poor.
The other possibility would have been to have used the Assembly seat as a back-up plan, in case she fails to be elected as MP. Plenty of people wouldn't like they, but I think it's understandable from a human point of view, and it's not dishonest.
I really don't think you can separate the choice to stand for election from the decision to stand down when they were so clearly part of the same decision for Berry.
since it's the Greens and they're on the right side of history
LOL
Well compared to most they are. Certainly on the big one - the climate crisis.
You don't get to be good by being classified as being good. You are good by virtue of doing good.
This is a small act of the Greens doing bad.
Ok but they are well in credit for me. I'd still be voting Green if I wasn't voting Labour.
Look at how many solar and wind farms the Greens oppose. They are not in favour of tackling the climate crisis. They are in favour of someone else tackling the climate crisis, as long as it doesn't impact them. It's like saying they're appalled by the housing crisis and then blocking all new developments. It's vegan cakism.
There are many streaks of rank hypocrisy that run through the Green Party and with growing support and representation, I expect the media (and social media) will start to flag these up more prominently.
Greens are happy to have more housing; we just want it to be affordable and preferably not on the Green belt. Having private development companies come in and build 3-4 bedroom houses that will go for £400k+ each is not what will solve the housing crisis. You need small houses, council housing, and some affordable family homes in most places - which are not being offered in most developments because they are not massive profit makers.
Those new "3 bedroom" houses are small by any reasonable definition.
If you don't want to build on the so-called "green belt", where do you want to build?
There's only so many brown field sites and most of them are more interesting ecologically than green field.
High rise flats all the way?
Why would building a load of detached houses on some countryside miles away from our city centres fix the housing crisis? The evidence from the last 10 years suggests it has no effect.
Population +6.3% Dwellings +8.2%
Look at places like Vienna - social high rise flats with in build commodities. State subsidised and half of the population live in one. And the people love them.
It's almost as if you actually invest in social housing rather than building shit and then leaving it to rot, or selling off what was good quality housing and building only crap to replace it (if you replace it at all), you can have good, cheap housing.
Robert F Kennedy Jnr has stated that a parasitic worm seems of have eaten some of his brain some time before 2010 in a disclosure of his medical records.
Ah, the single worm theory.
Actually, a bit more to it than a stray worm, it seems. Eating [edit] too many tuna sandwiches etc.
Robert F Kennedy Jnr has stated that a parasitic worm seems of have eaten some of his brain some time before 2010 in a disclosure of his medical records.
Comments
What will be will be. I am tired of hearing it all the time, listen to these people and you'd think we were not doing anything.
We will have to adapt somehow.
But the first half is why I’m desperate for Greens to not be opportunistic on policy and become an outlet for disgruntled trots. It should - and has shown it can - be a party that can attract support across the spectrum. There is plenty in the conservative ethos that leans green. The focus should be on environmental issues always. Not wittering around on toilets and Gaza.
Natalie Elphicke tried defecting to me first but I said no. I’m taking the trash out, not in. #PMQs
Haley has been getting Democrat voters, who have a paper primary thanks to their own party’s refusal to hold debates or hustings, to register as republicans for months now, just to provide totally meaningless results like this.
As transparent as a Met Gala dress.
https://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/25831/natalie_elphicke/dover/votes\
I don't get the impression she'll be a fan of more local authority housing.
https://miketapp.co.uk/
There's no way he's replaced, or that any CLP would go for Elphicke.
I thought Starmer seemed not too excited by this particular defection at PMQs - rather underplayed. Fuck knows what's in it for Elphicke, but we don't really want her.
However: the single biggest source of uncertainty on climate change now is not the equilibrium sensitivity or the impact of physical feedbacks. It’s the emissions scenario. That is one area where scientists really don’t know anymore than the rest of us.
Emissions have consistently undercut the central projections - we are actually succeeding in reducing them (or rather, slowing the increase - for now). When someone points to a BAU projection from the 1990s and says we haven’t warmed as much, the reason is we’ve not emitted as much. Largely for two reasons: the massive shift from coal to gas and huge increases in energy efficiency in the developed world, and the collapse of the Soviet Union in the 1999s.
Apparently she has affirmed in her statement that Starmer has accepted Brexit so we have a right wing pro Johnson Truss politician welcomed at PMQs endorsing Starmer pro Brexit stance whilst the left of Labour look on in astonishment
Every day another weird development in politics
A response to "scientists disagree on global warming".
But you're probably correct that the best way to move the dial within a single parliament would be to turbocharge the local authority housing policy which so far has only been hinted at.
On the Greens, a tiny handful of hotspots amongst 650 seats doesn't amount to a huge number of votes although 5-6% is just about plausible on a good night. I am fairly sceptical of their chances of adding to their number of MPs -it's possible but I think it is more likely they will lose representation. Brighton is going to be a close one, and I suspect the Labour MP in Bristol is too strong. Stroud and Norwich are cloud cuckoo land.
A greater sense of global urgency a decade ago might have avoided this, and the economic cost might not have been so great.
Quickly, raise the national alert level to "nobody gives a sh1t".
[refreshes notes] Fuck Right Off. She is an absolute headbanger who has said the most profoundly stupid things about migration
What are Labour thinking? Unless the plan is to ditch her for a sane candidate???
Binface! Lol
Whether it's the right thing is a different question.
Previously discussed on pb, Pedestrian v Cyclist verdict overturned. 3 year prison sentence felt wrong.
STARMER: I will give a peerage to any Tory MP who defects to us and announces they will stand down at the next election
MPs: Phwoar, yes please
Government loses a confidence vote. Labour win the election, Labour pass a law removing shithouse peerages sold to people for favours from the legislature
Job done.
Oof
1. Indiana was a semi-closed primary, so Democrats can't simply shift across to the Republican primary, they have to change registration - and there's no sign in the numbers of that happening to any great degree.
2. Even in fully closed primaries, Haley has been getting 15-20% of the vote.
Conclusions: there is a significant minority of Republican voters who dont want Trump, and the spin on this is coming from the right, not the left.
I would have thought that was one of the last redoubts of the Brexit-Conservative Party.
I have no idea how anyone could seriously claim that that pavement was a cycle path...
My point is that a projection is the product of two things: the modelling of sensitivity and feedbacks, and assumptions about emissions scenarios. There’s been much more variation in the latter than the former, because economics and demographics are much harder to predict than transient or equilibrium sensitivity.
But it does all rather depend where for that kind of thing. In safe Labour seats (such as Shaun Woodward was dropped into), it's not really a problem.
Also councillors sort of have to campaign if they are up. I remember being canvassed a long while ago in a seat where the Tories had chosen a real extremist and the councillor was a very moderate Tory who hated the bloke. He did his bit for why I should re-elect him to the Council then, as he was leaving, pushed a leaflet into my hand saying, "Oh, I'm apparently obliged to give you this from the Parliamentary candidate".
"Today, we take disagreement very personally. Not only issues that are entangled with our everyday lives, our feelings or how we see ourselves: even geopolitical issues or which political party we vote for are taken much more personally. People are less open to social connection with those who disagree with them politically. Survey after survey has shown that, increasingly, we are more likely to see those who disagree with us politically as closed-minded, selfish, hypocritical, immoral or lazy, and less likely to call them intelligent or honest. Negative feeling towards the other side, politically, has been steadily increasing since the Eighties."
https://unherd.com/2024/05/the-personal-has-consumed-the-political/
The election is for a specific list of people. OK, most voters aren't bothered by which names are on those lists, but there are names. You are voting for specific people. Garbett lost the mayoral vote and she lost in the Assembly vote: why the shenanigans to give her a seat?
The answer is to improve the chances of the Labour candidate for Dover winning that key battleground seat, by getting the endorsement of the now outgoing Conservative incumbent. And to more generally encourage others who voted Conservative in 2019 to switch their vote directly to Labour, as she has done.
I am comfortable with her defection and that of Dan Poulter given that neither have been offered a seat. It shows that they are not opportunists and that their disdain for Sunak's government is genuine.
I appreciate that those on the Corbynite far left oppose any attempt by Labour to woo those who supported the Conservatives in 2019, regardless of the need to win the general election.
Interesting
If you don't want to build on the so-called "green belt", where do you want to build?
There's only so many brown field sites and most of them are more interesting ecologically than green field.
High rise flats all the way?
It's also really complex. If there's to be a "top up" system, I'd personally have a "lucky loser" approach, so the three Green top ups in London (in this example) are the three who came closest to winning in the constituencies. That reduces party patronage - everyone is at least trying to win in a constituency with their own name on the paper.
But the reality of it is that the big emitters - and China especially: by *far* the biggest emitter - isn't interested in listening. Nor India. Nor the US, particularly, Nor Russia. Nor the Middle East. Electing Greens or anyone else in the UK isn't going to make a difference to that. What we can do is prepare for a hotter, wetter, stormier climate and higher sea levels (though not by 60m - Antarctica isn't going to melt to that extent).
Leaving that point aside, yes, you know the order of the list and can vote accordingly. However, the point is that you get a better system if you give more power to the voter with an open list approach of some sort. Vote for a list and then you get a vote from within the list.
That said, tax reform to favour home-owners over landlords would be one very welcome development.
As for rents, yes, landlords have an interest in rents being high but again, they can only do that if there is sufficient scarcity. As soon as vacancies start rising, they'll have to start cutting rents or see places go unlet.
I don't think your assessment that crop yields are increasing is true - the last few years we have seen reduced crop yields due to extreme weather events caused by climate change:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/apr/10/uk-food-production-down-record-rainfall-farmers#:~:text=Record-breaking rain in recent,an exceptionally wet 18 months.
https://www.preventionweb.net/news/crop-yields-reduced-climate-extremes-finds-study
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8211167/
We're already seeing some places hitting wet bulb temperatures for days on end in some countries - once that gets to weeks those places essentially can be designated as uninhabitable during the summer because if people cannot go outside at all, then society is unlikely to function.
And, of course, the response from many governments will be increased border fascism. The migrant crises of the last two decades will pale in comparison to those of the next two decades - and as we have seen from the UK, the US and the EU, our solution is to turn our states into fortresses and let those outside them die. And it won't stop there - as resource scarcity becomes more prominent we will see the arguments of "useless eaters" rear its head again and governments will turn on their own populations, pointing the finger most at the "undesirables".
As for the Middle East and Russia, the sooner we all get free from energy dependency on that lot (and we've already largely managed with Russia), the better.
Population +6.3%
Dwellings +8.2%
https://order-order.com/2024/05/08/listen-rachel-reeves-told-defector-elphicke-to-fk-off/
That makes no sense, but I assume you mean a wet bulb temperature above human body temperature.
Where? Dubai? We all know Dubai is unsustainable - it doesn't take climate change to make that true.
I will not do a thread on it unless Sir Keir Starmer meets me personally to confirm the defection.
And while there are certainly a lot more factors than just a lack of housing, you can't ignore supply and demand either.
Interest rates and the returns on other investments drove money towards housing and drove house prices upwards because of 'affordability' based on a rather silly expectation of low interest rates indefinitely. Hence your landlord point. That can be addressed by making renting less profitable via the tax system but *only* if supply is increased too, otherwise you just push rents up. We're now seeing prices unwind a little but only because mortgage servicing costs - the true cost of buying - have risen even further.
I fully agree that a lack of levelling up and effective regional policy is a factor too. 100% with you on that.
But I disagree on the 'high density' thing. Planners *love* high-density because for them it links in with all sorts of other objectives, and governments like it because it protects the green belt and so appeases Nimbys. However, the people who end up living in it don't love it and generally try to move out whenever a better option is available, which leads to a lack of community and all sorts of social problems. Just build terraces and semis in the first place.
Modern, relevant political parties need to do better than that in their analysis. Using lopsided insights from 70 years ago should be left to backward-looking knee jerkers such as Reform, Reform style Independents, or the Neanderthal wing of the Conservatives.
It could be argued that there is local relevance in *some* places, however.
https://www.politico.eu/article/vienna-social-housing-architecture-austria-stigma/
It's almost as if you actually invest in social housing rather than building shit and then leaving it to rot, or selling off what was good quality housing and building only crap to replace it (if you replace it at all), you can have good, cheap housing.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/08/us/rfk-jr-brain-health-memory-loss.html#:~:text=Doctors ultimately concluded that the,a trip through South Asia.