I will not do a thread on it unless Sir Keir Starmer meets me personally to confirm the defection.
The Conservative party is now down 21 MPs from those who won in 2019. I am not aware of them having an upper quota for right wing loons but is it possible that they do and it has now been exceeded squeezing her out?
Or is the solution that she wanted a party that doesn't really believe in anything so she could fit right in?
It's a tricky one. Not really seeing what is in this for Labour.
Looking at the reactions to the Elphicke sideways jump, Mr Starmer is certainly getting some shtick.
They just seem so incompatible and the quotes on record she has said about Starmer and labour are going to be played on repeat whenever she is on the media
As has been said she should have gone to Reform and you wonder why she didn't
Guido is not the most reliable political t***pot in the blogosphere. You'd be better off sticking to the more moderate, reliable and by comparison left wing ConHome.
"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."
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%
Not all green fields are miles away from the city centre but it was more the idea that you can just build "small houses" or "council housing" somewhere that I disagreed with. There's nowhere that you could possibly use that isn't already being developed (usually under protest, at that).
Converting dead shops in city centres or going high rise might help but that wasn't what was suggested.
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.
2.5 degrees isn't a 'challenge', it's a disaster.
Show your working for that. What is the disaster? Step back from the rhetoric and look at the science.
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.
The most dangerous region seems to be the Northern coast of the Gulf (i.e. largely Iran) during Southerly heatwaves. Some really quite remarkable dewpoints and nocturnal minima in recent years. But lots of other coastal regions where this is going to ramp up heat stress and mortality: other Gulf States, US Gulf coast, Southern China and Indochina, even parts of the Med.
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.
You keep claiming this and it is obviously bollocks...net migration last year was 800k, did we build 307k houses no we didn't according to the nhsbc there were 133k houses completed in 2023.
Frankly how you can make these claims with a straight face is beyond me.
“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.
Parts of the US gets it; others resolutely refuse to. China is a mixed bag but is on a mercantalist mission to leverage trade dependencies into political influence. But it emits more CO2 per head than all but 3 members of the EU (Lux, Poland, Czech) and close to twice as much as the UK - for a far lower GDP per capita.
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!
Conservatives need to embrace Georgism and learn what many of their favourite conservatives of old also believed - landlords are parasites that serve no social good. I know that toadying to landlords is deeply ingrained in the conservative view point, especially in the UK, but I can point to some otherwise absolutely loathsome conservatives who have grasped this point. For example:
Roads are made, streets are made, services are improved, electric light turns night into day, water is brought from reservoirs a hundred miles off in the mountains — all the while the landlord sits still. Every one of those improvements is affected by the labour and cost of other people and the taxpayers. To not one of these improvements does the land monopolist contribute, and yet, by every one of them the value of his land is enhanced. He renders no service to the community, he contributes nothing to the general welfare, he contributes nothing to the process from which his own enrichment is derived…The unearned increment on the land is reaped by the land monopolist in exact proportion, not to the service, but to the disservice done. — Winston Churchill, 1909
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.
"Asked last week if any of Mr. Kennedy’s health issues could compromise his fitness for the presidency, Stefanie Spear, a spokeswoman for the Kennedy campaign, told The Times, “That is a hilarious suggestion, given the competition.”"
Keep your friends close, keep your enemies closer?
well a swinney led snp wouldn't have put gay marriage on the agenda either tbf
Doesn't make sense. The legislation was passed some months before the referendum, when Mr Salmond was in charge. (Came into force a few months later, which may be the source of confusion.) Free vote, anywa, and Mr Swinney voted for.
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.
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%
You need to look at household growth not population
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.
The most dangerous region seems to be the Northern coast of the Gulf (i.e. largely Iran) during Southerly heatwaves. Some really quite remarkable dewpoints and nocturnal minima in recent years. But lots of other coastal regions where this is going to ramp up heat stress and mortality: other Gulf States, US Gulf coast, Southern China and Indochina, even parts of the Med.
Yeah, it's really frightening. We could see more than a third of people globally displaced by the end of the century:
Looking at the reactions to the Elphicke sideways jump, Mr Starmer is certainly getting some shtick.
The fact she isn't standing takes the sting out. If she was standing at the GE the look would be horrendous.
Weighing up Elphick's toxicity to the shock it gave Sunak at PMQs was probably a decent trade off. I suspect those complaining were complaining about Starmer anyway. Cynical? Absolutely, but the look on Sunak's face. He lost the plot thereafter. Jeremy Corbyn to the Tories?
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%
Not all green fields are miles away from the city centre but it was more the idea that you can just build "small houses" or "council housing" somewhere that I disagreed with. There's nowhere that you could possibly use that isn't already being developed (usually under protest, at that).
Converting dead shops in city centres or going high rise might help but that wasn't what was suggested.
I would happily see Vienna style high rises in every British city.
Guido is not the most reliable political t***pot in the blogosphere. You'd be better off sticking to the more moderate, reliable and by comparison left wing ConHome.
Wasn't Guido working for CCHQ at some point or have I misremembered that?
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.
Social high rise flats you say?
This image doesn't seem to work for me - but I have given you the example I wish to emulate - the Viennese, not the Russian.
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.
2.5 degrees isn't a 'challenge', it's a disaster.
Show your working for that. What is the disaster? Step back from the rhetoric and look at the science.
2.5 degrees dooms the Greenland Ice Sheet. You lose a lot of valuable river deltas and agricultural land as a result, plus almost all existing coastal infrastructure.
The consequences for rainfall patterns are much harder to predict, but what indications there are, are not good, particularly for Southern Europe and China. In many respects China is one of the countries whose agriculture is most vulnerable to global warming.
The numbers of climate refugees from, for example, Bangladesh, Egypt, etc, would be astronomical.
It would have been a lot cheaper to stop using fossil fuels earlier.
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%
Not all green fields are miles away from the city centre but it was more the idea that you can just build "small houses" or "council housing" somewhere that I disagreed with. There's nowhere that you could possibly use that isn't already being developed (usually under protest, at that).
Converting dead shops in city centres or going high rise might help but that wasn't what was suggested.
Indeed, the Green Belt - by definition - is adjacent to our largest (and usually highest-housing-demand) urban areas.
Keith Mason of Rugby League and Peaky Blinders fame has put out a video basically saying he's had a call from Westminster and there will be a press release out soon, which Galloway has linked and teased. Looks like he's going to be a Monty Upgrade
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.
"Asked last week if any of Mr. Kennedy’s health issues could compromise his fitness for the presidency, Stefanie Spear, a spokeswoman for the Kennedy campaign, told The Times, “That is a hilarious suggestion, given the competition.”"
Horrible though, having a worm in the brain. The most appalling cases, however, are if the worm gets a weird kind of cancer (those bladderworms being predisposed to vegetative reproduction anyway normally, I suppose). One ends up with disseminated worm all over the body.
Sir Keir has certainly secured his right flank - Ms Elphicke is a one-woman Daily Express front page. Implicit in her defection letter was the notion that Sir Keir was the man to keep our borders secure. Rishi must be livid that she's handed his one piece of juicy red meat to the bloke the Tories are desperate to portray as Mr Lawyer Leftie Soft on Immigrants. What a disaster.
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.
Did it? Can you send a link to the weather records?
I will not do a thread on it unless Sir Keir Starmer meets me personally to confirm the defection.
The Conservative party is now down 21 MPs from those who won in 2019. I am not aware of them having an upper quota for right wing loons but is it possible that they do and it has now been exceeded squeezing her out?
Or is the solution that she wanted a party that doesn't really believe in anything so she could fit right in?
It's a tricky one. Not really seeing what is in this for Labour.
She wants out of politics, has some score to settle with her (husband’s) party, and Labour is happy for the day’s extra publicity. Everyone’s happy. Except small shoe Rishi, obvs.
UJ on display - ✔ Shiny new MP in UJ scarf - ✔ Loads of books we've never read - ✔ Shiteating smiles - ✔ Alluring glimpse of flesh between sock and trouser - ✔
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!
Conservatives need to embrace Georgism and learn what many of their favourite conservatives of old also believed - landlords are parasites that serve no social good. I know that toadying to landlords is deeply ingrained in the conservative view point, especially in the UK, but I can point to some otherwise absolutely loathsome conservatives who have grasped this point. For example:
Roads are made, streets are made, services are improved, electric light turns night into day, water is brought from reservoirs a hundred miles off in the mountains — all the while the landlord sits still. Every one of those improvements is affected by the labour and cost of other people and the taxpayers. To not one of these improvements does the land monopolist contribute, and yet, by every one of them the value of his land is enhanced. He renders no service to the community, he contributes nothing to the general welfare, he contributes nothing to the process from which his own enrichment is derived…The unearned increment on the land is reaped by the land monopolist in exact proportion, not to the service, but to the disservice done. — Winston Churchill, 1909
UJ on display - ✔ Shiny new MP in UJ scarf - ✔ Loads of books we've never read - ✔ Shiteating smiles - ✔ Alluring glimpse of flesh between sock and trouser - ✔
Do they have libraries on BA flights these days? Stewardess, another Gin and Tonic please,
UJ on display - ✔ Shiny new MP in UJ scarf - ✔ Loads of books we've never read - ✔ Shiteating smiles - ✔ Alluring glimpse of flesh between sock and trouser - ✔
Do they have libraries on BA flights these days? Stewardess, another Gin and Tonic please,
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.
Did it? Can you send a link to the weather records?
Google will get you there within a matter of seconds.
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.
UJ on display - ✔ Shiny new MP in UJ scarf - ✔ Loads of books we've never read - ✔ Shiteating smiles - ✔ Alluring glimpse of flesh between sock and trouser - ✔
Do they have libraries on BA flights these days? Stewardess, another Gin and Tonic please,
Those books look exactly the kind of cardboard mockup one sees in furniture chain shops.
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.
2.5 degrees isn't a 'challenge', it's a disaster.
Show your working for that. What is the disaster? Step back from the rhetoric and look at the science.
2.5 degrees dooms the Greenland Ice Sheet. You lose a lot of valuable river deltas and agricultural land as a result, plus almost all existing coastal infrastructure.
The consequences for rainfall patterns are much harder to predict, but what indications there are, are not good, particularly for Southern Europe and China. In many respects China is one of the countries whose agriculture is most vulnerable to global warming.
The numbers of climate refugees from, for example, Bangladesh, Egypt, etc, would be astronomical.
It would have been a lot cheaper to stop using fossil fuels earlier.
Time scale for the Greenland Ice sheet? Decades? Centuries? Millenia? The issue is how we handle the effects. Some have argued we are already seeing climate refugees, although I think that was disputed. We certainly see a lot around wars. I'm certainly not claiming climate change is not a huge, huge challenge - it is, but we are already taking huge strides. More will be needed. I think I am just a more optimistic person than some.
A big shock to see Elphicke defect to Labour . And it will annoy quite a lot of people in the party . Her statement though is absolutely damning of Sunak , talk about evisceration.
UJ on display - ✔ Shiny new MP in UJ scarf - ✔ Loads of books we've never read - ✔ Shiteating smiles - ✔ Alluring glimpse of flesh between sock and trouser - ✔
Do they have libraries on BA flights these days? Stewardess, another Gin and Tonic please,
Those books look exactly the kind of cardboard mockup one sees in furniture chain shops.
Video library cases from the 80s. It's Keir's collection of Swedish Erotica
“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).
“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.
Around 60% of the U.S. gets it; the rest follow Trump.
UJ on display - ✔ Shiny new MP in UJ scarf - ✔ Loads of books we've never read - ✔ Shiteating smiles - ✔ Alluring glimpse of flesh between sock and trouser - ✔
Do they have libraries on BA flights these days? Stewardess, another Gin and Tonic please,
UJ on display - ✔ Shiny new MP in UJ scarf - ✔ Loads of books we've never read - ✔ Shiteating smiles - ✔ Alluring glimpse of flesh between sock and trouser - ✔
Do they have libraries on BA flights these days? Stewardess, another Gin and Tonic please,
Those books look exactly the kind of cardboard mockup one sees in furniture chain shops.
Presumably, as some are red and some are green, they are copies of Hansard. In which case, @Theuniondivvie was right - no one has read them!
Looking at the reactions to the Elphicke sideways jump, Mr Starmer is certainly getting some shtick.
They just seem so incompatible and the quotes on record she has said about Starmer and labour are going to be played on repeat whenever she is on the media
As has been said she should have gone to Reform and you wonder why she didn't
Hypothesis: 1. We won't hear from her again 2. She hates Sunak and decided to inflict the most damage possible 3. Her being a FUKer was predictable, dismissible. Her telling people to vote Labour? Mind Blown.
Despite the ritual dismissing by the Tories of this defection, I cannot recall a more damaging one. It gives RefUK yet another stick to beat Sunak with whilst, at the same time, completely blunting Sunak’s attacks on Labour that they don’t have plan on illegal immigration. If its purpose was to hurt Sunak and is likely to work big time.
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.
Did it? Can you send a link to the weather records?
Google will get you there within a matter of seconds.
I tried but I found none with a wet bulb that high.
Unreasonably high and not something I'd like to experience, and possibly up to 35C in some areas, yes, but not 37C across "most of the Indian sub continent".
Look, I don't disagree at all that climate change may make some places unsustainably hot, but lets be accurate at least.
Don’t worry about global warming. We can all move here. Honestly it’s lovely - sunny and green and fertile and it stays cooler in high summer and most of all it’s incredibly empty. The foresta umbra, gargano, puglia. I just walked for four and a half hours - and saw no one. Didn’t even hear a car engine. Just bird song. And skittering lizards. And woodpeckers hammering. The forest floor is scattered with pretty orchids
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.
You keep claiming this and it is obviously bollocks...net migration last year was 800k, did we build 307k houses no we didn't according to the nhsbc there were 133k houses completed in 2023.
Frankly how you can make these claims with a straight face is beyond me.
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.
You keep claiming this and it is obviously bollocks...net migration last year was 800k, did we build 307k houses no we didn't according to the nhsbc there were 133k houses completed in 2023.
Frankly how you can make these claims with a straight face is beyond me.
It's a religious issue.
If you believe immigration is good, but development is bad, something has give.
The simple option is to deny that that needs to be more development.
UJ on display - ✔ Shiny new MP in UJ scarf - ✔ Loads of books we've never read - ✔ Shiteating smiles - ✔ Alluring glimpse of flesh between sock and trouser - ✔
“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).
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.
You keep claiming this and it is obviously bollocks...net migration last year was 800k, did we build 307k houses no we didn't according to the nhsbc there were 133k houses completed in 2023.
Frankly how you can make these claims with a straight face is beyond me.
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.
You keep claiming this and it is obviously bollocks...net migration last year was 800k, did we build 307k houses no we didn't according to the nhsbc there were 133k houses completed in 2023.
Frankly how you can make these claims with a straight face is beyond me.
It's a religious issue.
If you believe immigration is good, but development is bad, something has give.
The simple option is to deny that that needs to be more development.
I'm happy with development. Give me Vienna or give me death.
Breaking news The Oxford-AstraZeneca Covid vaccine is being withdrawn worldwide, months after the pharmaceutical giant admitted for the first time in court documents that it can cause a rare and dangerous side effect
It did it’s job though, and saved thousands of lives, and allowed a return to normal life. Not a bad achievement. We have better and safer vaccines for Covid now, so it’s natural to use those.
Lol
What do you find funny about that? Are you just another anti vaxxer prick? Care to talk science?
Well it was crap , killed more than it saved by looks of it so hardly the bollox you posted
This is from the previous thread, but it's so spectacularly ignorant, that I feel it deserves resurfacing.
No, @malcolmg, the AZ Oxford Covid vaccine did not kill more people than it saved. On the contrary, it probably saved - directly - 50,000 lives, and indirectly through lower lower levels of viral shedding hundreds of thousands (or even millions) more.
Well over a billion doses of the AstraZeneca vaccine were given. And, in total, there were 80 deaths.
There's barely a drug on earth with better risk reward than that.
And it has not been withdrawn because it was unsafe. It has been withdrawn because demand for vaccines has fallen as Covid has becoming increasingly less novel, and because the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines can be manufactured much more cheaply, and are easier to customize for boosters as new variants appear.
AZ's vaccine is being removed because it cannot be sold profitably.
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.
2.5 degrees isn't a 'challenge', it's a disaster.
Show your working for that. What is the disaster? Step back from the rhetoric and look at the science.
2.5 degrees dooms the Greenland Ice Sheet. You lose a lot of valuable river deltas and agricultural land as a result, plus almost all existing coastal infrastructure.
The consequences for rainfall patterns are much harder to predict, but what indications there are, are not good, particularly for Southern Europe and China. In many respects China is one of the countries whose agriculture is most vulnerable to global warming.
The numbers of climate refugees from, for example, Bangladesh, Egypt, etc, would be astronomical.
It would have been a lot cheaper to stop using fossil fuels earlier.
Time scale for the Greenland Ice sheet? Decades? Centuries? Millenia? The issue is how we handle the effects. Some have argued we are already seeing climate refugees, although I think that was disputed. We certainly see a lot around wars. I'm certainly not claiming climate change is not a huge, huge challenge - it is, but we are already taking huge strides. More will be needed. I think I am just a more optimistic person than some.
Greenland Ice Sheet relatively slow, because it will melt in situ. Possibly a couple of thousand years to completely melt. But the Nile Delta becomes useless for agriculture because of salt long before it melts completely.
The West Antarctic Ice Sheet is a much bigger potential threat, because it could slip into the ocean very quickly. I don't think anyone has put a lower bound on the timescale, but it's much more uncertain.
There are now tentative signs in the data that the rate of warming and sea level rise have started to accelerate. And, globally, we haven't yet peaked carbon dioxide emissions.
I'm more optimistic than I was ten years ago. I think technology has made some huge strides forward. But the impacts on agriculture are very concerning. You just have to look at the disruption Russia's temporary blockade on Ukrainian grain exports created to see how vulnerable the global food market is. Even in the best case scenario it's going to be a damned close run thing.
“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.
Around 60% of the U.S. gets it; the rest follow Trump.
The funny thing is all those representatives and senators are publicly condemning the IRA (the act, not the provos) as spendthrift and green crap while privately cooking up plans for how to preserve the subsidies to their own constituents in a future GOP-controlled congress. Once you've thrown tax breaks at industry it's damned difficult to take them away again.
Surely one of the most bizarre and jaw dropping defections of recent times . It’s a bit like the Head of the Meat Eating Society joining the Vegan Society !
The vast majority of the public will just see the headline and not realize what her politics used to be .
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?
I specifically said the internal deadline, *not* for nominations. The Greens can be a bit bureaucratic about internal organisation, so it's possible the list was sorted out long beforehand. But, I don't know - it's just based on experience. Could be entirely wrong.
As to names on a list - as you say yourself, people vote for a list, not for a specific name. There may have been a few votes more or fewer because of Sian being on there, or because Zoe was on there. (For my money, the one big plus is Caroline Russell, she's excellent). Do you honestly tinhk there are many voters today thinking, if I'd known Sian was going to resign and Zoe would take her place, I wouldn't have voted Green? And this followed exactly the procedure laid down - an elected candidate resigned, and the next on the list takes the seat. Hardly shenanigans.
Honestly, I think it's cockup more than anything. And now we have Elphicke to talk about, so phew.
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.
Did it? Can you send a link to the weather records?
Google will get you there within a matter of seconds.
I tried but I found none with a wet bulb that high.
Unreasonably high and not something I'd like to experience, and possibly up to 35C in some areas, yes, but not 37C across "most of the Indian sub continent".
Look, I don't disagree at all that climate change may make some places unsustainably hot, but lets be accurate at least.
The original poster - fair enough, this is a political forum - wasn't precise enough in their definition. 35C+ is the wet bulb temperature at which the human body can no longer cool itself. So if you have that Tw and no other cooling options then you're dead.
“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.
Parts of the US gets it; others resolutely refuse to. China is a mixed bag but is on a mercantalist mission to leverage trade dependencies into political influence. But it emits more CO2 per head than all but 3 members of the EU (Lux, Poland, Czech) and close to twice as much as the UK - for a far lower GDP per capita.
Those coal fired power stations are powering the crucibles which create the silicon ingots for nearly 90% of the world's solar panel production. It's far from the ideal way to get where we need to be, but until Biden got into the White House, the U.S. had pretty well abandoned the industry.
At some point that coal will be replaced by renewable power, and the virtuous circle will have extraordinary momentum.
The US could be doing that in Texas now, had the political will been there. (Note that the oil state is already building renewables faster than any of the other 49 - because it makes economic sense even in the short term.)
“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.
Around 60% of the U.S. gets it; the rest follow Trump.
The funny thing is all those representatives and senators are publicly condemning the IRA (the act, not the provos) as spendthrift and green crap while privately cooking up plans for how to preserve the subsidies to their own constituents in a future GOP-controlled congress. Once you've thrown tax breaks at industry it's damned difficult to take them away again.
And loudly taking credit for the IRA spending in their own states. Which they voted against.
Don’t worry about global warming. We can all move here. Honestly it’s lovely - sunny and green and fertile and it stays cooler in high summer and most of all it’s incredibly empty. The foresta umbra, gargano, puglia. I just walked for four and a half hours - and saw no one. Didn’t even hear a car engine. Just bird song. And skittering lizards. And woodpeckers hammering. The forest floor is scattered with pretty orchids
Looks similar to some ancient woods I walked around in a similar season last year near Tivoli. Straight out of an academy painting. You expect to see pan with a flute and/or Roman centurions rounding the bend.
“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).
Seriously, is Rees-Mogg a possibility? Surely that would appeal to his eccentric sense of mischief and he's presumably no fan of Rishi after the Boris stuff.
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.
Wrong.
AP says that they have an open primary, with any registered voter able to choose either party on the day - and there’s also a contested primary for the GOP Governor candidate, as well as for a US Senator, all of which will be safe GOP holds come November.
It’s not a secret that Haley has attracted many Democrat donors, and they’ve been campaigning to get Democrat and Independent voters in a number of states to register as Republicans specifically to vote against Trump.
“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).
Yes, well, we're not going to burn every last lump of coal, every last drop of oil and every last bubble of gas.
The stone age did not end because the world ran out of stones.
The projection that burning all the available fossil fuel reserves will, eventually, eliminate the Antarctic ice sheet doesn't imply that you have to burn every last morsel in order for this to happen!
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.
2.5 degrees isn't a 'challenge', it's a disaster.
Show your working for that. What is the disaster? Step back from the rhetoric and look at the science.
2.5 degrees dooms the Greenland Ice Sheet. You lose a lot of valuable river deltas and agricultural land as a result, plus almost all existing coastal infrastructure.
The consequences for rainfall patterns are much harder to predict, but what indications there are, are not good, particularly for Southern Europe and China. In many respects China is one of the countries whose agriculture is most vulnerable to global warming.
The numbers of climate refugees from, for example, Bangladesh, Egypt, etc, would be astronomical.
It would have been a lot cheaper to stop using fossil fuels earlier.
Time scale for the Greenland Ice sheet? Decades? Centuries? Millenia? The issue is how we handle the effects. Some have argued we are already seeing climate refugees, although I think that was disputed. We certainly see a lot around wars. I'm certainly not claiming climate change is not a huge, huge challenge - it is, but we are already taking huge strides. More will be needed. I think I am just a more optimistic person than some.
Greenland Ice Sheet relatively slow, because it will melt in situ. Possibly a couple of thousand years to completely melt. But the Nile Delta becomes useless for agriculture because of salt long before it melts completely.
The West Antarctic Ice Sheet is a much bigger potential threat, because it could slip into the ocean very quickly. I don't think anyone has put a lower bound on the timescale, but it's much more uncertain.
There are now tentative signs in the data that the rate of warming and sea level rise have started to accelerate. And, globally, we haven't yet peaked carbon dioxide emissions.
I'm more optimistic than I was ten years ago. I think technology has made some huge strides forward. But the impacts on agriculture are very concerning. You just have to look at the disruption Russia's temporary blockade on Ukrainian grain exports created to see how vulnerable the global food market is. Even in the best case scenario it's going to be a damned close run thing.
A dispassionate look at crop yields suggests we are getting higher yields than ever. And though I will be mocked for this, increased CO2 in the atmosphere can be beneficial for plant growth. We will I am sure see shifting weather patterns, issues with low lying land. Nothing that cannot be solved, if the will is there. The harder point is we all (i.e. everyone on the planet) wants the western lifestyle - and why shouldn't they aspire to it? We love it, after all. How you do that for the global south whilst getting to net zero and dealing with potential climate refugees is the challenge.
“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.
Parts of the US gets it; others resolutely refuse to. China is a mixed bag but is on a mercantalist mission to leverage trade dependencies into political influence. But it emits more CO2 per head than all but 3 members of the EU (Lux, Poland, Czech) and close to twice as much as the UK - for a far lower GDP per capita.
Those coal fired power stations are powering the crucibles which create the silicon ingots for nearly 90% of the world's solar panel production. It's far from the ideal way to get where we need to be, but until Biden got into the White House, the U.S. had pretty well abandoned the industry.
At some point that coal will be replaced by renewable power, and the virtuous circle will have extraordinary momentum.
The US could be doing that in Texas now, had the political will been there. (Note that the oil state is already building renewables faster than any of the other 49 - because it makes economic sense even in the short term.)
In related news it's the best day of the year so far for solar generation. Over 8gw currently in GB, the largest single source. Not often that happens.
Nuclear is doing OK at the moment too (5.3gw) and has been for a month or two. Presumably a favourable phase in their maintenance schedule.
"Do you think there's a smell of death about the Conservative Party?" - @SamCoatesSky
"It certainly does have that 'end-of-days' feeling", says former Conservative adviser @claire_pearsall, as MP Natalie Elphicke defects to the Labour Party.
“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).
Emissions are going to come down because of technology, not because of government diktat. Power is - increasingly - simply cheaper from renewable sources, while batteries are less expensive, and at the same time the oil and gas we're getting is increasingly technically challenging.
In 2022, China accounted for 65% of all the new wind capacity and 51% of all solar capacity installed worldwide. It is also by far the biggest market for battery backup. Everyone talks about new Chinese coal plants, but the same logic is happening there as everywhere else: coal is being outcompeted by gas and by renewables. And then, in time, the same will happen to natural gas.
China is also - by far- the world's largest EV market. 59% of electric vehicles sold worldwide were sold in China.
The world is going green. And it's doing it for economic reasons. (Which is what makes Trump's attempts to turn the clock back so bonkers. You can't make a coal fired power plant economic, because there's no way to make the power it produces cheaper than the alternatives.)
Don’t worry about global warming. We can all move here. Honestly it’s lovely - sunny and green and fertile and it stays cooler in high summer and most of all it’s incredibly empty. The foresta umbra, gargano, puglia. I just walked for four and a half hours - and saw no one. Didn’t even hear a car engine. Just bird song. And skittering lizards. And woodpeckers hammering. The forest floor is scattered with pretty orchids
Looks similar to some ancient woods I walked around in a similar season last year near Tivoli. Straight out of an academy painting. You expect to see pan with a flute and/or Roman centurions rounding the bend.
He must be Karl Pilkington, to travel so much and learn so little.
Despite the ritual dismissing by the Tories of this defection, I cannot recall a more damaging one. It gives RefUK yet another stick to beat Sunak with whilst, at the same time, completely blunting Sunak’s attacks on Labour that they don’t have plan on illegal immigration. If its purpose was to hurt Sunak and is likely to work big time.
It seems downright vindictive - ie very much in the spirit of those right wing tories who are constantly plotting against Rishi Sunak. There's also some synergy with the thread header in that it's a politician doing something reprehensible but for no obvious personal benefit. It might help us electorally, as you say, but a person with her views has no place in Labour imo. As a party member I feel the same about this as I do about Leon's threat to vote for us. The big win is coming (and I can't wait) but our mandate is going to get a bit tainted if we're not careful.
Don’t worry about global warming. We can all move here. Honestly it’s lovely - sunny and green and fertile and it stays cooler in high summer and most of all it’s incredibly empty. The foresta umbra, gargano, puglia. I just walked for four and a half hours - and saw no one. Didn’t even hear a car engine. Just bird song. And skittering lizards. And woodpeckers hammering. The forest floor is scattered with pretty orchids
Looks similar to some ancient woods I walked around in a similar season last year near Tivoli. Straight out of an academy painting. You expect to see pan with a flute and/or Roman centurions rounding the bend.
He must be Karl Pilkington, to travel so much and learn so little.
Don’t worry about global warming. We can all move here. Honestly it’s lovely - sunny and green and fertile and it stays cooler in high summer and most of all it’s incredibly empty. The foresta umbra, gargano, puglia. I just walked for four and a half hours - and saw no one. Didn’t even hear a car engine. Just bird song. And skittering lizards. And woodpeckers hammering. The forest floor is scattered with pretty orchids
Looks similar to some ancient woods I walked around in a similar season last year near Tivoli. Straight out of an academy painting. You expect to see pan with a flute and/or Roman centurions rounding the bend.
He must be Karl Pilkington, to travel so much and learn so little.
Well, I’ve learned how to get people to pay for me to go on holiday. Unlike you. So there’s that?
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.
Wrong.
AP says that they have an open primary, with any registered voter able to choose either party on the day - and there’s also a contested primary for the GOP Governor candidate, as well as for a US Senator, all of which will be safe GOP holds come November.
It’s not a secret that Haley has attracted many Democrat donors, and they’ve been campaigning to get Democrat and Independent voters in a number of states to register as Republicans specifically to vote against Trump.
Don’t worry about global warming. We can all move here. Honestly it’s lovely - sunny and green and fertile and it stays cooler in high summer and most of all it’s incredibly empty. The foresta umbra, gargano, puglia. I just walked for four and a half hours - and saw no one. Didn’t even hear a car engine. Just bird song. And skittering lizards. And woodpeckers hammering. The forest floor is scattered with pretty orchids
Looks similar to some ancient woods I walked around in a similar season last year near Tivoli. Straight out of an academy painting. You expect to see pan with a flute and/or Roman centurions rounding the bend.
He must be Karl Pilkington, to travel so much and learn so little.
Well, I’ve learned how to get people to pay for me to go on holiday. Unlike you. So there’s that?
That’s not worth diddly squat, tbh. No-one here would volunteer for that lifestyle, beyond the first trip which we’d all enjoy for free. Spending your time abroad simply proving yourself a complete twat to everyone back home; where’s the pride in that?
“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.
Parts of the US gets it; others resolutely refuse to. China is a mixed bag but is on a mercantalist mission to leverage trade dependencies into political influence. But it emits more CO2 per head than all but 3 members of the EU (Lux, Poland, Czech) and close to twice as much as the UK - for a far lower GDP per capita.
Those coal fired power stations are powering the crucibles which create the silicon ingots for nearly 90% of the world's solar panel production. It's far from the ideal way to get where we need to be, but until Biden got into the White House, the U.S. had pretty well abandoned the industry.
At some point that coal will be replaced by renewable power, and the virtuous circle will have extraordinary momentum.
The US could be doing that in Texas now, had the political will been there. (Note that the oil state is already building renewables faster than any of the other 49 - because it makes economic sense even in the short term.)
In related news it's the best day of the year so far for solar generation. Over 8gw currently in GB, the largest single source. Not often that happens.
Nuclear is doing OK at the moment too (5.3gw) and has been for a month or two. Presumably a favourable phase in their maintenance schedule.
In just three years, battery backup has completely transformed the California electricity supply market. In 2021 they were irrelevant. Now batteries are supplying around 20% of evening demand.
There's a similar story in Texas, where batteries are working to smooth out the wind supply (and completely without subsidy or even government encouragement.) There, they are pumping out 2GW of electrical power - on average - at 8pm every evening when demand peaks.
As battery production capacity continues to grow worldwide, they're coming to the UK. And that's a disaster for gas peaking plants.
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.
2.5 degrees isn't a 'challenge', it's a disaster.
Show your working for that. What is the disaster? Step back from the rhetoric and look at the science.
2.5 degrees dooms the Greenland Ice Sheet. You lose a lot of valuable river deltas and agricultural land as a result, plus almost all existing coastal infrastructure.
The consequences for rainfall patterns are much harder to predict, but what indications there are, are not good, particularly for Southern Europe and China. In many respects China is one of the countries whose agriculture is most vulnerable to global warming.
The numbers of climate refugees from, for example, Bangladesh, Egypt, etc, would be astronomical.
It would have been a lot cheaper to stop using fossil fuels earlier.
Time scale for the Greenland Ice sheet? Decades? Centuries? Millenia? The issue is how we handle the effects. Some have argued we are already seeing climate refugees, although I think that was disputed. We certainly see a lot around wars. I'm certainly not claiming climate change is not a huge, huge challenge - it is, but we are already taking huge strides. More will be needed. I think I am just a more optimistic person than some.
Greenland Ice Sheet relatively slow, because it will melt in situ. Possibly a couple of thousand years to completely melt. But the Nile Delta becomes useless for agriculture because of salt long before it melts completely.
The West Antarctic Ice Sheet is a much bigger potential threat, because it could slip into the ocean very quickly. I don't think anyone has put a lower bound on the timescale, but it's much more uncertain.
There are now tentative signs in the data that the rate of warming and sea level rise have started to accelerate. And, globally, we haven't yet peaked carbon dioxide emissions.
I'm more optimistic than I was ten years ago. I think technology has made some huge strides forward. But the impacts on agriculture are very concerning. You just have to look at the disruption Russia's temporary blockade on Ukrainian grain exports created to see how vulnerable the global food market is. Even in the best case scenario it's going to be a damned close run thing.
A dispassionate look at crop yields suggests we are getting higher yields than ever. And though I will be mocked for this, increased CO2 in the atmosphere can be beneficial for plant growth. We will I am sure see shifting weather patterns, issues with low lying land. Nothing that cannot be solved, if the will is there. The harder point is we all (i.e. everyone on the planet) wants the western lifestyle - and why shouldn't they aspire to it? We love it, after all. How you do that for the global south whilst getting to net zero and dealing with potential climate refugees is the challenge.
I'd say the first part of the question is answering itself for some of the reasons you give. The global South can obtain Western levels of prosperity without requiring historical Western levels of resource use and waste, because we're all getting much more efficient and greener in how we produce material goods.
As for the second part it's in everyone's interest for the rest of the world to get richer quickly because then the climate refugee challenge largely fixes itself. Few people are fleeing extreme weather directly, they're usually fleeing the civil unrest and economic misery triggered or exacerbated by extreme weather.
Don’t worry about global warming. We can all move here. Honestly it’s lovely - sunny and green and fertile and it stays cooler in high summer and most of all it’s incredibly empty. The foresta umbra, gargano, puglia. I just walked for four and a half hours - and saw no one. Didn’t even hear a car engine. Just bird song. And skittering lizards. And woodpeckers hammering. The forest floor is scattered with pretty orchids
Looks similar to some ancient woods I walked around in a similar season last year near Tivoli. Straight out of an academy painting. You expect to see pan with a flute and/or Roman centurions rounding the bend.
It’s delightful. Not especially noomy but decidedly picturesque
I was told to expect a weirdly northern forest and they’re right. Walking around it feels like you could be in the Chilterns or the Forest of Dean - indeed that’s probably the closest analogy, a lush southern English woodland - except it’s emptier here. And then when you do step into the sun you realise Ah, I’m in southern Italy
“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).
Emissions are going to come down because of technology, not because of government diktat. Power is - increasingly - simply cheaper from renewable sources, while batteries are less expensive, and at the same time the oil and gas we're getting is increasingly technically challenging.
In 2022, China accounted for 65% of all the new wind capacity and 51% of all solar capacity installed worldwide. It is also by far the biggest market for battery backup. Everyone talks about new Chinese coal plants, but the same logic is happening there as everywhere else: coal is being outcompeted by gas and by renewables. And then, in time, the same will happen to natural gas.
China is also - by far- the world's largest EV market. 59% of electric vehicles sold worldwide were sold in China.
The world is going green. And it's doing it for economic reasons. (Which is what makes Trump's attempts to turn the clock back so bonkers. You can't make a coal fired power plant economic, because there's no way to make the power it produces cheaper than the alternatives.)
The world is going green, and that is encouraging, but from a climate point of view it's all happening too slowly. Despite the recent moves away from fossil fuels, the rate of increase of CO2 in the atmosphere is itself still rising. It's currently around 2.5 ppm/year , up from around 1.5 ppm/year in the 1990s.
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.
Yeah it gets hot and humid in Dubai in the summer, and no you don’t want to go outside if you can avoid it. But most of the energy is now either nuclear or solar, with almost unlimited desert into which the latter can expand.
Comments
Or is the solution that she wanted a party that doesn't really believe in anything so she could fit right in?
It's a tricky one. Not really seeing what is in this for Labour.
As has been said she should have gone to Reform and you wonder why she didn't
Converting dead shops in city centres or going high rise might help but that wasn't what was suggested.
Frankly how you can make these claims with a straight face is beyond me.
Roads are made, streets are made, services are improved, electric light turns night into day, water is brought from reservoirs a hundred miles off in the mountains — all the while the landlord sits still. Every one of those improvements is affected by the labour and cost of other people and the taxpayers. To not one of these improvements does the land monopolist contribute, and yet, by every one of them the value of his land is enhanced. He renders no service to the community, he contributes nothing to the general welfare, he contributes nothing to the process from which his own enrichment is derived…The unearned increment on the land is reaped by the land monopolist in exact proportion, not to the service, but to the disservice done.
— Winston Churchill, 1909
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-bullet_theory
Though I did enjoy your link:
"Asked last week if any of Mr. Kennedy’s health issues could compromise his fitness for the presidency, Stefanie Spear, a spokeswoman for the Kennedy campaign, told The Times, “That is a hilarious suggestion, given the competition.”"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-26041921
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panel_buildings_in_Russia#/media/File:Каменные_джунгли.jpg
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20221117-how-borders-might-change-to-cope-with-climate-migration
Weighing up Elphick's toxicity to the shock it gave Sunak at PMQs was probably a decent trade off. I suspect those complaining were complaining about Starmer anyway. Cynical? Absolutely, but the look on Sunak's face. He lost the plot thereafter. Jeremy Corbyn to the Tories?
The consequences for rainfall patterns are much harder to predict, but what indications there are, are not good, particularly for Southern Europe and China. In many respects China is one of the countries whose agriculture is most vulnerable to global warming.
The numbers of climate refugees from, for example, Bangladesh, Egypt, etc, would be astronomical.
It would have been a lot cheaper to stop using fossil fuels earlier.
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2015.18726
UJ on display - ✔
Shiny new MP in UJ scarf - ✔
Loads of books we've never read - ✔
Shiteating smiles - ✔
Alluring glimpse of flesh between sock and trouser - ✔
See also: Georgism 101: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Li_MGFRNqOE (7mins)
See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism
See also: https://www.wealtheconomics.org/introduction-2/reducing-wealth-inequality/
This was brutal
Israel apparently have no idea how many civilians they've killed. The answer is, a lot - and they need to be held to account.
https://youtu.be/rkjidE0WnAI?si=T6xaraYa14Gg3t8G
The general reaction of the Conservative party to Elphicke's defection can be summarised as:
"How can you accept that idiot into your party? SHE IS OUR IDIOT! Waaaaah."
(narrator: the actress Marina Sirtis, who went on to play Deanna Troi in ST:TNG, is British and plays the flight attendant in the advert)
1. We won't hear from her again
2. She hates Sunak and decided to inflict the most damage possible
3. Her being a FUKer was predictable, dismissible. Her telling people to vote Labour? Mind Blown.
Unreasonably high and not something I'd like to experience, and possibly up to 35C in some areas, yes, but not 37C across "most of the Indian sub continent".
Look, I don't disagree at all that climate change may make some places unsustainably hot, but lets be accurate at least.
If you believe immigration is good, but development is bad, something has give.
The simple option is to deny that that needs to be more development.
She could have been sat posed with Salmond.
The stone age did not end because the world ran out of stones.
How do we top that?
@HYUFD its your turn...
No, @malcolmg, the AZ Oxford Covid vaccine did not kill more people than it saved. On the contrary, it probably saved - directly - 50,000 lives, and indirectly through lower lower levels of viral shedding hundreds of thousands (or even millions) more.
Well over a billion doses of the AstraZeneca vaccine were given. And, in total, there were 80 deaths.
There's barely a drug on earth with better risk reward than that.
And it has not been withdrawn because it was unsafe. It has been withdrawn because demand for vaccines has fallen as Covid has becoming increasingly less novel, and because the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines can be manufactured much more cheaply, and are easier to customize for boosters as new variants appear.
AZ's vaccine is being removed because it cannot be sold profitably.
The West Antarctic Ice Sheet is a much bigger potential threat, because it could slip into the ocean very quickly. I don't think anyone has put a lower bound on the timescale, but it's much more uncertain.
There are now tentative signs in the data that the rate of warming and sea level rise have started to accelerate. And, globally, we haven't yet peaked carbon dioxide emissions.
I'm more optimistic than I was ten years ago. I think technology has made some huge strides forward. But the impacts on agriculture are very concerning. You just have to look at the disruption Russia's temporary blockade on Ukrainian grain exports created to see how vulnerable the global food market is. Even in the best case scenario it's going to be a damned close run thing.
The vast majority of the public will just see the headline and not realize what her politics used to be .
As to names on a list - as you say yourself, people vote for a list, not for a specific name. There may have been a few votes more or fewer because of Sian being on there, or because Zoe was on there. (For my money, the one big plus is Caroline Russell, she's excellent). Do you honestly tinhk there are many voters today thinking, if I'd known Sian was going to resign and Zoe would take her place, I wouldn't have voted Green? And this followed exactly the procedure laid down - an elected candidate resigned, and the next on the list takes the seat. Hardly shenanigans.
Honestly, I think it's cockup more than anything. And now we have Elphicke to talk about, so phew.
It's far from the ideal way to get where we need to be, but until Biden got into the White House, the U.S. had pretty well abandoned the industry.
At some point that coal will be replaced by renewable power, and the virtuous circle will have extraordinary momentum.
The US could be doing that in Texas now, had the political will been there. (Note that the oil state is already building renewables faster than any of the other 49 - because it makes economic sense even in the short term.)
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/OTrK_7vUGiY
Evening all! Would you mind accompanying me to the station for some routine questions.
AP says that they have an open primary, with any registered voter able to choose either party on the day - and there’s also a contested primary for the GOP Governor candidate, as well as for a US Senator, all of which will be safe GOP holds come November.
https://apnews.com/article/indiana-presidential-state-primary-biden-trump-8b75b95c95a59ec140dd72c6a77974ba
It’s not a secret that Haley has attracted many Democrat donors, and they’ve been campaigning to get Democrat and Independent voters in a number of states to register as Republicans specifically to vote against Trump.
Well Trump just won that vote 78-22, with nearly three times as many votes as Biden got in his uncontested primary, and 3/4 of the primary voters being “Republicans”.
https://edition.cnn.com/election/2024/primaries-and-caucuses/results/indiana
And the stones comment is trite nonsense.
Nuclear is doing OK at the moment too (5.3gw) and has been for a month or two. Presumably a favourable phase in their maintenance schedule.
"Do you think there's a smell of death about the Conservative Party?" -
@SamCoatesSky
"It certainly does have that 'end-of-days' feeling", says former Conservative adviser @claire_pearsall, as MP Natalie Elphicke defects to the Labour Party.
In 2022, China accounted for 65% of all the new wind capacity and 51% of all solar capacity installed worldwide. It is also by far the biggest market for battery backup. Everyone talks about new Chinese coal plants, but the same logic is happening there as everywhere else: coal is being outcompeted by gas and by renewables. And then, in time, the same will happen to natural gas.
China is also - by far- the world's largest EV market. 59% of electric vehicles sold worldwide were sold in China.
The world is going green. And it's doing it for economic reasons. (Which is what makes Trump's attempts to turn the clock back so bonkers. You can't make a coal fired power plant economic, because there's no way to make the power it produces cheaper than the alternatives.)
Then Matt Hancock
http://primarymodel.com/
In just three years, battery backup has completely transformed the California electricity supply market. In 2021 they were irrelevant. Now batteries are supplying around 20% of evening demand.
There's a similar story in Texas, where batteries are working to smooth out the wind supply (and completely without subsidy or even government encouragement.) There, they are pumping out 2GW of electrical power - on average - at 8pm every evening when demand peaks.
As battery production capacity continues to grow worldwide, they're coming to the UK. And that's a disaster for gas peaking plants.
As for the second part it's in everyone's interest for the rest of the world to get richer quickly because then the climate refugee challenge largely fixes itself. Few people are fleeing extreme weather directly, they're usually fleeing the civil unrest and economic misery triggered or exacerbated by extreme weather.
I was told to expect a weirdly northern forest and they’re right. Walking around it feels like you could be in the Chilterns or the Forest of Dean - indeed that’s probably the closest analogy, a lush southern English woodland - except it’s emptier here. And then when you do step into the sun you realise Ah, I’m in southern Italy
Vice like grips on shoulder pads, and Souls traded for diabolical favours.
🤮
Watch carefully what happens to Natalie Elphicke next.
She'll almost certainly have been offered something.