This appointed court is not a part of our constitution; it has no legitimacy, and it is effectively making up law. It needs to be binned.
Um no, it interprets the current law and generates a result.
The new Labour Government can change the law and fix the issue all the Supreme Court has done is combine the law as it currently is and come to (an admittedly unexpected) conclusion..
People like @Luckyguy1983 clearly have no understanding of our legal system whatsoever. This is how it has ALWAYS worked.
Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities. It is a complete abuse of "supreme court" powers to intervene on these spurious grounds, effectively to prevent any new oil wells being built in this country - economical self-harm which is for elected parliamentarians to inflict if they so wish, because they can be de-elected again. It's not for an appointed body to stretch its remit and make decisions like this.
They can intervene if the process was not followed properly. That’s a fundamental principle of the rule of law.
Their judgement is based upon a highly troubling interpretation of what that process should be - that's the point. The emissions involved in the set up and ongoing operation of the business were reported on in the usual way. The emissions generated subsequently were not, and I've explained why to demand that they are is deeply concerning in other posts.
I worry that this bit of the above… : “ Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities”
…Shows a confusion between parliament and the executive.
Parliament makes laws. The executive (Government or SCC) makes decisions which should be legal, but if there is doubt the Judicial system will decide
This is part of the citizenship exam. Maybe it should be taught in schools too?
That's true but the court made a mistake in its ruling.
The emissions generated by the burning of the oil should not be counted as the net difference of oil burnt as a result of the well is zero.
Why zero? Because oil is fungible and had we not extracted from this well we'd have just imported from Saudi Arabia or somewhere else the exact same amount of oil.
So the total net emissions of a fungible product is zero, unless or until we start forbidding imports.
I agree. I think there are three issues here:
1) whether courts have the right to opine on whether the executive has followed the law 2) whether the scheme stacks up and benefits outweigh costs (including from a co2 perspective - and I agree with your fungibility point) 3) whether the council / the developers adequately demonstrated (2)
I think we agree on (1) and (2) and I’m not familiar with the specific details so am not sure on (3) but I think you’re probably right and the court has made a mistake if so. However, this can be fixed by clarifying the law in parliament.
Where I do get worried is the sort of comment from LuckyGuy where he is ‘disgusted’ that the judiciary have a role in ensuring the executive follow laws made by parliament.
I am sure it has already been mentioned but good to see the FT front page on political betting - do we reckon one of the pencils from the byline is a regular here?
What amuses is me is how little money these clowns netted - at such an obvious high risk / morally questionable cost. In the three large BX bets the article covers they reckon netted around £5.6k...
Interesting that it's Betfair Exchange. Does that make a criminal charge more likely, as they could be said effectively to be offering odds themselves by participating in that market ?
Don't see that it makes any difference. Anyway I suspect most people back at whatever is on offer. The only time I offer odds is when I mistakenly try to stake more than is on offer at the odds I want
I am sure it has already been mentioned but good to see the FT front page on political betting - do we reckon one of the pencils from the byline is a regular here?
What amuses is me is how little money these clowns netted - at such an obvious high risk / morally questionable cost. In the three large BX bets the article covers they reckon netted around £5.6k.
In Macc news we now have recieved Conservative Party literature. One via Royal Mail, one via professional pamphleteer (well that or it was a Conservative volunteer who also wanted to promote his Tree Surgery business at the same time by shoving the two leaflets through the letterbox together).
Yah.
Both the political editor(who co-wrote the piece) and deputy political editor of the FT follow me on Twitter and I've met the deputy editor a few times at events.
I see both the Telegraph and the Mail are incredulous that Starmer has suggested Corbyn might have been a better Prime Minister than the worst Prime Minister in modern history. Hardly a ringing endorsement of Corbyn, but nonetheless an accurate analysis of Johnson.
I agree with Keir.
Of all the worrying things about SKS, this is the worst. Can you imagine Corbyn in charge during covid? Or for the Ukraine war? Not that it matters nowof course. We dodged that bullet.
Labour leader prefers other labour leader to corrupt incompetent shock. More at 11, sponsored by Outrage Confections.
One factor which might add to a higher turnout is the >1m voters who registered in the last week of voter registration (c. 2% of the total registered voters?). I think it's safe to assume those people who bothered to register are very likely to vote.
And there are some other technical issues behind the gradual drift upwards in turnout over recent elections, including the effective move to rolling registers, replacing the once-a-year update in November, meaning that by a spring election the register used to be six months out of date, computerisation and more cross-referencing with other databases such that the deceased and those moving away are identified more quickly, the introduction of individual registration in 2014, and the significant tightening of the rules on multiple registration, such that landlords and holiday home owners are not now commonly registered in several places across the UK. These will have reduced the denominator by eliminating people who were never going to vote anyway.
I am sure it has already been mentioned but good to see the FT front page on political betting - do we reckon one of the pencils from the byline is a regular here?
What amuses is me is how little money these clowns netted - at such an obvious high risk / morally questionable cost. In the three large BX bets the article covers they reckon netted around £5.6k.
In Macc news we now have recieved Conservative Party literature. One via Royal Mail, one via professional pamphleteer (well that or it was a Conservative volunteer who also wanted to promote his Tree Surgery business at the same time by shoving the two leaflets through the letterbox together).
I may have noted in the comments that a certain editor tipped a July election well in advance, and that maybe the accused just read PB very, very late.
I am sure it has already been mentioned but good to see the FT front page on political betting - do we reckon one of the pencils from the byline is a regular here?
What amuses is me is how little money these clowns netted - at such an obvious high risk / morally questionable cost. In the three large BX bets the article covers they reckon netted around £5.6k.
In Macc news we now have recieved Conservative Party literature. One via Royal Mail, one via professional pamphleteer (well that or it was a Conservative volunteer who also wanted to promote his Tree Surgery business at the same time by shoving the two leaflets through the letterbox together).
Yes, the sums involved are quite trivial, but such is the mundanity of political scandal. It was a campervan that destroyed Sturgeon.
Sometime it's because the numbers are relatable. I have been on committees that spend longer on discussing whether to continue to have tea or coffee at meetings* than on a million pound project. Not everyone understands the project accounts, but everyone understands tea and biscuits.
* the days of Trust tea and biscuits are sadly long gone.
@ONS Public sector net debt excluding public sector banks was provisionally estimated to be around 99.8% of the UK’s annual gross domestic product at the end of May 2024.
I am sure it has already been mentioned but good to see the FT front page on political betting - do we reckon one of the pencils from the byline is a regular here?
What amuses is me is how little money these clowns netted - at such an obvious high risk / morally questionable cost. In the three large BX bets the article covers they reckon netted around £5.6k.
In Macc news we now have recieved Conservative Party literature. One via Royal Mail, one via professional pamphleteer (well that or it was a Conservative volunteer who also wanted to promote his Tree Surgery business at the same time by shoving the two leaflets through the letterbox together).
Yes, the sums involved are quite trivial, but such is the mundanity of political scandal. It was a campervan that destroyed Sturgeon.
Sometime it's because the numbers are relatable. I have been on committees that spend longer on discussing whether to continue to have tea or coffee at meetings* than on a million pound project. Not everyone understands the project accounts, but everyone understands tea and biscuits.
* the days of Trust tea and biscuits are sadly long gone.
It was a very expensive campervan to be fair. And we have a more lower-middle class conception of corruption up here. See Matheson's iPad expenses scandal for instance.
This appointed court is not a part of our constitution; it has no legitimacy, and it is effectively making up law. It needs to be binned.
Um no, it interprets the current law and generates a result.
The new Labour Government can change the law and fix the issue all the Supreme Court has done is combine the law as it currently is and come to (an admittedly unexpected) conclusion..
People like @Luckyguy1983 clearly have no understanding of our legal system whatsoever. This is how it has ALWAYS worked.
Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities. It is a complete abuse of "supreme court" powers to intervene on these spurious grounds, effectively to prevent any new oil wells being built in this country - economical self-harm which is for elected parliamentarians to inflict if they so wish, because they can be de-elected again. It's not for an appointed body to stretch its remit and make decisions like this.
It is what happens when you pass laws with vague lofty clauses granting opaque, ill defined, rights, like the Human Rights Act, Climate Change Act and Equalities Act.
It gives m'luds free rein to make it up as they go along.
The solution is to repeal said laws, and where necessary replace them with something more defibitively written.
Meanwhile this is absolute catnip for Farage. This is precisely the sort of thing they were elected to do in 2019 and manifestly failed to.
My wife is doing a long Yougov this morning. Most of it is about sport, which is a bit of a waste of time, but in addition to the usual voting question there is a much more specific question directed at our constituency (correctly identified) with named candidates.
I have reservations about the statistical base of the Yougov panel but this may well produce useful information per constituency in due course.
Greens doing well, nobody else setting the Vale alight
Exactly. I think the scenario here is that at regular district (and to some extent county) elections round there, the LibDems and Greens don't usually campaign against each other - both Vale and OCC are "all-in" elections rather than split over several years, so there's an advantage in splitting the effort. Whereas with this being a by-election, they've both had a go. The LibDems were incumbents in Sutton Courtenay. Hence the result is a pretty straight LibDem->Green transfer.
The Greens aren't bothering in Didcot & Wantage at the General so I'd expect that vote to stick with the LibDems.
Yes, and the Tory vote looks unenthusiastic if at least holding up at its flaccid levels LD gain. Sorry Nick.
Interestingly Layla Moran tweeted that the Conservative vote on county was much higher than their canvass returns suggested, which suggests the "shy Tory" phenomenon is still active. If that's true of the General Election then it potentially blows the current expectations out of the water.
My wife is doing a long Yougov this morning. Most of it is about sport, which is a bit of a waste of time, but in addition to the usual voting question there is a much more specific question directed at our constituency (correctly identified) with named candidates.
I have reservations about the statistical base of the Yougov panel but this may well produce useful information per constituency in due course.
YouGov generally has its VI questions tacked onto the end of a long survey about some consumer topic, to protect its sample against bias from those only looking to do political surveys.
I agree entirely that often laws are passed in order to generate a headline or to pretend something is being done. Often they are vague and it’s entirely intended for the courts to sort out the consequences because Parliament can’t be bothered to do its job properly.
Vagueness in an agreement can often be beneficial to one party but I think most people can agree that vagueness in law only benefits lawyers. “Say what you mean.”
There has been an increase in laws conferring statutory duties. Since there is no headline cost, this seems awesome.
Then people wonder why £250k a head social care is a mandatory obligation on councils.
The “something must be done to show how virtuous we are” Law. The bane of modern politics.
No sign of slowing down, the manifestos have more, especially Labour's.
If we are going to be serious about actually reducing the costs of the welfare state these kind of well sounding but not really meaning forms of legislation needs to be banned and repealed. But politicians love these kinds of gestures and rarely think about the costs that accrue.
Greens doing well, nobody else setting the Vale alight
Exactly. I think the scenario here is that at regular district (and to some extent county) elections round there, the LibDems and Greens don't usually campaign against each other - both Vale and OCC are "all-in" elections rather than split over several years, so there's an advantage in splitting the effort. Whereas with this being a by-election, they've both had a go. The LibDems were incumbents in Sutton Courtenay. Hence the result is a pretty straight LibDem->Green transfer.
The Greens aren't bothering in Didcot & Wantage at the General so I'd expect that vote to stick with the LibDems.
Yes, and the Tory vote looks unenthusiastic if at least holding up at its flaccid levels LD gain. Sorry Nick.
Interestingly Layla Moran tweeted that the Conservative vote on county was much higher than their canvass returns suggested, which suggests the "shy Tory" phenomenon is still active. If that's true of the General Election then it potentially blows the current expectations out of the water.
They did lose the Mansfield seat last night but certainly their LE returns generally have been 'better than apocalypse' - Eltham last week a classic example. Given the opprobrium, shy toryism at some level is rather likely, but how much? Edit - having said that, Layla knows a good Gotv tactic when she sees one
Greens doing well, nobody else setting the Vale alight
Exactly. I think the scenario here is that at regular district (and to some extent county) elections round there, the LibDems and Greens don't usually campaign against each other - both Vale and OCC are "all-in" elections rather than split over several years, so there's an advantage in splitting the effort. Whereas with this being a by-election, they've both had a go. The LibDems were incumbents in Sutton Courtenay. Hence the result is a pretty straight LibDem->Green transfer.
The Greens aren't bothering in Didcot & Wantage at the General so I'd expect that vote to stick with the LibDems.
Yes, and the Tory vote looks unenthusiastic if at least holding up at its flaccid levels LD gain. Sorry Nick.
Interestingly Layla Moran tweeted that the Conservative vote on county was much higher than their canvass returns suggested, which suggests the "shy Tory" phenomenon is still active. If that's true of the General Election then it potentially blows the current expectations out of the water.
Yes, my overall position remains on Con seats above 100, and 24% of the vote.
Not sure it wise, perhaps just normalcy bias, but I think many will follow the @Big_G_NorthWales and cling to nurse, for fear of finding something worse.
My wife is doing a long Yougov this morning. Most of it is about sport, which is a bit of a waste of time, but in addition to the usual voting question there is a much more specific question directed at our constituency (correctly identified) with named candidates.
I have reservations about the statistical base of the Yougov panel but this may well produce useful information per constituency in due course.
I think the YouGov MRP specifically names names candidates for each constituency. It could be she's doing that.
I see both the Telegraph and the Mail are incredulous that Starmer has suggested Corbyn might have been a better Prime Minister than the worst Prime Minister in modern history. Hardly a ringing endorsement of Corbyn, but nonetheless an accurate analysis of Johnson.
I agree with Keir.
Of all the worrying things about SKS, this is the worst. Can you imagine Corbyn in charge during covid? Or for the Ukraine war? Not that it matters nowof course. We dodged that bullet.
I can't defend Corbyn's foreign policy or anti-Semitism, but I suspect he would have taken the threat of COVID more seriously than Johnson and fewer people would have died, certainly in the early stages. Johnson probably did better on vaccines than Corbyn might have. It's a close judgement call on two utterly useless politicians.
I am sure it has already been mentioned but good to see the FT front page on political betting - do we reckon one of the pencils from the byline is a regular here?
What amuses is me is how little money these clowns netted - at such an obvious high risk / morally questionable cost. In the three large BX bets the article covers they reckon netted around £5.6k.
In Macc news we now have recieved Conservative Party literature. One via Royal Mail, one via professional pamphleteer (well that or it was a Conservative volunteer who also wanted to promote his Tree Surgery business at the same time by shoving the two leaflets through the letterbox together).
I may have noted in the comments that a certain editor tipped a July election well in advance, and that maybe the accused just read PB very, very late.
I know you're playing but one was an intelligent guess the other was insider knowledge
Anecdote alert: I attended an Arts Society summer drinks party last night in a very Tory area. Demographic was 99% white, over 65, as far as I could tell.
The election came up a lot (pretty much every conversation) and my overall impression is there are a lot of bemused Tories out there, wondering where and how did it all go so spectacularly wrong.
Unanimous acceptance that the Tories have lost, of course, 'but what will replace them?'. I had people complaining about benefit scroungers, and asking me what I thought about National Service (some who clearly like the idea).
I'd guess quite a few will vote Reform, with the rest largely split Tory / LibDem.
The only logical conclusion about the National Service wheeze is that it was to stop pensioners voting Reform.
They forgot that pensioners have grandchildren and theoretical ideas about national service is one thing, their own grandchildren conscripted at a time when them ending up in a Donbass trench is not entirely inconceivable, is quite another.
The pompous centrist Tories buggered off to Lib and Lab ages ago, in part because of stuff like this.
Not all of them.
Quite, and some have buggered back. I was at peak Never vote Tory again for late Johnson and all of Truss. Probably won't vote at all but who knows? I know and quite like my Tory MP.
My wife is doing a long Yougov this morning. Most of it is about sport, which is a bit of a waste of time, but in addition to the usual voting question there is a much more specific question directed at our constituency (correctly identified) with named candidates.
I have reservations about the statistical base of the Yougov panel but this may well produce useful information per constituency in due course.
YouGov generally has its VI questions tacked onto the end of a long survey about some consumer topic, to protect its sample against bias from those only looking to do political surveys.
I see both the Telegraph and the Mail are incredulous that Starmer has suggested Corbyn might have been a better Prime Minister than the worst Prime Minister in modern history. Hardly a ringing endorsement of Corbyn, but nonetheless an accurate analysis of Johnson.
I agree with Keir.
I always thought it was a silly question when put as a hypothetical - usually by Corbyn fans who thought the obvious answer was Jezza.
As both were/are appalling in their own ways, so asking someone to choose is like asking someone to choose between asking them if they'd like to employ a cow or a giant pig as their chauffeur. You were always going to end up crashed into a ditch, you're just deciding whose mess you find more bearable along the way, or which you can wrestle the wheel from.
Even many Labour people who object to Corbyn would tend to pick him in the belief could restrain his crank views - Ukraine would've been the end of him with the PLP - and do some good on their issues. Tories would and did pick Boris in the belief that an indolent, morally reprehensible charlatan who shares their politics is at least fibbing to further policies they prefer.
You can find tortured ways of justifying one or the other but essentially someone can always point out you're insane to want to be driven around by a cow or a pig.
The more important question for both parties, and that should cause soul searching, is how on Earth they both presented the country with such an awful choice, and to make sure it never happens again.
Saw my first Tory posters last night. Nailed to a tree, so not obviously in someone's garden
They even hate their own symbol
Did you rip it down? The poster not the tree I mean.
Arguably that would be criminal damage
I'd still rip it down. I'd rip down any poster nailed into a tree to be fair. Tree comes first. Humans don't own them or any of nature for that matter.
My favourite election trips are the ones that don't go as expected - anyway me on the battle against Reform in Boston and Skegness. A Farage takeover of the Tories is starting to be treated as a done deal & I'm not so sure
My wife is doing a long Yougov this morning. Most of it is about sport, which is a bit of a waste of time, but in addition to the usual voting question there is a much more specific question directed at our constituency (correctly identified) with named candidates.
I have reservations about the statistical base of the Yougov panel but this may well produce useful information per constituency in due course.
YouGov generally has its VI questions tacked onto the end of a long survey about some consumer topic, to protect its sample against bias from those only looking to do political surveys.
She is utterly focused on her next £50, even sport doesn't put her off.
This appointed court is not a part of our constitution; it has no legitimacy, and it is effectively making up law. It needs to be binned.
Um no, it interprets the current law and generates a result.
The new Labour Government can change the law and fix the issue all the Supreme Court has done is combine the law as it currently is and come to (an admittedly unexpected) conclusion..
People like @Luckyguy1983 clearly have no understanding of our legal system whatsoever. This is how it has ALWAYS worked.
Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities. It is a complete abuse of "supreme court" powers to intervene on these spurious grounds, effectively to prevent any new oil wells being built in this country - economical self-harm which is for elected parliamentarians to inflict if they so wish, because they can be de-elected again. It's not for an appointed body to stretch its remit and make decisions like this.
It is what happens when you pass laws with vague lofty clauses granting opaque, ill defined, rights, like the Human Rights Act, Climate Change Act and Equalities Act.
It gives m'luds free rein to make it up as they go along.
The solution is to repeal said laws, and where necessary replace them with something more defibitively written.
Meanwhile this is absolute catnip for Farage. This is precisely the sort of thing they were elected to do in 2019 and manifestly failed to.
No
What you do is join in there fun. Make it obvious why such laws are a bad idea.
Start with a law saying that the anti-climate change backlash in climate protestors actions must be taken into account when sentencing them.
I see both the Telegraph and the Mail are incredulous that Starmer has suggested Corbyn might have been a better Prime Minister than the worst Prime Minister in modern history. Hardly a ringing endorsement of Corbyn, but nonetheless an accurate analysis of Johnson.
I agree with Keir.
Of all the worrying things about SKS, this is the worst. Can you imagine Corbyn in charge during covid? Or for the Ukraine war? Not that it matters nowof course. We dodged that bullet.
He is wrong on many things but is not corrupt and not dictatorial, he would have had cabinet government and not parties with spads in Downing St.
Just read Betfair T&C. Nothing to say that in placing a bet you're impliedly confirming it's on basis public domain knowledge only or anything like that.
- I'm calling from a polling company, may I ask a question? - Sure - Do you, Pyotr Sidorov, residing Moscow Suvorova 23-46, engineer at factory Dinamo, three unpaid parking tickets, one speeding violation, support Russia's Special Military Operation in Ukraine?
Greens doing well, nobody else setting the Vale alight
Exactly. I think the scenario here is that at regular district (and to some extent county) elections round there, the LibDems and Greens don't usually campaign against each other - both Vale and OCC are "all-in" elections rather than split over several years, so there's an advantage in splitting the effort. Whereas with this being a by-election, they've both had a go. The LibDems were incumbents in Sutton Courtenay. Hence the result is a pretty straight LibDem->Green transfer.
The Greens aren't bothering in Didcot & Wantage at the General so I'd expect that vote to stick with the LibDems.
Yes, and the Tory vote looks unenthusiastic if at least holding up at its flaccid levels LD gain. Sorry Nick.
Interestingly Layla Moran tweeted that the Conservative vote on county was much higher than their canvass returns suggested, which suggests the "shy Tory" phenomenon is still active. If that's true of the General Election then it potentially blows the current expectations out of the water.
Yes, my overall position remains on Con seats above 100, and 24% of the vote.
Not sure it wise, perhaps just normalcy bias, but I think many will follow the @Big_G_NorthWales and cling to nurse, for fear of finding something worse.
Thanks for the thread Foxy, but I think the turnout is going to be much less than you think. For me the 57.5% to 62.5% range beckons, with the 60-62.5% range the most likely within that. A great number of 2019 Conservatives are telling me that they are not going to vote, I don't think the late appearance of Farage will change that. The commitment among Labour voters is much more grudging than in 1997, talking to Labour voters it feels in many respects more like 2001. And of course it's widely expected to be a foregone conclusion, which as you say will drag down turnout significantly. So there are a number of factors pointing towards a lower turnout, and pretty well none pointing towards a higher one.
I have spent the past weeks doing lots of doorknocking (for Labour) and that is what I am picking up.
Are Tories saying they will stay at home to avoid admitting to someone who is identifying as from the left that they are voting farage. People have jobs and reputations and may not want to go on ze list Pike?
I am sure it has already been mentioned but good to see the FT front page on political betting - do we reckon one of the pencils from the byline is a regular here?
What amuses is me is how little money these clowns netted - at such an obvious high risk / morally questionable cost. In the three large BX bets the article covers they reckon netted around £5.6k.
In Macc news we now have recieved Conservative Party literature. One via Royal Mail, one via professional pamphleteer (well that or it was a Conservative volunteer who also wanted to promote his Tree Surgery business at the same time by shoving the two leaflets through the letterbox together).
I may have noted in the comments that a certain editor tipped a July election well in advance, and that maybe the accused just read PB very, very late.
I know you're playing but one was an intelligent guess the other was insider knowledge
MoonRabbit hasn't been seen since the insider betting story broke....
The intensity of Ukrainian drone attacks on Russia appears to be increasing. The linked tweet has a number of poor quality videos of explosions in the distance.
"Ukrainian UAVs once again were very active overnight. The Eysk airfield, the Lukoil oil depot in Volgograd and the Illinsky refinery were all attacked. Over 40 explosions were heard.
The Russian ministry of defense said it destroyed over 110 drones in several directions."
The Russian ministry of defense said its facilities heroically destroyed 100 Ukrainian drones.
This appointed court is not a part of our constitution; it has no legitimacy, and it is effectively making up law. It needs to be binned.
Um no, it interprets the current law and generates a result.
The new Labour Government can change the law and fix the issue all the Supreme Court has done is combine the law as it currently is and come to (an admittedly unexpected) conclusion..
People like @Luckyguy1983 clearly have no understanding of our legal system whatsoever. This is how it has ALWAYS worked.
Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities. It is a complete abuse of "supreme court" powers to intervene on these spurious grounds, effectively to prevent any new oil wells being built in this country - economical self-harm which is for elected parliamentarians to inflict if they so wish, because they can be de-elected again. It's not for an appointed body to stretch its remit and make decisions like this.
They can intervene if the process was not followed properly. That’s a fundamental principle of the rule of law.
Their judgement is based upon a highly troubling interpretation of what that process should be - that's the point. The emissions involved in the set up and ongoing operation of the business were reported on in the usual way. The emissions generated subsequently were not, and I've explained why to demand that they are is deeply concerning in other posts.
I worry that this bit of the above… : “ Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities”
…Shows a confusion between parliament and the executive.
Parliament makes laws. The executive (Government or SCC) makes decisions which should be legal, but if there is doubt the Judicial system will decide
This is part of the citizenship exam. Maybe it should be taught in schools too?
That's true but the court made a mistake in its ruling.
The emissions generated by the burning of the oil should not be counted as the net difference of oil burnt as a result of the well is zero.
Why zero? Because oil is fungible and had we not extracted from this well we'd have just imported from Saudi Arabia or somewhere else the exact same amount of oil.
So the total net emissions of a fungible product is zero, unless or until we start forbidding imports.
As pointed out by someone previously, the Supreme Court did not rule on the substance of the issue, but only on whether the county council had considered the substance of the issue. Which they had not.
So your objection is not relevant, or in order, and we could expect that a revised planning decision from the country council, which did consider the substance of the issue, has a high probability of concluding that it shouldn't be a bar to approving the application, for the logical reasons you set out.
That outcome would be law followed, planning approved, everyone happy (especially the lawyers!)
Not the locals. Not people who care about the countryside. Not those who want to save the planet.
but, yeah, it was about legal processes at the moment
I want to save the planet.
To do that we need to follow science, not dogma.
The science is we need to transition away from consuming oil.
We still need oil for the transition though and there is no scientific reason why OPEC-produced oil is better for the environment than domestically produced oil.
If the world needs to transition away from consuming oil, then basic logic says that the world also has to transition away from producing oil. As a country, we should therefore transition away from both producing and consuming oil as well as appropriately taxing the import of oil and oil derivatives to encourage other countries to do likewise.
No. We should maximise oil production in democratic states in order to minimise the flow of cash to despots and dictators. As long as we need it, the "west" should produce it.
My favourite election trips are the ones that don't go as expected - anyway me on the battle against Reform in Boston and Skegness. A Farage takeover of the Tories is starting to be treated as a done deal & I'm not so sure
Anecdote alert: I attended an Arts Society summer drinks party last night in a very Tory area. Demographic was 99% white, over 65, as far as I could tell.
The election came up a lot (pretty much every conversation) and my overall impression is there are a lot of bemused Tories out there, wondering where and how did it all go so spectacularly wrong.
Unanimous acceptance that the Tories have lost, of course, 'but what will replace them?'. I had people complaining about benefit scroungers, and asking me what I thought about National Service (some who clearly like the idea).
I'd guess quite a few will vote Reform, with the rest largely split Tory / LibDem.
The only logical conclusion about the National Service wheeze is that it was to stop pensioners voting Reform.
They forgot that pensioners have grandchildren and theoretical ideas about national service is one thing, their own grandchildren conscripted at a time when them ending up in a Donbass trench is not entirely inconceivable, is quite another.
I applaud the self-sacrifice but could the Army cope with an influx of over-65 year olds? Even if they're fit.
The intensity of Ukrainian drone attacks on Russia appears to be increasing. The linked tweet has a number of poor quality videos of explosions in the distance.
"Ukrainian UAVs once again were very active overnight. The Eysk airfield, the Lukoil oil depot in Volgograd and the Illinsky refinery were all attacked. Over 40 explosions were heard.
The Russian ministry of defense said it destroyed over 110 drones in several directions."
The Russian ministry of defense said its facilities heroically destroyed 100 Ukrainian drones.
The vast majority of drones (less so ballistic missiles) get shot down - certainly those targeting Ukraine. They've still done massive damage to power infrastructure.
This appointed court is not a part of our constitution; it has no legitimacy, and it is effectively making up law. It needs to be binned.
Um no, it interprets the current law and generates a result.
The new Labour Government can change the law and fix the issue all the Supreme Court has done is combine the law as it currently is and come to (an admittedly unexpected) conclusion..
People like @Luckyguy1983 clearly have no understanding of our legal system whatsoever. This is how it has ALWAYS worked.
Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities. It is a complete abuse of "supreme court" powers to intervene on these spurious grounds, effectively to prevent any new oil wells being built in this country - economical self-harm which is for elected parliamentarians to inflict if they so wish, because they can be de-elected again. It's not for an appointed body to stretch its remit and make decisions like this.
They can intervene if the process was not followed properly. That’s a fundamental principle of the rule of law.
Their judgement is based upon a highly troubling interpretation of what that process should be - that's the point. The emissions involved in the set up and ongoing operation of the business were reported on in the usual way. The emissions generated subsequently were not, and I've explained why to demand that they are is deeply concerning in other posts.
I worry that this bit of the above… : “ Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities”
…Shows a confusion between parliament and the executive.
Parliament makes laws. The executive (Government or SCC) makes decisions which should be legal, but if there is doubt the Judicial system will decide
This is part of the citizenship exam. Maybe it should be taught in schools too?
That's true but the court made a mistake in its ruling.
The emissions generated by the burning of the oil should not be counted as the net difference of oil burnt as a result of the well is zero.
Why zero? Because oil is fungible and had we not extracted from this well we'd have just imported from Saudi Arabia or somewhere else the exact same amount of oil.
So the total net emissions of a fungible product is zero, unless or until we start forbidding imports.
As pointed out by someone previously, the Supreme Court did not rule on the substance of the issue, but only on whether the county council had considered the substance of the issue. Which they had not.
So your objection is not relevant, or in order, and we could expect that a revised planning decision from the country council, which did consider the substance of the issue, has a high probability of concluding that it shouldn't be a bar to approving the application, for the logical reasons you set out.
That outcome would be law followed, planning approved, everyone happy (especially the lawyers!)
Not the locals. Not people who care about the countryside. Not those who want to save the planet.
but, yeah, it was about legal processes at the moment
I want to save the planet.
To do that we need to follow science, not dogma.
The science is we need to transition away from consuming oil.
We still need oil for the transition though and there is no scientific reason why OPEC-produced oil is better for the environment than domestically produced oil.
If the world needs to transition away from consuming oil, then basic logic says that the world also has to transition away from producing oil. As a country, we should therefore transition away from both producing and consuming oil as well as appropriately taxing the import of oil and oil derivatives to encourage other countries to do likewise.
No. We should maximise oil production in democratic states in order to minimise the flow of cash to despots and dictators. As long as we need it, the "west" should produce it.
All fossil fuel that is mined/produced will be burned. The increase in global temperature doesn't care if it is Saudi oil or US oil. By not stopping the production of oil the only remaining possible way to stop the global warming is through a very high level of carbon capture.
I’m very sad to read that Donald Sutherland has died at the age of 88. I don’t have many celebrity stories, but I do treasure my spectacular interactions with Donald in the summer of 2015. Please do read on. .. https://x.com/markmackinnon/status/1803893145920299126
This appointed court is not a part of our constitution; it has no legitimacy, and it is effectively making up law. It needs to be binned.
Um no, it interprets the current law and generates a result.
The new Labour Government can change the law and fix the issue all the Supreme Court has done is combine the law as it currently is and come to (an admittedly unexpected) conclusion..
People like @Luckyguy1983 clearly have no understanding of our legal system whatsoever. This is how it has ALWAYS worked.
Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities. It is a complete abuse of "supreme court" powers to intervene on these spurious grounds, effectively to prevent any new oil wells being built in this country - economical self-harm which is for elected parliamentarians to inflict if they so wish, because they can be de-elected again. It's not for an appointed body to stretch its remit and make decisions like this.
They can intervene if the process was not followed properly. That’s a fundamental principle of the rule of law.
Their judgement is based upon a highly troubling interpretation of what that process should be - that's the point. The emissions involved in the set up and ongoing operation of the business were reported on in the usual way. The emissions generated subsequently were not, and I've explained why to demand that they are is deeply concerning in other posts.
I worry that this bit of the above… : “ Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities”
…Shows a confusion between parliament and the executive.
Parliament makes laws. The executive (Government or SCC) makes decisions which should be legal, but if there is doubt the Judicial system will decide
This is part of the citizenship exam. Maybe it should be taught in schools too?
That's true but the court made a mistake in its ruling.
The emissions generated by the burning of the oil should not be counted as the net difference of oil burnt as a result of the well is zero.
Why zero? Because oil is fungible and had we not extracted from this well we'd have just imported from Saudi Arabia or somewhere else the exact same amount of oil.
So the total net emissions of a fungible product is zero, unless or until we start forbidding imports.
As pointed out by someone previously, the Supreme Court did not rule on the substance of the issue, but only on whether the county council had considered the substance of the issue. Which they had not.
So your objection is not relevant, or in order, and we could expect that a revised planning decision from the country council, which did consider the substance of the issue, has a high probability of concluding that it shouldn't be a bar to approving the application, for the logical reasons you set out.
That outcome would be law followed, planning approved, everyone happy (especially the lawyers!)
Not the locals. Not people who care about the countryside. Not those who want to save the planet.
but, yeah, it was about legal processes at the moment
I want to save the planet.
To do that we need to follow science, not dogma.
The science is we need to transition away from consuming oil.
We still need oil for the transition though and there is no scientific reason why OPEC-produced oil is better for the environment than domestically produced oil.
If the world needs to transition away from consuming oil, then basic logic says that the world also has to transition away from producing oil. As a country, we should therefore transition away from both producing and consuming oil as well as appropriately taxing the import of oil and oil derivatives to encourage other countries to do likewise.
No. We should maximise oil production in democratic states in order to minimise the flow of cash to despots and dictators. As long as we need it, the "west" should produce it.
All fossil fuel that is mined/produced will be burned. The increase in global temperature doesn't care if it is Saudi oil or US oil. By not stopping the production of oil the only remaining possible way to stop the global warming is through a very high level of carbon capture.
We need to stop the consumption of oil.
Production is a secondary matter.
We already consume more than we produce, which is a terrible failure. We need to work harder on reducing consumption, not production.
The turnout by age group is interesting. It would also be interesting to see a similar graph by birth (in 5 or 10 year groups). If I track through my voting history along the time axis jumping between the age groups then the turnout level seems fairly steady at around 65% (I first voted in GE 1987). I wonder how much of the changes are due to age an how much is due to DOB.
This appointed court is not a part of our constitution; it has no legitimacy, and it is effectively making up law. It needs to be binned.
Um no, it interprets the current law and generates a result.
The new Labour Government can change the law and fix the issue all the Supreme Court has done is combine the law as it currently is and come to (an admittedly unexpected) conclusion..
People like @Luckyguy1983 clearly have no understanding of our legal system whatsoever. This is how it has ALWAYS worked.
Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities. It is a complete abuse of "supreme court" powers to intervene on these spurious grounds, effectively to prevent any new oil wells being built in this country - economical self-harm which is for elected parliamentarians to inflict if they so wish, because they can be de-elected again. It's not for an appointed body to stretch its remit and make decisions like this.
They can intervene if the process was not followed properly. That’s a fundamental principle of the rule of law.
Their judgement is based upon a highly troubling interpretation of what that process should be - that's the point. The emissions involved in the set up and ongoing operation of the business were reported on in the usual way. The emissions generated subsequently were not, and I've explained why to demand that they are is deeply concerning in other posts.
I worry that this bit of the above… : “ Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities”
…Shows a confusion between parliament and the executive.
Parliament makes laws. The executive (Government or SCC) makes decisions which should be legal, but if there is doubt the Judicial system will decide
This is part of the citizenship exam. Maybe it should be taught in schools too?
That's true but the court made a mistake in its ruling.
The emissions generated by the burning of the oil should not be counted as the net difference of oil burnt as a result of the well is zero.
Why zero? Because oil is fungible and had we not extracted from this well we'd have just imported from Saudi Arabia or somewhere else the exact same amount of oil.
So the total net emissions of a fungible product is zero, unless or until we start forbidding imports.
As pointed out by someone previously, the Supreme Court did not rule on the substance of the issue, but only on whether the county council had considered the substance of the issue. Which they had not.
So your objection is not relevant, or in order, and we could expect that a revised planning decision from the country council, which did consider the substance of the issue, has a high probability of concluding that it shouldn't be a bar to approving the application, for the logical reasons you set out.
That outcome would be law followed, planning approved, everyone happy (especially the lawyers!)
Not the locals. Not people who care about the countryside. Not those who want to save the planet.
but, yeah, it was about legal processes at the moment
I want to save the planet.
To do that we need to follow science, not dogma.
The science is we need to transition away from consuming oil.
We still need oil for the transition though and there is no scientific reason why OPEC-produced oil is better for the environment than domestically produced oil.
If the world needs to transition away from consuming oil, then basic logic says that the world also has to transition away from producing oil. As a country, we should therefore transition away from both producing and consuming oil as well as appropriately taxing the import of oil and oil derivatives to encourage other countries to do likewise.
No. We should maximise oil production in democratic states in order to minimise the flow of cash to despots and dictators. As long as we need it, the "west" should produce it.
All fossil fuel that is mined/produced will be burned. The increase in global temperature doesn't care if it is Saudi oil or US oil. By not stopping the production of oil the only remaining possible way to stop the global warming is through a very high level of carbon capture.
Though the obvious mistake you make is in thinking that all oil is used as a fossil fuel. The modern world cannot function without lubricants, coolants, plastics and a thousand other hydrocarbon products.
And when that all gives you a headache you won't even be able to take an aspirin as that is made of hydrocarbons as well.
Just read Betfair T&C. Nothing to say that in placing a bet you're impliedly confirming it's on basis public domain knowledge only or anything like that.
The criminal law on cheating is quite different from the law of contract. People are supposed to know what is and is not honest. Those in the public sphere are also supposed (!) to know what is honourable. They certainly should know what looks sub-optimal on the front page of the Daily Mail.
Items in shops aren't labelled with the text of the Theft Act.
This appointed court is not a part of our constitution; it has no legitimacy, and it is effectively making up law. It needs to be binned.
Um no, it interprets the current law and generates a result.
The new Labour Government can change the law and fix the issue all the Supreme Court has done is combine the law as it currently is and come to (an admittedly unexpected) conclusion..
People like @Luckyguy1983 clearly have no understanding of our legal system whatsoever. This is how it has ALWAYS worked.
Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities. It is a complete abuse of "supreme court" powers to intervene on these spurious grounds, effectively to prevent any new oil wells being built in this country - economical self-harm which is for elected parliamentarians to inflict if they so wish, because they can be de-elected again. It's not for an appointed body to stretch its remit and make decisions like this.
They can intervene if the process was not followed properly. That’s a fundamental principle of the rule of law.
Their judgement is based upon a highly troubling interpretation of what that process should be - that's the point. The emissions involved in the set up and ongoing operation of the business were reported on in the usual way. The emissions generated subsequently were not, and I've explained why to demand that they are is deeply concerning in other posts.
I worry that this bit of the above… : “ Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities”
…Shows a confusion between parliament and the executive.
Parliament makes laws. The executive (Government or SCC) makes decisions which should be legal, but if there is doubt the Judicial system will decide
This is part of the citizenship exam. Maybe it should be taught in schools too?
That's true but the court made a mistake in its ruling.
The emissions generated by the burning of the oil should not be counted as the net difference of oil burnt as a result of the well is zero.
Why zero? Because oil is fungible and had we not extracted from this well we'd have just imported from Saudi Arabia or somewhere else the exact same amount of oil.
So the total net emissions of a fungible product is zero, unless or until we start forbidding imports.
As pointed out by someone previously, the Supreme Court did not rule on the substance of the issue, but only on whether the county council had considered the substance of the issue. Which they had not.
So your objection is not relevant, or in order, and we could expect that a revised planning decision from the country council, which did consider the substance of the issue, has a high probability of concluding that it shouldn't be a bar to approving the application, for the logical reasons you set out.
That outcome would be law followed, planning approved, everyone happy (especially the lawyers!)
Not the locals. Not people who care about the countryside. Not those who want to save the planet.
but, yeah, it was about legal processes at the moment
I want to save the planet.
To do that we need to follow science, not dogma.
The science is we need to transition away from consuming oil.
We still need oil for the transition though and there is no scientific reason why OPEC-produced oil is better for the environment than domestically produced oil.
If the world needs to transition away from consuming oil, then basic logic says that the world also has to transition away from producing oil. As a country, we should therefore transition away from both producing and consuming oil as well as appropriately taxing the import of oil and oil derivatives to encourage other countries to do likewise.
No. We should maximise oil production in democratic states in order to minimise the flow of cash to despots and dictators. As long as we need it, the "west" should produce it.
All fossil fuel that is mined/produced will be burned. The increase in global temperature doesn't care if it is Saudi oil or US oil. By not stopping the production of oil the only remaining possible way to stop the global warming is through a very high level of carbon capture.
We need to stop the consumption of oil.
Production is a secondary matter.
We already consume more than we produce, which is a terrible failure. We need to work harder on reducing consumption, not production.
Globally we won't reduce consuming oil without reducing production. A reduction in consumption leads to lower prices which drives up consumption again. It is only when the price drops so much that the production becomes more expensive per unit than selling it does.
My favourite election trips are the ones that don't go as expected - anyway me on the battle against Reform in Boston and Skegness. A Farage takeover of the Tories is starting to be treated as a done deal & I'm not so sure
The Reform/Farage takeover of the Tories is commentariat tittle-tattle and conjecture. I will be quite surprised if it happens.
As with the Andy Street centrist fantasy of a couple of months back. The idea of putting a fairly old Parliamentary newbie straight into the leadership falls apart pretty quickly.
As of now, Farage is the only character able to make his type of politics work, and he won't be around forever. Once the personality goes, what happens to the cult?
This appointed court is not a part of our constitution; it has no legitimacy, and it is effectively making up law. It needs to be binned.
Um no, it interprets the current law and generates a result.
The new Labour Government can change the law and fix the issue all the Supreme Court has done is combine the law as it currently is and come to (an admittedly unexpected) conclusion..
People like @Luckyguy1983 clearly have no understanding of our legal system whatsoever. This is how it has ALWAYS worked.
Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities. It is a complete abuse of "supreme court" powers to intervene on these spurious grounds, effectively to prevent any new oil wells being built in this country - economical self-harm which is for elected parliamentarians to inflict if they so wish, because they can be de-elected again. It's not for an appointed body to stretch its remit and make decisions like this.
They can intervene if the process was not followed properly. That’s a fundamental principle of the rule of law.
Their judgement is based upon a highly troubling interpretation of what that process should be - that's the point. The emissions involved in the set up and ongoing operation of the business were reported on in the usual way. The emissions generated subsequently were not, and I've explained why to demand that they are is deeply concerning in other posts.
I worry that this bit of the above… : “ Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities”
…Shows a confusion between parliament and the executive.
Parliament makes laws. The executive (Government or SCC) makes decisions which should be legal, but if there is doubt the Judicial system will decide
This is part of the citizenship exam. Maybe it should be taught in schools too?
That's true but the court made a mistake in its ruling.
The emissions generated by the burning of the oil should not be counted as the net difference of oil burnt as a result of the well is zero.
Why zero? Because oil is fungible and had we not extracted from this well we'd have just imported from Saudi Arabia or somewhere else the exact same amount of oil.
So the total net emissions of a fungible product is zero, unless or until we start forbidding imports.
As pointed out by someone previously, the Supreme Court did not rule on the substance of the issue, but only on whether the county council had considered the substance of the issue. Which they had not.
So your objection is not relevant, or in order, and we could expect that a revised planning decision from the country council, which did consider the substance of the issue, has a high probability of concluding that it shouldn't be a bar to approving the application, for the logical reasons you set out.
That outcome would be law followed, planning approved, everyone happy (especially the lawyers!)
Not the locals. Not people who care about the countryside. Not those who want to save the planet.
but, yeah, it was about legal processes at the moment
I want to save the planet.
To do that we need to follow science, not dogma.
The science is we need to transition away from consuming oil.
We still need oil for the transition though and there is no scientific reason why OPEC-produced oil is better for the environment than domestically produced oil.
If the world needs to transition away from consuming oil, then basic logic says that the world also has to transition away from producing oil. As a country, we should therefore transition away from both producing and consuming oil as well as appropriately taxing the import of oil and oil derivatives to encourage other countries to do likewise.
No. We should maximise oil production in democratic states in order to minimise the flow of cash to despots and dictators. As long as we need it, the "west" should produce it.
All fossil fuel that is mined/produced will be burned. The increase in global temperature doesn't care if it is Saudi oil or US oil. By not stopping the production of oil the only remaining possible way to stop the global warming is through a very high level of carbon capture.
We need to stop the consumption of oil.
Production is a secondary matter.
We already consume more than we produce, which is a terrible failure. We need to work harder on reducing consumption, not production.
Worth a look from the Guardian. Expect more as reality dawns. It's already too late and has been for some time if the science is correct....
I see both the Telegraph and the Mail are incredulous that Starmer has suggested Corbyn might have been a better Prime Minister than the worst Prime Minister in modern history. Hardly a ringing endorsement of Corbyn, but nonetheless an accurate analysis of Johnson.
I agree with Keir.
In light of Corbyn’s views on foreign affairs, I do not.
I thought for a while, I can't argue with that, and then I reminded myself of a Foreign Secretary who shook off his minders to attend a party in Italy hosted by a senior KGB Officer.
My favourite election trips are the ones that don't go as expected - anyway me on the battle against Reform in Boston and Skegness. A Farage takeover of the Tories is starting to be treated as a done deal & I'm not so sure
The Reform/Farage takeover of the Tories is commentariat tittle-tattle and conjecture. I will be quite surprised if it happens.
As with the Andy Street centrist fantasy of a couple of months back. The idea of putting a fairly old Parliamentary newbie straight into the leadership falls apart pretty quickly.
As of now, Farage is the only character able to make his type of politics work, and he won't be around forever. Once the personality goes, what happens to the cult?
Barring medical emergencies, Farage will be pursuing political power - probably a futile enterprise, but sustained by his brand of political grift - for the next decade.
On the header. Apparently quite a few people inside the Tory campaign already know what the turnout will be, and have placed substantial bets accordingly.
The turnout by age group is interesting. It would also be interesting to see a similar graph by birth (in 5 or 10 year groups). If I track through my voting history along the time axis jumping between the age groups then the turnout level seems fairly steady at around 65% (I first voted in GE 1987). I wonder how much of the changes are due to age an how much is due to DOB.
You'd expect reported turnout of the youngest age group to be significantly lower, anyway, because somewhere around half of the 18-22 age group are students and very many students appear on the UK electoral register twice, at home and at uni, but can only turn out to vote once. Plus the young have greater mobility and are more likely to live in rented accommodation for relatively short periods, and can easily appear on the register at both old and new address.
This appointed court is not a part of our constitution; it has no legitimacy, and it is effectively making up law. It needs to be binned.
Um no, it interprets the current law and generates a result.
The new Labour Government can change the law and fix the issue all the Supreme Court has done is combine the law as it currently is and come to (an admittedly unexpected) conclusion..
People like @Luckyguy1983 clearly have no understanding of our legal system whatsoever. This is how it has ALWAYS worked.
Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities. It is a complete abuse of "supreme court" powers to intervene on these spurious grounds, effectively to prevent any new oil wells being built in this country - economical self-harm which is for elected parliamentarians to inflict if they so wish, because they can be de-elected again. It's not for an appointed body to stretch its remit and make decisions like this.
They can intervene if the process was not followed properly. That’s a fundamental principle of the rule of law.
Their judgement is based upon a highly troubling interpretation of what that process should be - that's the point. The emissions involved in the set up and ongoing operation of the business were reported on in the usual way. The emissions generated subsequently were not, and I've explained why to demand that they are is deeply concerning in other posts.
I worry that this bit of the above… : “ Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities”
…Shows a confusion between parliament and the executive.
Parliament makes laws. The executive (Government or SCC) makes decisions which should be legal, but if there is doubt the Judicial system will decide
This is part of the citizenship exam. Maybe it should be taught in schools too?
That's true but the court made a mistake in its ruling.
The emissions generated by the burning of the oil should not be counted as the net difference of oil burnt as a result of the well is zero.
Why zero? Because oil is fungible and had we not extracted from this well we'd have just imported from Saudi Arabia or somewhere else the exact same amount of oil.
So the total net emissions of a fungible product is zero, unless or until we start forbidding imports.
As pointed out by someone previously, the Supreme Court did not rule on the substance of the issue, but only on whether the county council had considered the substance of the issue. Which they had not.
So your objection is not relevant, or in order, and we could expect that a revised planning decision from the country council, which did consider the substance of the issue, has a high probability of concluding that it shouldn't be a bar to approving the application, for the logical reasons you set out.
That outcome would be law followed, planning approved, everyone happy (especially the lawyers!)
Not the locals. Not people who care about the countryside. Not those who want to save the planet.
but, yeah, it was about legal processes at the moment
I want to save the planet.
To do that we need to follow science, not dogma.
The science is we need to transition away from consuming oil.
We still need oil for the transition though and there is no scientific reason why OPEC-produced oil is better for the environment than domestically produced oil.
If the world needs to transition away from consuming oil, then basic logic says that the world also has to transition away from producing oil. As a country, we should therefore transition away from both producing and consuming oil as well as appropriately taxing the import of oil and oil derivatives to encourage other countries to do likewise.
No. We should maximise oil production in democratic states in order to minimise the flow of cash to despots and dictators. As long as we need it, the "west" should produce it.
All fossil fuel that is mined/produced will be burned. The increase in global temperature doesn't care if it is Saudi oil or US oil. By not stopping the production of oil the only remaining possible way to stop the global warming is through a very high level of carbon capture.
We need to stop the consumption of oil.
Production is a secondary matter.
We already consume more than we produce, which is a terrible failure. We need to work harder on reducing consumption, not production.
This appointed court is not a part of our constitution; it has no legitimacy, and it is effectively making up law. It needs to be binned.
Um no, it interprets the current law and generates a result.
The new Labour Government can change the law and fix the issue all the Supreme Court has done is combine the law as it currently is and come to (an admittedly unexpected) conclusion..
People like @Luckyguy1983 clearly have no understanding of our legal system whatsoever. This is how it has ALWAYS worked.
Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities. It is a complete abuse of "supreme court" powers to intervene on these spurious grounds, effectively to prevent any new oil wells being built in this country - economical self-harm which is for elected parliamentarians to inflict if they so wish, because they can be de-elected again. It's not for an appointed body to stretch its remit and make decisions like this.
They can intervene if the process was not followed properly. That’s a fundamental principle of the rule of law.
Their judgement is based upon a highly troubling interpretation of what that process should be - that's the point. The emissions involved in the set up and ongoing operation of the business were reported on in the usual way. The emissions generated subsequently were not, and I've explained why to demand that they are is deeply concerning in other posts.
I worry that this bit of the above… : “ Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities”
…Shows a confusion between parliament and the executive.
Parliament makes laws. The executive (Government or SCC) makes decisions which should be legal, but if there is doubt the Judicial system will decide
This is part of the citizenship exam. Maybe it should be taught in schools too?
That's true but the court made a mistake in its ruling.
The emissions generated by the burning of the oil should not be counted as the net difference of oil burnt as a result of the well is zero.
Why zero? Because oil is fungible and had we not extracted from this well we'd have just imported from Saudi Arabia or somewhere else the exact same amount of oil.
So the total net emissions of a fungible product is zero, unless or until we start forbidding imports.
As pointed out by someone previously, the Supreme Court did not rule on the substance of the issue, but only on whether the county council had considered the substance of the issue. Which they had not.
So your objection is not relevant, or in order, and we could expect that a revised planning decision from the country council, which did consider the substance of the issue, has a high probability of concluding that it shouldn't be a bar to approving the application, for the logical reasons you set out.
That outcome would be law followed, planning approved, everyone happy (especially the lawyers!)
Not the locals. Not people who care about the countryside. Not those who want to save the planet.
but, yeah, it was about legal processes at the moment
I want to save the planet.
To do that we need to follow science, not dogma.
The science is we need to transition away from consuming oil.
We still need oil for the transition though and there is no scientific reason why OPEC-produced oil is better for the environment than domestically produced oil.
If the world needs to transition away from consuming oil, then basic logic says that the world also has to transition away from producing oil. As a country, we should therefore transition away from both producing and consuming oil as well as appropriately taxing the import of oil and oil derivatives to encourage other countries to do likewise.
No. We should maximise oil production in democratic states in order to minimise the flow of cash to despots and dictators. As long as we need it, the "west" should produce it.
All fossil fuel that is mined/produced will be burned. The increase in global temperature doesn't care if it is Saudi oil or US oil. By not stopping the production of oil the only remaining possible way to stop the global warming is through a very high level of carbon capture.
We need to stop the consumption of oil.
Production is a secondary matter.
We already consume more than we produce, which is a terrible failure. We need to work harder on reducing consumption, not production.
Globally we won't reduce consuming oil without reducing production. A reduction in consumption leads to lower prices which drives up consumption again. It is only when the price drops so much that the production becomes more expensive per unit than selling it does.
You are wrong, yes we will.
I changed my car last year. My old car was costing me ~£80 a tank of petrol which would last me 350 miles. My new car costs me ~£40 a tank of petrol which lasts me 350 miles. Does that mean I'm driving twice as many miles as I was to keep my expenditure the same? Of course it doesn't!
My oil consumption has come down by roughly 50% in that vehicle, not because of changes to production globally (of which OPEC of course adapts to keep prices where it wants it) but because I've adopted a technological change.
My old car was just petrol, my new one is not even a plug in, just a self-charging hybrid, that gets over twice the miles to the gallon as the old one.
We are seeing technological change like that on a micro and macro scale all over the planet. Over half my oil consumption has gone in my vehicle in one step and my intention is my next vehicle will be a net zero pure electric one, its just that's too expensive today.
Clean technology adaptation is the only way to solve the mess and clean the environment.
Just read Betfair T&C. Nothing to say that in placing a bet you're impliedly confirming it's on basis public domain knowledge only or anything like that.
The criminal law on cheating is quite different from the law of contract. People are supposed to know what is and is not honest. Those in the public sphere are also supposed (!) to know what is honourable. They certainly should know what looks sub-optimal on the front page of the Daily Mail.
Items in shops aren't labelled with the text of the Theft Act.
My (definitely non expert) view of this is that the law regarding the particular facts of these cases isn't entirely clear. The matter is almost certainly not going to be resolved before the election.
This appointed court is not a part of our constitution; it has no legitimacy, and it is effectively making up law. It needs to be binned.
Um no, it interprets the current law and generates a result.
The new Labour Government can change the law and fix the issue all the Supreme Court has done is combine the law as it currently is and come to (an admittedly unexpected) conclusion..
People like @Luckyguy1983 clearly have no understanding of our legal system whatsoever. This is how it has ALWAYS worked.
Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities. It is a complete abuse of "supreme court" powers to intervene on these spurious grounds, effectively to prevent any new oil wells being built in this country - economical self-harm which is for elected parliamentarians to inflict if they so wish, because they can be de-elected again. It's not for an appointed body to stretch its remit and make decisions like this.
They can intervene if the process was not followed properly. That’s a fundamental principle of the rule of law.
Their judgement is based upon a highly troubling interpretation of what that process should be - that's the point. The emissions involved in the set up and ongoing operation of the business were reported on in the usual way. The emissions generated subsequently were not, and I've explained why to demand that they are is deeply concerning in other posts.
I worry that this bit of the above… : “ Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities”
…Shows a confusion between parliament and the executive.
Parliament makes laws. The executive (Government or SCC) makes decisions which should be legal, but if there is doubt the Judicial system will decide
This is part of the citizenship exam. Maybe it should be taught in schools too?
That's true but the court made a mistake in its ruling.
The emissions generated by the burning of the oil should not be counted as the net difference of oil burnt as a result of the well is zero.
Why zero? Because oil is fungible and had we not extracted from this well we'd have just imported from Saudi Arabia or somewhere else the exact same amount of oil.
So the total net emissions of a fungible product is zero, unless or until we start forbidding imports.
As pointed out by someone previously, the Supreme Court did not rule on the substance of the issue, but only on whether the county council had considered the substance of the issue. Which they had not.
So your objection is not relevant, or in order, and we could expect that a revised planning decision from the country council, which did consider the substance of the issue, has a high probability of concluding that it shouldn't be a bar to approving the application, for the logical reasons you set out.
That outcome would be law followed, planning approved, everyone happy (especially the lawyers!)
Not the locals. Not people who care about the countryside. Not those who want to save the planet.
but, yeah, it was about legal processes at the moment
I want to save the planet.
To do that we need to follow science, not dogma.
The science is we need to transition away from consuming oil.
We still need oil for the transition though and there is no scientific reason why OPEC-produced oil is better for the environment than domestically produced oil.
If the world needs to transition away from consuming oil, then basic logic says that the world also has to transition away from producing oil. As a country, we should therefore transition away from both producing and consuming oil as well as appropriately taxing the import of oil and oil derivatives to encourage other countries to do likewise.
No. We should maximise oil production in democratic states in order to minimise the flow of cash to despots and dictators. As long as we need it, the "west" should produce it.
All fossil fuel that is mined/produced will be burned. The increase in global temperature doesn't care if it is Saudi oil or US oil. By not stopping the production of oil the only remaining possible way to stop the global warming is through a very high level of carbon capture.
We need to stop the consumption of oil.
Production is a secondary matter.
We already consume more than we produce, which is a terrible failure. We need to work harder on reducing consumption, not production.
Globally we won't reduce consuming oil without reducing production. A reduction in consumption leads to lower prices which drives up consumption again. It is only when the price drops so much that the production becomes more expensive per unit than selling it does.
So your aim is to gradually price people out of using oil, starting with the poorest. I mean I hear you in terms of achieving your desired end, but I'm not sure any party would include it as a manifesto pledge.
We will reduce consumption of oil when we collectively believe that we need to reduce consumption of oil. That moment has not arrived yet. So on we go.
Just read Betfair T&C. Nothing to say that in placing a bet you're impliedly confirming it's on basis public domain knowledge only or anything like that.
The criminal law on cheating is quite different from the law of contract. People are supposed to know what is and is not honest. Those in the public sphere are also supposed (!) to know what is honourable. They certainly should know what looks sub-optimal on the front page of the Daily Mail.
Items in shops aren't labelled with the text of the Theft Act.
Yes, I know all that but it's easier to get a fraud case off the ground if you can find an implied representation which is false.
There's actually stacks of case law on what dishonestly means in the Theft Act
My wife is doing a long Yougov this morning. Most of it is about sport, which is a bit of a waste of time, but in addition to the usual voting question there is a much more specific question directed at our constituency (correctly identified) with named candidates.
I have reservations about the statistical base of the Yougov panel but this may well produce useful information per constituency in due course.
YouGov generally has its VI questions tacked onto the end of a long survey about some consumer topic, to protect its sample against bias from those only looking to do political surveys.
But accepting a bias towards the unemployed, retired and lifeless?
My favourite election trips are the ones that don't go as expected - anyway me on the battle against Reform in Boston and Skegness. A Farage takeover of the Tories is starting to be treated as a done deal & I'm not so sure
The Reform/Farage takeover of the Tories is commentariat tittle-tattle and conjecture. I will be quite surprised if it happens.
As with the Andy Street centrist fantasy of a couple of months back. The idea of putting a fairly old Parliamentary newbie straight into the leadership falls apart pretty quickly.
As of now, Farage is the only character able to make his type of politics work, and he won't be around forever. Once the personality goes, what happens to the cult?
My nightmare scenario is that the far-right finds a personable woman in the next generation who would continue the politics, without all of his negative baggage, and possibly with a greater work ethic.
It seems to be the natural progression in a number of countries. Is there a British Meloni, Marine Le Pen, Mary-Lou* waiting to emerge?
* SF aren't on the far-right, but the transition from Gerry Adams/Martin McGuiness to Mary-Lou McDonald/Michelle O'Neill follows the same pattern.
This appointed court is not a part of our constitution; it has no legitimacy, and it is effectively making up law. It needs to be binned.
Um no, it interprets the current law and generates a result.
The new Labour Government can change the law and fix the issue all the Supreme Court has done is combine the law as it currently is and come to (an admittedly unexpected) conclusion..
People like @Luckyguy1983 clearly have no understanding of our legal system whatsoever. This is how it has ALWAYS worked.
Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities. It is a complete abuse of "supreme court" powers to intervene on these spurious grounds, effectively to prevent any new oil wells being built in this country - economical self-harm which is for elected parliamentarians to inflict if they so wish, because they can be de-elected again. It's not for an appointed body to stretch its remit and make decisions like this.
They can intervene if the process was not followed properly. That’s a fundamental principle of the rule of law.
Their judgement is based upon a highly troubling interpretation of what that process should be - that's the point. The emissions involved in the set up and ongoing operation of the business were reported on in the usual way. The emissions generated subsequently were not, and I've explained why to demand that they are is deeply concerning in other posts.
I worry that this bit of the above… : “ Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities”
…Shows a confusion between parliament and the executive.
Parliament makes laws. The executive (Government or SCC) makes decisions which should be legal, but if there is doubt the Judicial system will decide
This is part of the citizenship exam. Maybe it should be taught in schools too?
That's true but the court made a mistake in its ruling.
The emissions generated by the burning of the oil should not be counted as the net difference of oil burnt as a result of the well is zero.
Why zero? Because oil is fungible and had we not extracted from this well we'd have just imported from Saudi Arabia or somewhere else the exact same amount of oil.
So the total net emissions of a fungible product is zero, unless or until we start forbidding imports.
As pointed out by someone previously, the Supreme Court did not rule on the substance of the issue, but only on whether the county council had considered the substance of the issue. Which they had not.
So your objection is not relevant, or in order, and we could expect that a revised planning decision from the country council, which did consider the substance of the issue, has a high probability of concluding that it shouldn't be a bar to approving the application, for the logical reasons you set out.
That outcome would be law followed, planning approved, everyone happy (especially the lawyers!)
Not the locals. Not people who care about the countryside. Not those who want to save the planet.
but, yeah, it was about legal processes at the moment
I want to save the planet.
To do that we need to follow science, not dogma.
The science is we need to transition away from consuming oil.
We still need oil for the transition though and there is no scientific reason why OPEC-produced oil is better for the environment than domestically produced oil.
If the world needs to transition away from consuming oil, then basic logic says that the world also has to transition away from producing oil. As a country, we should therefore transition away from both producing and consuming oil as well as appropriately taxing the import of oil and oil derivatives to encourage other countries to do likewise.
No. We should maximise oil production in democratic states in order to minimise the flow of cash to despots and dictators. As long as we need it, the "west" should produce it.
All fossil fuel that is mined/produced will be burned. The increase in global temperature doesn't care if it is Saudi oil or US oil. By not stopping the production of oil the only remaining possible way to stop the global warming is through a very high level of carbon capture.
We need to stop the consumption of oil.
Production is a secondary matter.
We already consume more than we produce, which is a terrible failure. We need to work harder on reducing consumption, not production.
This appointed court is not a part of our constitution; it has no legitimacy, and it is effectively making up law. It needs to be binned.
Um no, it interprets the current law and generates a result.
The new Labour Government can change the law and fix the issue all the Supreme Court has done is combine the law as it currently is and come to (an admittedly unexpected) conclusion..
People like @Luckyguy1983 clearly have no understanding of our legal system whatsoever. This is how it has ALWAYS worked.
Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities. It is a complete abuse of "supreme court" powers to intervene on these spurious grounds, effectively to prevent any new oil wells being built in this country - economical self-harm which is for elected parliamentarians to inflict if they so wish, because they can be de-elected again. It's not for an appointed body to stretch its remit and make decisions like this.
They can intervene if the process was not followed properly. That’s a fundamental principle of the rule of law.
Their judgement is based upon a highly troubling interpretation of what that process should be - that's the point. The emissions involved in the set up and ongoing operation of the business were reported on in the usual way. The emissions generated subsequently were not, and I've explained why to demand that they are is deeply concerning in other posts.
I worry that this bit of the above… : “ Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities”
…Shows a confusion between parliament and the executive.
Parliament makes laws. The executive (Government or SCC) makes decisions which should be legal, but if there is doubt the Judicial system will decide
This is part of the citizenship exam. Maybe it should be taught in schools too?
That's true but the court made a mistake in its ruling.
The emissions generated by the burning of the oil should not be counted as the net difference of oil burnt as a result of the well is zero.
Why zero? Because oil is fungible and had we not extracted from this well we'd have just imported from Saudi Arabia or somewhere else the exact same amount of oil.
So the total net emissions of a fungible product is zero, unless or until we start forbidding imports.
As pointed out by someone previously, the Supreme Court did not rule on the substance of the issue, but only on whether the county council had considered the substance of the issue. Which they had not.
So your objection is not relevant, or in order, and we could expect that a revised planning decision from the country council, which did consider the substance of the issue, has a high probability of concluding that it shouldn't be a bar to approving the application, for the logical reasons you set out.
That outcome would be law followed, planning approved, everyone happy (especially the lawyers!)
Not the locals. Not people who care about the countryside. Not those who want to save the planet.
but, yeah, it was about legal processes at the moment
I want to save the planet.
To do that we need to follow science, not dogma.
The science is we need to transition away from consuming oil.
We still need oil for the transition though and there is no scientific reason why OPEC-produced oil is better for the environment than domestically produced oil.
If the world needs to transition away from consuming oil, then basic logic says that the world also has to transition away from producing oil. As a country, we should therefore transition away from both producing and consuming oil as well as appropriately taxing the import of oil and oil derivatives to encourage other countries to do likewise.
No. We should maximise oil production in democratic states in order to minimise the flow of cash to despots and dictators. As long as we need it, the "west" should produce it.
All fossil fuel that is mined/produced will be burned. The increase in global temperature doesn't care if it is Saudi oil or US oil. By not stopping the production of oil the only remaining possible way to stop the global warming is through a very high level of carbon capture.
We need to stop the consumption of oil.
Production is a secondary matter.
We already consume more than we produce, which is a terrible failure. We need to work harder on reducing consumption, not production.
Globally we won't reduce consuming oil without reducing production. A reduction in consumption leads to lower prices which drives up consumption again. It is only when the price drops so much that the production becomes more expensive per unit than selling it does.
You are wrong, yes we will.
I changed my car last year. My old car was costing me ~£80 a tank of petrol which would last me 350 miles. My new car costs me ~£40 a tank of petrol which lasts me 350 miles. Does that mean I'm driving twice as many miles as I was to keep my expenditure the same? Of course it doesn't!
My oil consumption has come down by roughly 50% in that vehicle, not because of changes to production globally (of which OPEC of course adapts to keep prices where it wants it) but because I've adopted a technological change.
My old car was just petrol, my new one is not even a plug in, just a self-charging hybrid, that gets over twice the miles to the gallon as the old one.
We are seeing technological change like that on a micro and macro scale all over the planet. Over half my oil consumption has gone in my vehicle in one step and my intention is my next vehicle will be a net zero pure electric one, its just that's too expensive today.
Clean technology adaptation is the only way to solve the mess and clean the environment.
A Reform UK candidate compared the Government’s pandemic response to the Holocaust, it has emerged.
Jake Fraser, who is standing for Nigel Farage’s party in Widnes and Halewood, likened the introduction of vaccine passes for holidays to the genocide of Jewish people during the Second World War.
It comes after a row between Reform and a vetting firm it paid £144,000 to weed out unsuitable parliamentary candidates, with Mr Farage threatening the company with legal action after a series of disclosures about would-be MPs.
In comments made in 2021 and first reported by The Daily Mail, Mr Fraser wrote on social media: “We’re on the precipice of a health Holocaust.
“The same methodology the Nazis used to rise to power, with minimal opposition by appealing to both sides of the political spectrum... is unfolding before our eyes.”
Following the comments coming to light, Mr Fraser has said: “As a small-time polemicist, the rhetoric was a tip of the hat to parallels of totalitarianism employed by National Socialists during the rise of Hitler prior to (not during) the Jewish Holocaust.
“As stated in my Facebook post, similar tactics of appealing to both sides of the political spectrum were adopted by the so-called ‘Conservative’ Party, as did Hitler on his rise to power.
“It wasn’t likening Britain during the pandemic to Nazi Germany, it was an observation of the behaviour of the ‘Conservatives’, and indeed other public figures and institutions on the world stage, but the polemic was directed at the sitting government, after all, it was them who were making the decisions.”
Anecdote alert: I attended an Arts Society summer drinks party last night in a very Tory area. Demographic was 99% white, over 65, as far as I could tell.
The election came up a lot (pretty much every conversation) and my overall impression is there are a lot of bemused Tories out there, wondering where and how did it all go so spectacularly wrong.
Unanimous acceptance that the Tories have lost, of course, 'but what will replace them?'. I had people complaining about benefit scroungers, and asking me what I thought about National Service (some who clearly like the idea).
I'd guess quite a few will vote Reform, with the rest largely split Tory / LibDem.
The only logical conclusion about the National Service wheeze is that it was to stop pensioners voting Reform.
They forgot that pensioners have grandchildren and theoretical ideas about national service is one thing, their own grandchildren conscripted at a time when them ending up in a Donbass trench is not entirely inconceivable, is quite another.
I applaud the self-sacrifice but could the Army cope with an influx of over-65 year olds? Even if they're fit.
Actually the generation which did National Service has largely passed. IIRC the last call-was 1960 or so, so it was either ex-students and others who’d had deferments, or men born before 1940. Who would now be in their mid-eighties. And as I recall it most people who didn’t go, like me, because I was still a student, were glad they didn’t.
This appointed court is not a part of our constitution; it has no legitimacy, and it is effectively making up law. It needs to be binned.
Um no, it interprets the current law and generates a result.
The new Labour Government can change the law and fix the issue all the Supreme Court has done is combine the law as it currently is and come to (an admittedly unexpected) conclusion..
People like @Luckyguy1983 clearly have no understanding of our legal system whatsoever. This is how it has ALWAYS worked.
Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities. It is a complete abuse of "supreme court" powers to intervene on these spurious grounds, effectively to prevent any new oil wells being built in this country - economical self-harm which is for elected parliamentarians to inflict if they so wish, because they can be de-elected again. It's not for an appointed body to stretch its remit and make decisions like this.
They can intervene if the process was not followed properly. That’s a fundamental principle of the rule of law.
Their judgement is based upon a highly troubling interpretation of what that process should be - that's the point. The emissions involved in the set up and ongoing operation of the business were reported on in the usual way. The emissions generated subsequently were not, and I've explained why to demand that they are is deeply concerning in other posts.
I worry that this bit of the above… : “ Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities”
…Shows a confusion between parliament and the executive.
Parliament makes laws. The executive (Government or SCC) makes decisions which should be legal, but if there is doubt the Judicial system will decide
This is part of the citizenship exam. Maybe it should be taught in schools too?
That's true but the court made a mistake in its ruling.
The emissions generated by the burning of the oil should not be counted as the net difference of oil burnt as a result of the well is zero.
Why zero? Because oil is fungible and had we not extracted from this well we'd have just imported from Saudi Arabia or somewhere else the exact same amount of oil.
So the total net emissions of a fungible product is zero, unless or until we start forbidding imports.
As pointed out by someone previously, the Supreme Court did not rule on the substance of the issue, but only on whether the county council had considered the substance of the issue. Which they had not.
So your objection is not relevant, or in order, and we could expect that a revised planning decision from the country council, which did consider the substance of the issue, has a high probability of concluding that it shouldn't be a bar to approving the application, for the logical reasons you set out.
That outcome would be law followed, planning approved, everyone happy (especially the lawyers!)
Not the locals. Not people who care about the countryside. Not those who want to save the planet.
but, yeah, it was about legal processes at the moment
I want to save the planet.
To do that we need to follow science, not dogma.
The science is we need to transition away from consuming oil.
We still need oil for the transition though and there is no scientific reason why OPEC-produced oil is better for the environment than domestically produced oil.
If the world needs to transition away from consuming oil, then basic logic says that the world also has to transition away from producing oil. As a country, we should therefore transition away from both producing and consuming oil as well as appropriately taxing the import of oil and oil derivatives to encourage other countries to do likewise.
No. We should maximise oil production in democratic states in order to minimise the flow of cash to despots and dictators. As long as we need it, the "west" should produce it.
All fossil fuel that is mined/produced will be burned. The increase in global temperature doesn't care if it is Saudi oil or US oil. By not stopping the production of oil the only remaining possible way to stop the global warming is through a very high level of carbon capture.
We need to stop the consumption of oil.
Production is a secondary matter.
We already consume more than we produce, which is a terrible failure. We need to work harder on reducing consumption, not production.
France has not yet benefited from the global trade recovery. This is evident in the PMI for New Export Business, which has remained below the threshold of 50 for the twenty-eighth consecutive month.
It doesn't seem that being in the Single Market is the guarantee of export success we're led to believe.
The turnout by age group is interesting. It would also be interesting to see a similar graph by birth (in 5 or 10 year groups). If I track through my voting history along the time axis jumping between the age groups then the turnout level seems fairly steady at around 65% (I first voted in GE 1987). I wonder how much of the changes are due to age an how much is due to DOB.
Yes, I think there is a cohort effect, but those dropping out of the voting in the nineties and through to 2017 would be younger Gen X and Millenials, and do seem to have changed in the mid teens. Brexit and Corbyn, and north of the border Sindyref.
Whether they keep voting, who knows? I think they will at least for this GE, but turnout in 2029 might look a lot like 2001.
This appointed court is not a part of our constitution; it has no legitimacy, and it is effectively making up law. It needs to be binned.
Um no, it interprets the current law and generates a result.
The new Labour Government can change the law and fix the issue all the Supreme Court has done is combine the law as it currently is and come to (an admittedly unexpected) conclusion..
People like @Luckyguy1983 clearly have no understanding of our legal system whatsoever. This is how it has ALWAYS worked.
Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities. It is a complete abuse of "supreme court" powers to intervene on these spurious grounds, effectively to prevent any new oil wells being built in this country - economical self-harm which is for elected parliamentarians to inflict if they so wish, because they can be de-elected again. It's not for an appointed body to stretch its remit and make decisions like this.
They can intervene if the process was not followed properly. That’s a fundamental principle of the rule of law.
Their judgement is based upon a highly troubling interpretation of what that process should be - that's the point. The emissions involved in the set up and ongoing operation of the business were reported on in the usual way. The emissions generated subsequently were not, and I've explained why to demand that they are is deeply concerning in other posts.
I worry that this bit of the above… : “ Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities”
…Shows a confusion between parliament and the executive.
Parliament makes laws. The executive (Government or SCC) makes decisions which should be legal, but if there is doubt the Judicial system will decide
This is part of the citizenship exam. Maybe it should be taught in schools too?
That's true but the court made a mistake in its ruling.
The emissions generated by the burning of the oil should not be counted as the net difference of oil burnt as a result of the well is zero.
Why zero? Because oil is fungible and had we not extracted from this well we'd have just imported from Saudi Arabia or somewhere else the exact same amount of oil.
So the total net emissions of a fungible product is zero, unless or until we start forbidding imports.
As pointed out by someone previously, the Supreme Court did not rule on the substance of the issue, but only on whether the county council had considered the substance of the issue. Which they had not.
So your objection is not relevant, or in order, and we could expect that a revised planning decision from the country council, which did consider the substance of the issue, has a high probability of concluding that it shouldn't be a bar to approving the application, for the logical reasons you set out.
That outcome would be law followed, planning approved, everyone happy (especially the lawyers!)
Not the locals. Not people who care about the countryside. Not those who want to save the planet.
but, yeah, it was about legal processes at the moment
I want to save the planet.
To do that we need to follow science, not dogma.
The science is we need to transition away from consuming oil.
We still need oil for the transition though and there is no scientific reason why OPEC-produced oil is better for the environment than domestically produced oil.
If the world needs to transition away from consuming oil, then basic logic says that the world also has to transition away from producing oil. As a country, we should therefore transition away from both producing and consuming oil as well as appropriately taxing the import of oil and oil derivatives to encourage other countries to do likewise.
No. We should maximise oil production in democratic states in order to minimise the flow of cash to despots and dictators. As long as we need it, the "west" should produce it.
All fossil fuel that is mined/produced will be burned. The increase in global temperature doesn't care if it is Saudi oil or US oil. By not stopping the production of oil the only remaining possible way to stop the global warming is through a very high level of carbon capture.
We need to stop the consumption of oil.
Production is a secondary matter.
We already consume more than we produce, which is a terrible failure. We need to work harder on reducing consumption, not production.
Globally we won't reduce consuming oil without reducing production. A reduction in consumption leads to lower prices which drives up consumption again. It is only when the price drops so much that the production becomes more expensive per unit than selling it does.
So your aim is to gradually price people out of using oil, starting with the poorest. I mean I hear you in terms of achieving your desired end, but I'm not sure any party would include it as a manifesto pledge.
We will reduce consumption of oil when we collectively believe that we need to reduce consumption of oil. That moment has not arrived yet. So on we go.
This appointed court is not a part of our constitution; it has no legitimacy, and it is effectively making up law. It needs to be binned.
Um no, it interprets the current law and generates a result.
The new Labour Government can change the law and fix the issue all the Supreme Court has done is combine the law as it currently is and come to (an admittedly unexpected) conclusion..
People like @Luckyguy1983 clearly have no understanding of our legal system whatsoever. This is how it has ALWAYS worked.
Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities. It is a complete abuse of "supreme court" powers to intervene on these spurious grounds, effectively to prevent any new oil wells being built in this country - economical self-harm which is for elected parliamentarians to inflict if they so wish, because they can be de-elected again. It's not for an appointed body to stretch its remit and make decisions like this.
They can intervene if the process was not followed properly. That’s a fundamental principle of the rule of law.
Their judgement is based upon a highly troubling interpretation of what that process should be - that's the point. The emissions involved in the set up and ongoing operation of the business were reported on in the usual way. The emissions generated subsequently were not, and I've explained why to demand that they are is deeply concerning in other posts.
I worry that this bit of the above… : “ Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities”
…Shows a confusion between parliament and the executive.
Parliament makes laws. The executive (Government or SCC) makes decisions which should be legal, but if there is doubt the Judicial system will decide
This is part of the citizenship exam. Maybe it should be taught in schools too?
That's true but the court made a mistake in its ruling.
The emissions generated by the burning of the oil should not be counted as the net difference of oil burnt as a result of the well is zero.
Why zero? Because oil is fungible and had we not extracted from this well we'd have just imported from Saudi Arabia or somewhere else the exact same amount of oil.
So the total net emissions of a fungible product is zero, unless or until we start forbidding imports.
As pointed out by someone previously, the Supreme Court did not rule on the substance of the issue, but only on whether the county council had considered the substance of the issue. Which they had not.
So your objection is not relevant, or in order, and we could expect that a revised planning decision from the country council, which did consider the substance of the issue, has a high probability of concluding that it shouldn't be a bar to approving the application, for the logical reasons you set out.
That outcome would be law followed, planning approved, everyone happy (especially the lawyers!)
Not the locals. Not people who care about the countryside. Not those who want to save the planet.
but, yeah, it was about legal processes at the moment
I want to save the planet.
To do that we need to follow science, not dogma.
The science is we need to transition away from consuming oil.
We still need oil for the transition though and there is no scientific reason why OPEC-produced oil is better for the environment than domestically produced oil.
If the world needs to transition away from consuming oil, then basic logic says that the world also has to transition away from producing oil. As a country, we should therefore transition away from both producing and consuming oil as well as appropriately taxing the import of oil and oil derivatives to encourage other countries to do likewise.
No. We should maximise oil production in democratic states in order to minimise the flow of cash to despots and dictators. As long as we need it, the "west" should produce it.
All fossil fuel that is mined/produced will be burned. The increase in global temperature doesn't care if it is Saudi oil or US oil. By not stopping the production of oil the only remaining possible way to stop the global warming is through a very high level of carbon capture.
We need to stop the consumption of oil.
Production is a secondary matter.
We already consume more than we produce, which is a terrible failure. We need to work harder on reducing consumption, not production.
OK you start.
I have started.
You have a car. Murderer.
This is a very crude argument by your standards. Even David Brent would be embarrassed by it.
This appointed court is not a part of our constitution; it has no legitimacy, and it is effectively making up law. It needs to be binned.
Um no, it interprets the current law and generates a result.
The new Labour Government can change the law and fix the issue all the Supreme Court has done is combine the law as it currently is and come to (an admittedly unexpected) conclusion..
People like @Luckyguy1983 clearly have no understanding of our legal system whatsoever. This is how it has ALWAYS worked.
Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities. It is a complete abuse of "supreme court" powers to intervene on these spurious grounds, effectively to prevent any new oil wells being built in this country - economical self-harm which is for elected parliamentarians to inflict if they so wish, because they can be de-elected again. It's not for an appointed body to stretch its remit and make decisions like this.
They can intervene if the process was not followed properly. That’s a fundamental principle of the rule of law.
Their judgement is based upon a highly troubling interpretation of what that process should be - that's the point. The emissions involved in the set up and ongoing operation of the business were reported on in the usual way. The emissions generated subsequently were not, and I've explained why to demand that they are is deeply concerning in other posts.
I worry that this bit of the above… : “ Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities”
…Shows a confusion between parliament and the executive.
Parliament makes laws. The executive (Government or SCC) makes decisions which should be legal, but if there is doubt the Judicial system will decide
This is part of the citizenship exam. Maybe it should be taught in schools too?
That's true but the court made a mistake in its ruling.
The emissions generated by the burning of the oil should not be counted as the net difference of oil burnt as a result of the well is zero.
Why zero? Because oil is fungible and had we not extracted from this well we'd have just imported from Saudi Arabia or somewhere else the exact same amount of oil.
So the total net emissions of a fungible product is zero, unless or until we start forbidding imports.
As pointed out by someone previously, the Supreme Court did not rule on the substance of the issue, but only on whether the county council had considered the substance of the issue. Which they had not.
So your objection is not relevant, or in order, and we could expect that a revised planning decision from the country council, which did consider the substance of the issue, has a high probability of concluding that it shouldn't be a bar to approving the application, for the logical reasons you set out.
That outcome would be law followed, planning approved, everyone happy (especially the lawyers!)
Not the locals. Not people who care about the countryside. Not those who want to save the planet.
but, yeah, it was about legal processes at the moment
I want to save the planet.
To do that we need to follow science, not dogma.
The science is we need to transition away from consuming oil.
We still need oil for the transition though and there is no scientific reason why OPEC-produced oil is better for the environment than domestically produced oil.
If the world needs to transition away from consuming oil, then basic logic says that the world also has to transition away from producing oil. As a country, we should therefore transition away from both producing and consuming oil as well as appropriately taxing the import of oil and oil derivatives to encourage other countries to do likewise.
No. We should maximise oil production in democratic states in order to minimise the flow of cash to despots and dictators. As long as we need it, the "west" should produce it.
All fossil fuel that is mined/produced will be burned. The increase in global temperature doesn't care if it is Saudi oil or US oil. By not stopping the production of oil the only remaining possible way to stop the global warming is through a very high level of carbon capture.
We need to stop the consumption of oil.
Production is a secondary matter.
We already consume more than we produce, which is a terrible failure. We need to work harder on reducing consumption, not production.
Globally we won't reduce consuming oil without reducing production. A reduction in consumption leads to lower prices which drives up consumption again. It is only when the price drops so much that the production becomes more expensive per unit than selling it does.
You are wrong, yes we will.
I changed my car last year. My old car was costing me ~£80 a tank of petrol which would last me 350 miles. My new car costs me ~£40 a tank of petrol which lasts me 350 miles. Does that mean I'm driving twice as many miles as I was to keep my expenditure the same? Of course it doesn't!
My oil consumption has come down by roughly 50% in that vehicle, not because of changes to production globally (of which OPEC of course adapts to keep prices where it wants it) but because I've adopted a technological change.
My old car was just petrol, my new one is not even a plug in, just a self-charging hybrid, that gets over twice the miles to the gallon as the old one.
We are seeing technological change like that on a micro and macro scale all over the planet. Over half my oil consumption has gone in my vehicle in one step and my intention is my next vehicle will be a net zero pure electric one, its just that's too expensive today.
Clean technology adaptation is the only way to solve the mess and clean the environment.
You are still destroying the planet.
I don't think he drives so fast that a collision will cause the Earth to explode as though it has had a visit from the Death Star.
The planet will only be destroyed when the sun finally enters its death throes and engulfs the inner planets. Although some think that the orbits will also move outwards, although it will still be incredibly warm. Whatever, I won't be around to see it destroyed.
This appointed court is not a part of our constitution; it has no legitimacy, and it is effectively making up law. It needs to be binned.
Um no, it interprets the current law and generates a result.
The new Labour Government can change the law and fix the issue all the Supreme Court has done is combine the law as it currently is and come to (an admittedly unexpected) conclusion..
People like @Luckyguy1983 clearly have no understanding of our legal system whatsoever. This is how it has ALWAYS worked.
Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities. It is a complete abuse of "supreme court" powers to intervene on these spurious grounds, effectively to prevent any new oil wells being built in this country - economical self-harm which is for elected parliamentarians to inflict if they so wish, because they can be de-elected again. It's not for an appointed body to stretch its remit and make decisions like this.
They can intervene if the process was not followed properly. That’s a fundamental principle of the rule of law.
Their judgement is based upon a highly troubling interpretation of what that process should be - that's the point. The emissions involved in the set up and ongoing operation of the business were reported on in the usual way. The emissions generated subsequently were not, and I've explained why to demand that they are is deeply concerning in other posts.
I worry that this bit of the above… : “ Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities”
…Shows a confusion between parliament and the executive.
Parliament makes laws. The executive (Government or SCC) makes decisions which should be legal, but if there is doubt the Judicial system will decide
This is part of the citizenship exam. Maybe it should be taught in schools too?
That's true but the court made a mistake in its ruling.
The emissions generated by the burning of the oil should not be counted as the net difference of oil burnt as a result of the well is zero.
Why zero? Because oil is fungible and had we not extracted from this well we'd have just imported from Saudi Arabia or somewhere else the exact same amount of oil.
So the total net emissions of a fungible product is zero, unless or until we start forbidding imports.
As pointed out by someone previously, the Supreme Court did not rule on the substance of the issue, but only on whether the county council had considered the substance of the issue. Which they had not.
So your objection is not relevant, or in order, and we could expect that a revised planning decision from the country council, which did consider the substance of the issue, has a high probability of concluding that it shouldn't be a bar to approving the application, for the logical reasons you set out.
That outcome would be law followed, planning approved, everyone happy (especially the lawyers!)
Not the locals. Not people who care about the countryside. Not those who want to save the planet.
but, yeah, it was about legal processes at the moment
I want to save the planet.
To do that we need to follow science, not dogma.
The science is we need to transition away from consuming oil.
We still need oil for the transition though and there is no scientific reason why OPEC-produced oil is better for the environment than domestically produced oil.
If the world needs to transition away from consuming oil, then basic logic says that the world also has to transition away from producing oil. As a country, we should therefore transition away from both producing and consuming oil as well as appropriately taxing the import of oil and oil derivatives to encourage other countries to do likewise.
No. We should maximise oil production in democratic states in order to minimise the flow of cash to despots and dictators. As long as we need it, the "west" should produce it.
All fossil fuel that is mined/produced will be burned. The increase in global temperature doesn't care if it is Saudi oil or US oil. By not stopping the production of oil the only remaining possible way to stop the global warming is through a very high level of carbon capture.
We need to stop the consumption of oil.
Production is a secondary matter.
We already consume more than we produce, which is a terrible failure. We need to work harder on reducing consumption, not production.
OK you start.
I have started.
You have a car. Murderer.
This is a very crude argument by your standards. Even David Brent would be embarrassed by it.
My favourite election trips are the ones that don't go as expected - anyway me on the battle against Reform in Boston and Skegness. A Farage takeover of the Tories is starting to be treated as a done deal & I'm not so sure
The Reform/Farage takeover of the Tories is commentariat tittle-tattle and conjecture. I will be quite surprised if it happens.
As with the Andy Street centrist fantasy of a couple of months back. The idea of putting a fairly old Parliamentary newbie straight into the leadership falls apart pretty quickly.
As of now, Farage is the only character able to make his type of politics work, and he won't be around forever. Once the personality goes, what happens to the cult?
Barring medical emergencies, Farage will be pursuing political power - probably a futile enterprise, but sustained by his brand of political grift - for the next decade.
Just read Betfair T&C. Nothing to say that in placing a bet you're impliedly confirming it's on basis public domain knowledge only or anything like that.
The criminal law on cheating is quite different from the law of contract. People are supposed to know what is and is not honest. Those in the public sphere are also supposed (!) to know what is honourable. They certainly should know what looks sub-optimal on the front page of the Daily Mail.
Items in shops aren't labelled with the text of the Theft Act.
My (definitely non expert) view of this is that the law regarding the particular facts of these cases isn't entirely clear. The matter is almost certainly not going to be resolved before the election.
I'd consider it a complete waste of everyone's time if the CPS go anywhere near this.
This appointed court is not a part of our constitution; it has no legitimacy, and it is effectively making up law. It needs to be binned.
Um no, it interprets the current law and generates a result.
The new Labour Government can change the law and fix the issue all the Supreme Court has done is combine the law as it currently is and come to (an admittedly unexpected) conclusion..
People like @Luckyguy1983 clearly have no understanding of our legal system whatsoever. This is how it has ALWAYS worked.
Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities. It is a complete abuse of "supreme court" powers to intervene on these spurious grounds, effectively to prevent any new oil wells being built in this country - economical self-harm which is for elected parliamentarians to inflict if they so wish, because they can be de-elected again. It's not for an appointed body to stretch its remit and make decisions like this.
They can intervene if the process was not followed properly. That’s a fundamental principle of the rule of law.
Their judgement is based upon a highly troubling interpretation of what that process should be - that's the point. The emissions involved in the set up and ongoing operation of the business were reported on in the usual way. The emissions generated subsequently were not, and I've explained why to demand that they are is deeply concerning in other posts.
I worry that this bit of the above… : “ Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities”
…Shows a confusion between parliament and the executive.
Parliament makes laws. The executive (Government or SCC) makes decisions which should be legal, but if there is doubt the Judicial system will decide
This is part of the citizenship exam. Maybe it should be taught in schools too?
That's true but the court made a mistake in its ruling.
The emissions generated by the burning of the oil should not be counted as the net difference of oil burnt as a result of the well is zero.
Why zero? Because oil is fungible and had we not extracted from this well we'd have just imported from Saudi Arabia or somewhere else the exact same amount of oil.
So the total net emissions of a fungible product is zero, unless or until we start forbidding imports.
As pointed out by someone previously, the Supreme Court did not rule on the substance of the issue, but only on whether the county council had considered the substance of the issue. Which they had not.
So your objection is not relevant, or in order, and we could expect that a revised planning decision from the country council, which did consider the substance of the issue, has a high probability of concluding that it shouldn't be a bar to approving the application, for the logical reasons you set out.
That outcome would be law followed, planning approved, everyone happy (especially the lawyers!)
Not the locals. Not people who care about the countryside. Not those who want to save the planet.
but, yeah, it was about legal processes at the moment
I want to save the planet.
To do that we need to follow science, not dogma.
The science is we need to transition away from consuming oil.
We still need oil for the transition though and there is no scientific reason why OPEC-produced oil is better for the environment than domestically produced oil.
If the world needs to transition away from consuming oil, then basic logic says that the world also has to transition away from producing oil. As a country, we should therefore transition away from both producing and consuming oil as well as appropriately taxing the import of oil and oil derivatives to encourage other countries to do likewise.
No. We should maximise oil production in democratic states in order to minimise the flow of cash to despots and dictators. As long as we need it, the "west" should produce it.
All fossil fuel that is mined/produced will be burned. The increase in global temperature doesn't care if it is Saudi oil or US oil. By not stopping the production of oil the only remaining possible way to stop the global warming is through a very high level of carbon capture.
We need to stop the consumption of oil.
Production is a secondary matter.
We already consume more than we produce, which is a terrible failure. We need to work harder on reducing consumption, not production.
Globally we won't reduce consuming oil without reducing production. A reduction in consumption leads to lower prices which drives up consumption again. It is only when the price drops so much that the production becomes more expensive per unit than selling it does.
So your aim is to gradually price people out of using oil, starting with the poorest. I mean I hear you in terms of achieving your desired end, but I'm not sure any party would include it as a manifesto pledge.
We will reduce consumption of oil when we collectively believe that we need to reduce consumption of oil. That moment has not arrived yet. So on we go.
Except….
What am I looking at. Fuel consumption drops after the GFC then tries to make its way back up again and then is smacked down by Covid and is now on its way back up.
This appointed court is not a part of our constitution; it has no legitimacy, and it is effectively making up law. It needs to be binned.
Um no, it interprets the current law and generates a result.
The new Labour Government can change the law and fix the issue all the Supreme Court has done is combine the law as it currently is and come to (an admittedly unexpected) conclusion..
People like @Luckyguy1983 clearly have no understanding of our legal system whatsoever. This is how it has ALWAYS worked.
Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities. It is a complete abuse of "supreme court" powers to intervene on these spurious grounds, effectively to prevent any new oil wells being built in this country - economical self-harm which is for elected parliamentarians to inflict if they so wish, because they can be de-elected again. It's not for an appointed body to stretch its remit and make decisions like this.
They can intervene if the process was not followed properly. That’s a fundamental principle of the rule of law.
Their judgement is based upon a highly troubling interpretation of what that process should be - that's the point. The emissions involved in the set up and ongoing operation of the business were reported on in the usual way. The emissions generated subsequently were not, and I've explained why to demand that they are is deeply concerning in other posts.
I worry that this bit of the above… : “ Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities”
…Shows a confusion between parliament and the executive.
Parliament makes laws. The executive (Government or SCC) makes decisions which should be legal, but if there is doubt the Judicial system will decide
This is part of the citizenship exam. Maybe it should be taught in schools too?
That's true but the court made a mistake in its ruling.
The emissions generated by the burning of the oil should not be counted as the net difference of oil burnt as a result of the well is zero.
Why zero? Because oil is fungible and had we not extracted from this well we'd have just imported from Saudi Arabia or somewhere else the exact same amount of oil.
So the total net emissions of a fungible product is zero, unless or until we start forbidding imports.
As pointed out by someone previously, the Supreme Court did not rule on the substance of the issue, but only on whether the county council had considered the substance of the issue. Which they had not.
So your objection is not relevant, or in order, and we could expect that a revised planning decision from the country council, which did consider the substance of the issue, has a high probability of concluding that it shouldn't be a bar to approving the application, for the logical reasons you set out.
That outcome would be law followed, planning approved, everyone happy (especially the lawyers!)
Not the locals. Not people who care about the countryside. Not those who want to save the planet.
but, yeah, it was about legal processes at the moment
I want to save the planet.
To do that we need to follow science, not dogma.
The science is we need to transition away from consuming oil.
We still need oil for the transition though and there is no scientific reason why OPEC-produced oil is better for the environment than domestically produced oil.
If the world needs to transition away from consuming oil, then basic logic says that the world also has to transition away from producing oil. As a country, we should therefore transition away from both producing and consuming oil as well as appropriately taxing the import of oil and oil derivatives to encourage other countries to do likewise.
No. We should maximise oil production in democratic states in order to minimise the flow of cash to despots and dictators. As long as we need it, the "west" should produce it.
This.
Regdrding renewables. The economic arguments for wind turbines etc. are barking. They have to be backed 100% by conventional power stations (gas) to cover still windless dark cold periods.
The eco argument is equally ludicrous and industry destroying with higher costs when China and India etc extracting vast amounts of coal for cheap electricity.
There is an argument for it on security reasons, with our own oil running out thenturbines mean we need less gas/oil from Vladimir and Khassogis murderers.
But pointing that out would mean the politicians saying "we've cocked up energy policy, ours is running out and we've got to spend a fortune otherwise Vlad and Sundry Sheiks will have us over a barrel"
Far better to say "you wicked people, you are destroying the planet, we must go green to save it"
The downside of that is that the green zealots are as uncontrollable and destructive as any other zealot and they have been allowed within the citadel.
I agree entirely that often laws are passed in order to generate a headline or to pretend something is being done. Often they are vague and it’s entirely intended for the courts to sort out the consequences because Parliament can’t be bothered to do its job properly.
Vagueness in an agreement can often be beneficial to one party but I think most people can agree that vagueness in law only benefits lawyers. “Say what you mean.”
There has been an increase in laws conferring statutory duties. Since there is no headline cost, this seems awesome.
Then people wonder why £250k a head social care is a mandatory obligation on councils.
The “something must be done to show how virtuous we are” Law. The bane of modern politics.
This appointed court is not a part of our constitution; it has no legitimacy, and it is effectively making up law. It needs to be binned.
Um no, it interprets the current law and generates a result.
The new Labour Government can change the law and fix the issue all the Supreme Court has done is combine the law as it currently is and come to (an admittedly unexpected) conclusion..
People like @Luckyguy1983 clearly have no understanding of our legal system whatsoever. This is how it has ALWAYS worked.
Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities. It is a complete abuse of "supreme court" powers to intervene on these spurious grounds, effectively to prevent any new oil wells being built in this country - economical self-harm which is for elected parliamentarians to inflict if they so wish, because they can be de-elected again. It's not for an appointed body to stretch its remit and make decisions like this.
They can intervene if the process was not followed properly. That’s a fundamental principle of the rule of law.
Their judgement is based upon a highly troubling interpretation of what that process should be - that's the point. The emissions involved in the set up and ongoing operation of the business were reported on in the usual way. The emissions generated subsequently were not, and I've explained why to demand that they are is deeply concerning in other posts.
I worry that this bit of the above… : “ Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities”
…Shows a confusion between parliament and the executive.
Parliament makes laws. The executive (Government or SCC) makes decisions which should be legal, but if there is doubt the Judicial system will decide
This is part of the citizenship exam. Maybe it should be taught in schools too?
That's true but the court made a mistake in its ruling.
The emissions generated by the burning of the oil should not be counted as the net difference of oil burnt as a result of the well is zero.
Why zero? Because oil is fungible and had we not extracted from this well we'd have just imported from Saudi Arabia or somewhere else the exact same amount of oil.
So the total net emissions of a fungible product is zero, unless or until we start forbidding imports.
As pointed out by someone previously, the Supreme Court did not rule on the substance of the issue, but only on whether the county council had considered the substance of the issue. Which they had not.
So your objection is not relevant, or in order, and we could expect that a revised planning decision from the country council, which did consider the substance of the issue, has a high probability of concluding that it shouldn't be a bar to approving the application, for the logical reasons you set out.
That outcome would be law followed, planning approved, everyone happy (especially the lawyers!)
Not the locals. Not people who care about the countryside. Not those who want to save the planet.
but, yeah, it was about legal processes at the moment
I want to save the planet.
To do that we need to follow science, not dogma.
The science is we need to transition away from consuming oil.
We still need oil for the transition though and there is no scientific reason why OPEC-produced oil is better for the environment than domestically produced oil.
If the world needs to transition away from consuming oil, then basic logic says that the world also has to transition away from producing oil. As a country, we should therefore transition away from both producing and consuming oil as well as appropriately taxing the import of oil and oil derivatives to encourage other countries to do likewise.
No. We should maximise oil production in democratic states in order to minimise the flow of cash to despots and dictators. As long as we need it, the "west" should produce it.
All fossil fuel that is mined/produced will be burned. The increase in global temperature doesn't care if it is Saudi oil or US oil. By not stopping the production of oil the only remaining possible way to stop the global warming is through a very high level of carbon capture.
We need to stop the consumption of oil.
Production is a secondary matter.
We already consume more than we produce, which is a terrible failure. We need to work harder on reducing consumption, not production.
Globally we won't reduce consuming oil without reducing production. A reduction in consumption leads to lower prices which drives up consumption again. It is only when the price drops so much that the production becomes more expensive per unit than selling it does.
You are wrong, yes we will.
I changed my car last year. My old car was costing me ~£80 a tank of petrol which would last me 350 miles. My new car costs me ~£40 a tank of petrol which lasts me 350 miles. Does that mean I'm driving twice as many miles as I was to keep my expenditure the same? Of course it doesn't!
My oil consumption has come down by roughly 50% in that vehicle, not because of changes to production globally (of which OPEC of course adapts to keep prices where it wants it) but because I've adopted a technological change.
My old car was just petrol, my new one is not even a plug in, just a self-charging hybrid, that gets over twice the miles to the gallon as the old one.
We are seeing technological change like that on a micro and macro scale all over the planet. Over half my oil consumption has gone in my vehicle in one step and my intention is my next vehicle will be a net zero pure electric one, its just that's too expensive today.
Clean technology adaptation is the only way to solve the mess and clean the environment.
This appointed court is not a part of our constitution; it has no legitimacy, and it is effectively making up law. It needs to be binned.
Um no, it interprets the current law and generates a result.
The new Labour Government can change the law and fix the issue all the Supreme Court has done is combine the law as it currently is and come to (an admittedly unexpected) conclusion..
People like @Luckyguy1983 clearly have no understanding of our legal system whatsoever. This is how it has ALWAYS worked.
Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities. It is a complete abuse of "supreme court" powers to intervene on these spurious grounds, effectively to prevent any new oil wells being built in this country - economical self-harm which is for elected parliamentarians to inflict if they so wish, because they can be de-elected again. It's not for an appointed body to stretch its remit and make decisions like this.
It is what happens when you pass laws with vague lofty clauses granting opaque, ill defined, rights, like the Human Rights Act, Climate Change Act and Equalities Act.
It gives m'luds free rein to make it up as they go along.
The solution is to repeal said laws, and where necessary replace them with something more defibitively written.
Meanwhile this is absolute catnip for Farage. This is precisely the sort of thing they were elected to do in 2019 and manifestly failed to.
No
What you do is join in there fun. Make it obvious why such laws are a bad idea.
Start with a law saying that the anti-climate change backlash in climate protestors actions must be taken into account when sentencing them.
It's hard to avoid the suspicion that Supreme Court judges start their work agreeing on a conclusion then trawl through the law books in search of a justification. It is, after all, how the Supreme Court in Washington behaves and which 'ours' was always intended to emulate. Needless to say the selective interpretation of multiple, often contradictory laws will always get them to the finish line.
Oh, sorry, didn't realise it was one seat (note the ampersand - we're banned from using them at my place because they are not accessible).
I was told that one of my banking passwords wasn’t acceptable because of the ampersand. Not, though until after I’d tried to use it and got thoroughly frustrated because the system kept crashing. Frustrated to the extent of saying a lot more than ‘ bother’, to the concern of my wife.
This appointed court is not a part of our constitution; it has no legitimacy, and it is effectively making up law. It needs to be binned.
Um no, it interprets the current law and generates a result.
The new Labour Government can change the law and fix the issue all the Supreme Court has done is combine the law as it currently is and come to (an admittedly unexpected) conclusion..
People like @Luckyguy1983 clearly have no understanding of our legal system whatsoever. This is how it has ALWAYS worked.
Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities. It is a complete abuse of "supreme court" powers to intervene on these spurious grounds, effectively to prevent any new oil wells being built in this country - economical self-harm which is for elected parliamentarians to inflict if they so wish, because they can be de-elected again. It's not for an appointed body to stretch its remit and make decisions like this.
They can intervene if the process was not followed properly. That’s a fundamental principle of the rule of law.
Their judgement is based upon a highly troubling interpretation of what that process should be - that's the point. The emissions involved in the set up and ongoing operation of the business were reported on in the usual way. The emissions generated subsequently were not, and I've explained why to demand that they are is deeply concerning in other posts.
I worry that this bit of the above… : “ Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities”
…Shows a confusion between parliament and the executive.
Parliament makes laws. The executive (Government or SCC) makes decisions which should be legal, but if there is doubt the Judicial system will decide
This is part of the citizenship exam. Maybe it should be taught in schools too?
That's true but the court made a mistake in its ruling.
The emissions generated by the burning of the oil should not be counted as the net difference of oil burnt as a result of the well is zero.
Why zero? Because oil is fungible and had we not extracted from this well we'd have just imported from Saudi Arabia or somewhere else the exact same amount of oil.
So the total net emissions of a fungible product is zero, unless or until we start forbidding imports.
As pointed out by someone previously, the Supreme Court did not rule on the substance of the issue, but only on whether the county council had considered the substance of the issue. Which they had not.
So your objection is not relevant, or in order, and we could expect that a revised planning decision from the country council, which did consider the substance of the issue, has a high probability of concluding that it shouldn't be a bar to approving the application, for the logical reasons you set out.
That outcome would be law followed, planning approved, everyone happy (especially the lawyers!)
Not the locals. Not people who care about the countryside. Not those who want to save the planet.
but, yeah, it was about legal processes at the moment
I want to save the planet.
To do that we need to follow science, not dogma.
The science is we need to transition away from consuming oil.
We still need oil for the transition though and there is no scientific reason why OPEC-produced oil is better for the environment than domestically produced oil.
If the world needs to transition away from consuming oil, then basic logic says that the world also has to transition away from producing oil. As a country, we should therefore transition away from both producing and consuming oil as well as appropriately taxing the import of oil and oil derivatives to encourage other countries to do likewise.
No. We should maximise oil production in democratic states in order to minimise the flow of cash to despots and dictators. As long as we need it, the "west" should produce it.
All fossil fuel that is mined/produced will be burned. The increase in global temperature doesn't care if it is Saudi oil or US oil. By not stopping the production of oil the only remaining possible way to stop the global warming is through a very high level of carbon capture.
We need to stop the consumption of oil.
Production is a secondary matter.
We already consume more than we produce, which is a terrible failure. We need to work harder on reducing consumption, not production.
Globally we won't reduce consuming oil without reducing production. A reduction in consumption leads to lower prices which drives up consumption again. It is only when the price drops so much that the production becomes more expensive per unit than selling it does.
So your aim is to gradually price people out of using oil, starting with the poorest. I mean I hear you in terms of achieving your desired end, but I'm not sure any party would include it as a manifesto pledge.
We will reduce consumption of oil when we collectively believe that we need to reduce consumption of oil. That moment has not arrived yet. So on we go.
Except….
What am I looking at. Fuel consumption drops after the GFC then tries to make its way back up again and then is smacked down by Covid and is now on its way back up.
Looks to me like fuel consumption has varied but trended down (esp looking from peak to peak, trough to trough is unreasonable due to Covid) but that is aggregate consumption and not per capita.
Per capita, considering our population growth, we've had an even bigger fall in consumption.
But we need to do more on consumption. Encouraging the switch to cleaner technologies, and ensuring they're affordable.
This appointed court is not a part of our constitution; it has no legitimacy, and it is effectively making up law. It needs to be binned.
Um no, it interprets the current law and generates a result.
The new Labour Government can change the law and fix the issue all the Supreme Court has done is combine the law as it currently is and come to (an admittedly unexpected) conclusion..
People like @Luckyguy1983 clearly have no understanding of our legal system whatsoever. This is how it has ALWAYS worked.
Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities. It is a complete abuse of "supreme court" powers to intervene on these spurious grounds, effectively to prevent any new oil wells being built in this country - economical self-harm which is for elected parliamentarians to inflict if they so wish, because they can be de-elected again. It's not for an appointed body to stretch its remit and make decisions like this.
They can intervene if the process was not followed properly. That’s a fundamental principle of the rule of law.
Their judgement is based upon a highly troubling interpretation of what that process should be - that's the point. The emissions involved in the set up and ongoing operation of the business were reported on in the usual way. The emissions generated subsequently were not, and I've explained why to demand that they are is deeply concerning in other posts.
I worry that this bit of the above… : “ Whether a new oil well can proceed legally is a matter for parliament and the appropriate local authorities”
…Shows a confusion between parliament and the executive.
Parliament makes laws. The executive (Government or SCC) makes decisions which should be legal, but if there is doubt the Judicial system will decide
This is part of the citizenship exam. Maybe it should be taught in schools too?
That's true but the court made a mistake in its ruling.
The emissions generated by the burning of the oil should not be counted as the net difference of oil burnt as a result of the well is zero.
Why zero? Because oil is fungible and had we not extracted from this well we'd have just imported from Saudi Arabia or somewhere else the exact same amount of oil.
So the total net emissions of a fungible product is zero, unless or until we start forbidding imports.
As pointed out by someone previously, the Supreme Court did not rule on the substance of the issue, but only on whether the county council had considered the substance of the issue. Which they had not.
So your objection is not relevant, or in order, and we could expect that a revised planning decision from the country council, which did consider the substance of the issue, has a high probability of concluding that it shouldn't be a bar to approving the application, for the logical reasons you set out.
That outcome would be law followed, planning approved, everyone happy (especially the lawyers!)
Not the locals. Not people who care about the countryside. Not those who want to save the planet.
but, yeah, it was about legal processes at the moment
I want to save the planet.
To do that we need to follow science, not dogma.
The science is we need to transition away from consuming oil.
We still need oil for the transition though and there is no scientific reason why OPEC-produced oil is better for the environment than domestically produced oil.
If the world needs to transition away from consuming oil, then basic logic says that the world also has to transition away from producing oil. As a country, we should therefore transition away from both producing and consuming oil as well as appropriately taxing the import of oil and oil derivatives to encourage other countries to do likewise.
No. We should maximise oil production in democratic states in order to minimise the flow of cash to despots and dictators. As long as we need it, the "west" should produce it.
All fossil fuel that is mined/produced will be burned. The increase in global temperature doesn't care if it is Saudi oil or US oil. By not stopping the production of oil the only remaining possible way to stop the global warming is through a very high level of carbon capture.
We need to stop the consumption of oil.
Production is a secondary matter.
We already consume more than we produce, which is a terrible failure. We need to work harder on reducing consumption, not production.
Globally we won't reduce consuming oil without reducing production. A reduction in consumption leads to lower prices which drives up consumption again. It is only when the price drops so much that the production becomes more expensive per unit than selling it does.
You are wrong, yes we will.
I changed my car last year. My old car was costing me ~£80 a tank of petrol which would last me 350 miles. My new car costs me ~£40 a tank of petrol which lasts me 350 miles. Does that mean I'm driving twice as many miles as I was to keep my expenditure the same? Of course it doesn't!
My oil consumption has come down by roughly 50% in that vehicle, not because of changes to production globally (of which OPEC of course adapts to keep prices where it wants it) but because I've adopted a technological change.
My old car was just petrol, my new one is not even a plug in, just a self-charging hybrid, that gets over twice the miles to the gallon as the old one.
We are seeing technological change like that on a micro and macro scale all over the planet. Over half my oil consumption has gone in my vehicle in one step and my intention is my next vehicle will be a net zero pure electric one, its just that's too expensive today.
Clean technology adaptation is the only way to solve the mess and clean the environment.
You are still destroying the planet.
...maybe, but only half as fast seemingly...
Are you saying - as per Zeno's paradox - he will never stop destroying the planet.
Comments
1) whether courts have the right to opine on whether the executive has followed the law
2) whether the scheme stacks up and benefits outweigh costs (including from a co2 perspective - and I agree with your fungibility point)
3) whether the council / the developers adequately demonstrated (2)
I think we agree on (1) and (2) and I’m not familiar with the specific details so am not sure on (3) but I think you’re probably right and the court has made a mistake if so. However, this can be fixed by clarifying the law in parliament.
Where I do get worried is the sort of comment from LuckyGuy where he is ‘disgusted’ that the judiciary have a role in ensuring the executive follow laws made by parliament.
Both the political editor(who co-wrote the piece) and deputy political editor of the FT follow me on Twitter and I've met the deputy editor a few times at events.
Sometime it's because the numbers are relatable. I have been on committees that spend longer on discussing whether to continue to have tea or coffee at meetings* than on a million pound project. Not everyone understands the project accounts, but everyone understands tea and biscuits.
* the days of Trust tea and biscuits are sadly long gone.
Public sector net debt excluding public sector banks was provisionally estimated to be around 99.8% of the UK’s annual gross domestic product at the end of May 2024.
https://x.com/ONS/status/1804032993696026677
It gives m'luds free rein to make it up as they go along.
The solution is to repeal said laws, and where necessary replace them with something more defibitively written.
Meanwhile this is absolute catnip for Farage. This is precisely the sort of thing they were elected to do in 2019 and manifestly failed to.
I have reservations about the statistical base of the Yougov panel but this may well produce useful information per constituency in due course.
FPT
» show previous quotes
Eh?
The pompous centrist Tories buggered off to Lib and Lab ages ago, in part because of stuff like this.
Not all of them.
» show previous quotes
https://www.factcheck.org/2023/06/scicheck-no-bombshell-on-covid-19-origins-u-s-intelligence-rebuts-claims-about-sick-lab-workers/
That says more about Factcheck than Leon
Edit - having said that, Layla knows a good Gotv tactic when she sees one
Not sure it wise, perhaps just normalcy bias, but I think many will follow the @Big_G_NorthWales and cling to nurse, for fear of finding something worse.
They forgot that pensioners have grandchildren and theoretical ideas about national service is one thing, their own grandchildren conscripted at a time when them ending up in a Donbass trench is not entirely inconceivable, is quite another.
As both were/are appalling in their own ways, so asking someone to choose is like asking someone to choose between asking them if they'd like to employ a cow or a giant pig as their chauffeur. You were always going to end up crashed into a ditch, you're just deciding whose mess you find more bearable along the way, or which you can wrestle the wheel from.
Even many Labour people who object to Corbyn would tend to pick him in the belief could restrain his crank views - Ukraine would've been the end of him with the PLP - and do some good on their issues. Tories would and did pick Boris in the belief that an indolent, morally reprehensible charlatan who shares their politics is at least fibbing to further policies they prefer.
You can find tortured ways of justifying one or the other but essentially someone can always point out you're insane to want to be driven around by a cow or a pig.
The more important question for both parties, and that should cause soul searching, is how on Earth they both presented the country with such an awful choice, and to make sure it never happens again.
My favourite election trips are the ones that don't go as expected - anyway me on the battle against Reform in Boston and Skegness. A Farage takeover of the Tories is starting to be treated as a done deal & I'm not so sure
https://x.com/gabyhinsliff/status/1804068240030605434
What you do is join in there fun. Make it obvious why such laws are a bad idea.
Start with a law saying that the anti-climate change backlash in climate protestors actions must be taken into account when sentencing them.
- I'm calling from a polling company, may I ask a question?
- Sure
- Do you, Pyotr Sidorov, residing Moscow Suvorova 23-46, engineer at factory Dinamo, three unpaid parking tickets, one speeding violation, support Russia's Special Military Operation in Ukraine?
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/other/come-5-july-an-almighty-fight-looms-keir-starmer-take-on-the-countryside-at-your-peril/ar-BB1oAylk?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=fd19c36b30184622bbb30b861a58f9ef&ei=11
Reasons why compass points should never be in
Comparing data from Yougov and Electoral Calculus...
EC go : Suffolk Central and Ipswich North
Yougov: Central Suffolk and North Ipswich
Looks like Yougov have the correct names I think ?
https://x.com/JohnRentoul/status/1804070558570524852
They've still done massive damage to power infrastructure.
I’m very sad to read that Donald Sutherland has died at the age of 88. I don’t have many celebrity stories, but I do treasure my spectacular interactions with Donald in the summer of 2015. Please do read on. ..
https://x.com/markmackinnon/status/1803893145920299126
Production is a secondary matter.
We already consume more than we produce, which is a terrible failure. We need to work harder on reducing consumption, not production.
I'm sure there will be plenty of shouting, but the places under threat are the places that won't be voting for the new government anyway.
And when that all gives you a headache you won't even be able to take an aspirin as that is made of hydrocarbons as well.
Items in shops aren't labelled with the text of the Theft Act.
As of now, Farage is the only character able to make his type of politics work, and he won't be around forever. Once the personality goes, what happens to the cult?
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/jun/20/what-if-there-just-is-no-solution-how-we-are-all-in-denial-about-the-climate-crisis
I changed my car last year. My old car was costing me ~£80 a tank of petrol which would last me 350 miles. My new car costs me ~£40 a tank of petrol which lasts me 350 miles. Does that mean I'm driving twice as many miles as I was to keep my expenditure the same? Of course it doesn't!
My oil consumption has come down by roughly 50% in that vehicle, not because of changes to production globally (of which OPEC of course adapts to keep prices where it wants it) but because I've adopted a technological change.
My old car was just petrol, my new one is not even a plug in, just a self-charging hybrid, that gets over twice the miles to the gallon as the old one.
We are seeing technological change like that on a micro and macro scale all over the planet. Over half my oil consumption has gone in my vehicle in one step and my intention is my next vehicle will be a net zero pure electric one, its just that's too expensive today.
Clean technology adaptation is the only way to solve the mess and clean the environment.
The matter is almost certainly not going to be resolved before the election.
We will reduce consumption of oil when we collectively believe that we need to reduce consumption of oil. That moment has not arrived yet. So on we go.
There's actually stacks of case law on what dishonestly means in the Theft Act
It seems to be the natural progression in a number of countries. Is there a British Meloni, Marine Le Pen, Mary-Lou* waiting to emerge?
* SF aren't on the far-right, but the transition from Gerry Adams/Martin McGuiness to Mary-Lou McDonald/Michelle O'Neill follows the same pattern.
Jake Fraser, who is standing for Nigel Farage’s party in Widnes and Halewood, likened the introduction of vaccine passes for holidays to the genocide of Jewish people during the Second World War.
It comes after a row between Reform and a vetting firm it paid £144,000 to weed out unsuitable parliamentary candidates, with Mr Farage threatening the company with legal action after a series of disclosures about would-be MPs.
In comments made in 2021 and first reported by The Daily Mail, Mr Fraser wrote on social media: “We’re on the precipice of a health Holocaust.
“The same methodology the Nazis used to rise to power, with minimal opposition by appealing to both sides of the political spectrum... is unfolding before our eyes.”
Following the comments coming to light, Mr Fraser has said: “As a small-time polemicist, the rhetoric was a tip of the hat to parallels of totalitarianism employed by National Socialists during the rise of Hitler prior to (not during) the Jewish Holocaust.
“As stated in my Facebook post, similar tactics of appealing to both sides of the political spectrum were adopted by the so-called ‘Conservative’ Party, as did Hitler on his rise to power.
“It wasn’t likening Britain during the pandemic to Nazi Germany, it was an observation of the behaviour of the ‘Conservatives’, and indeed other public figures and institutions on the world stage, but the polemic was directed at the sitting government, after all, it was them who were making the decisions.”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/06/21/reform-uk-candidate-jack-fraser-compared-covid-to-holocaust/
Who would now be in their mid-eighties.
And as I recall it most people who didn’t go, like me, because I was still a student, were glad they didn’t.
And good morning, everyone.
This is what elections are all about.
UK 51.7
Germany 50.6
France 48.2
https://www.pmi.spglobal.com/Public/Release/PressReleases
From the Sick Man of Europe:
France has not yet benefited from the global trade recovery. This is evident in the PMI for New Export Business, which has remained below the threshold of 50 for the twenty-eighth consecutive month.
It doesn't seem that being in the Single Market is the guarantee of export success we're led to believe.
Whether they keep voting, who knows? I think they will at least for this GE, but turnout in 2029 might look a lot like 2001.
The planet will only be destroyed when the sun finally enters its death throes and engulfs the inner planets. Although some think that the orbits will also move outwards, although it will still be incredibly warm. Whatever, I won't be around to see it destroyed.
(pedantic mode off)
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/jun/20/hip-hop-mimes-and-breast-jokes-win-nigel-farage-a-valuable-gen-z-following-reform-uk
Regdrding renewables. The economic arguments for wind turbines etc. are barking. They have to be backed 100% by conventional power stations (gas) to cover still windless dark cold periods.
The eco argument is equally ludicrous and industry destroying with higher costs when China and India etc extracting vast amounts of coal for cheap electricity.
There is an argument for it on security reasons, with our own oil running out thenturbines mean we need less gas/oil from Vladimir and Khassogis murderers.
But pointing that out would mean the politicians saying "we've cocked up energy policy, ours is running out and we've got to spend a fortune otherwise Vlad and Sundry Sheiks will have us over a barrel"
Far better to say "you wicked people, you are destroying the planet, we must go green to save it"
The downside of that is that the green zealots are as uncontrollable and destructive as any other zealot and they have been allowed within the citadel.
Frustrated to the extent of saying a lot more than ‘ bother’, to the concern of my wife.
Conservatives
@Conservatives
How do you like your eggs in the morning?
https://x.com/Conservatives/status/1804057793294434306
If you fancy a Greens seat flutter, they lead in two constituency polls here
Per capita, considering our population growth, we've had an even bigger fall in consumption.
But we need to do more on consumption. Encouraging the switch to cleaner technologies, and ensuring they're affordable.