Why not abolish general elections altogether? Instead, elect all members for a maximum term length of of five years. Calling an election in said constituency early is entirely up to him/her. But it has to happen after five years. Benefits are more independent thinking mps, less dependent on whim or popularity of their leaders. I suspect there are disadvantages, though.
That idea was floated by the Alliance in the 1980s. The idea was that - through death, disqualification, etc. - you would end up with a constant stream of by-elections.
From the point of view of a political punter, there's a lot to recommend it.
Or the opposite. If they know this motion will fail, they are trying to engineer a situation where they have clean hands while requesting a longer extension.
Yes.
Stripped of the meaningless PD, this vote pitches the pure question "Do you insist on blocking Brexit?" If the answer is 'Yes', the Labour opposition are exposed, since their Brexit policy requires the WA.
And if by some chance it passes, well bingo.
It's a good and rational move. Rather late though. They should have done this for MV2.
It is also neat it is done on the former Brexit day.
What’s the point of Tory Party membership if members have no membership benefits and are ignored on policy. The right to vote on the party leader is the only one membership benefit left. MPs saddled us with May, members voted for Cameron.
Do members not get the right to take part in the selection of local MP candidates?
Usually - although only from an approved list. Not always though - as candidate selection in the last election was imposed on some constituencies against local association wishes. Wollaston was selected as a Tory candidate in an open primary.
I don't think the members of either of the 2 main parties should be allowed anywhere near determining policy. Discuss it by all means but not dictate it.
While we have a Buggin's turn electoral system small numbers of party members should not have much power at all. Extremists have already twigged that the easiest way to exert power is not dominate one of the 2 main parties. The tiny size of the Tory membership make it ripe for infiltration Labour has already been swamped
This has probably been covered, but how exactly are Labour planning to justify voting down the WA tomorrow? I had thought they had decided the WA was acceptable (if not ideal)?
This has probably been covered, but how exactly are Labour planning to justify voting down the WA tomorrow? I had thought they had decided the WA was acceptable (if not ideal)?
They are going to claim it's a 'blind Brexit'. Which is extremely cynical, but that's no surprise.
ERG pushing to see the draft Bill. Bercow mischievoulsly confirming it is already written but saying it's up to the government whether MPs get to see it. Edit/ and now saying it would be good practice to publish it.
absolutely inappropriate once again. He is a snide little shit isn't he.
Which one of the ERG are you referring to?
Bercow actually.
(My grandfather was an excellent speaker of the house of lords, so I may have an idealised view on how they should operate. Bercow is unpleasant personally, too fond of the sound of his own voice, and uses the authority of the chair to pursue his personal goals).
This has probably been covered, but how exactly are Labour planning to justify voting down the WA tomorrow? I had thought they had decided the WA was acceptable (if not ideal)?
They just said they would oppose. At the moment they are just rubbishing the whole process as both flawed and legally doubtful.
This has probably been covered, but how exactly are Labour planning to justify voting down the WA tomorrow? I had thought they had decided the WA was acceptable (if not ideal)?
This could be the greatest trick Theresa ever played. We may get see her carried along shoulder high, her deal passed and her place in history secured.
What’s the point of Tory Party membership if members have no membership benefits and are ignored on policy. The right to vote on the party leader is the only one membership benefit left. MPs saddled us with May, members voted for Cameron.
Do members not get the right to take part in the selection of local MP candidates?
Usually - although only from an approved list. Not always though - as candidate selection in the last election was imposed on some constituencies against local association wishes. Wollaston was selected as a Tory candidate in an open primary.
I don't think the members of either of the 2 main parties should be allowed anywhere near determining policy. Discuss it by all means but not dictate it.
While we have a Buggin's turn electoral system small numbers of party members should not have much power at all. Extremists have already twigged that the easiest way to exert power is not dominate one of the 2 main parties. The tiny size of the Tory membership make it ripe for infiltration Labour has already been swamped
Don’t Labour and the LibDems gets to vote on policy at their annual conferences ? The problem for the Tories is that it’s difficult work out what they actually do stand for. Their main attraction seems to be simply that they are not Labour.
This has probably been covered, but how exactly are Labour planning to justify voting down the WA tomorrow? I had thought they had decided the WA was acceptable (if not ideal)?
They are going to claim it's a 'blind Brexit'. Which is extremely cynical, but that's no surprise.
Given the PD is worth about as much as the paper on which it’s written, it’ll be blind with or without it.
ERG pushing to see the draft Bill. Bercow mischievoulsly confirming it is already written but saying it's up to the government whether MPs get to see it. Edit/ and now saying it would be good practice to publish it.
absolutely inappropriate once again. He is a snide little shit isn't he.
Which one of the ERG are you referring to?
Bercow actually.
(My grandfather was an excellent speaker of the house of lords, so I may have an idealised view on how they should operate. Bercow is unpleasant personally, too fond of the sound of his own voice, and uses the authority of the chair to pursue his personal goals).
This has probably been covered, but how exactly are Labour planning to justify voting down the WA tomorrow? I had thought they had decided the WA was acceptable (if not ideal)?
They are going to claim it's a 'blind Brexit'. Which is extremely cynical, but that's no surprise.
No doubt the 'Lab rebels' will um and ah and then agree with the whip on that as per usual.
This has probably been covered, but how exactly are Labour planning to justify voting down the WA tomorrow? I had thought they had decided the WA was acceptable (if not ideal)?
They are going to claim it's a 'blind Brexit'. Which is extremely cynical, but that's no surprise.
Given the PD is worth about as much as the paper on which it’s written, it’ll be blind with or without it.
Exactly. That is at the insistence of the EU, who claim (improbably, but implacably) that it's a legal requirement, so there cannot be any form of Brexit which isn't a 'blind Brexit'.
ERG pushing to see the draft Bill. Bercow mischievoulsly confirming it is already written but saying it's up to the government whether MPs get to see it. Edit/ and now saying it would be good practice to publish it.
absolutely inappropriate once again. He is a snide little shit isn't he.
Which one of the ERG are you referring to?
Bercow actually.
(My grandfather was an excellent speaker of the house of lords, so I may have an idealised view on how they should operate. Bercow is unpleasant personally, too fond of the sound of his own voice, and uses the authority of the chair to pursue his personal goals).
ERG pushing to see the draft Bill. Bercow mischievoulsly confirming it is already written but saying it's up to the government whether MPs get to see it. Edit/ and now saying it would be good practice to publish it.
absolutely inappropriate once again. He is a snide little shit isn't he.
Which one of the ERG are you referring to?
Bercow actually.
(My grandfather was an excellent speaker of the house of lords, so I may have an idealised view on how they should operate. Bercow is unpleasant personally, too fond of the sound of his own voice, and uses the authority of the chair to pursue his personal goals).
There was no Lord Speaker until 2006.
He was Lord Chancellor before the role was emasculated - so chaired the house and performed the role the the Lord Speaker now carries out.
It was too complicated to explain all of that, so I went for a short hand version... I should have known better
This has probably been covered, but how exactly are Labour planning to justify voting down the WA tomorrow? I had thought they had decided the WA was acceptable (if not ideal)?
They are going to claim it's a 'blind Brexit'. Which is extremely cynical, but that's no surprise.
No doubt the 'Lab rebels' will um and ah and then agree with the whip on that as per usual.
I suspect there will be a few more Labour rebels, but the arithmetic remains extremely daunting for the government.
What’s the point of Tory Party membership if members have no membership benefits and are ignored on policy. The right to vote on the party leader is the only one membership benefit left. MPs saddled us with May, members voted for Cameron.
Do members not get the right to take part in the selection of local MP candidates?
Usually - although only from an approved list. Not always though - as candidate selection in the last election was imposed on some constituencies against local association wishes. Wollaston was selected as a Tory candidate in an open primary.
I don't think the members of either of the 2 main parties should be allowed anywhere near determining policy. Discuss it by all means but not dictate it.
While we have a Buggin's turn electoral system small numbers of party members should not have much power at all. Extremists have already twigged that the easiest way to exert power is not dominate one of the 2 main parties. The tiny size of the Tory membership make it ripe for infiltration Labour has already been swamped
Don’t Labour and the LibDems gets to vote on policy at their annual conferences ? The problem for the Tories is that it’s difficult work out what they actually do stand for. Their main attraction seems to be simply that they are not Labour.
The LibDems do, with a certain amount of management. Labour does in principle but in practice what gets to the conference floor is very heavily determined by conference management. Look at all the fuss over debating the PV at their last conference and the heavily fudged motion that finally made it to the floor.
This has probably been covered, but how exactly are Labour planning to justify voting down the WA tomorrow? I had thought they had decided the WA was acceptable (if not ideal)?
They are voting it down without listening to the debate
In a time of national crisis we have a disaster of an opposition
ERG pushing to see the draft Bill. Bercow mischievoulsly confirming it is already written but saying it's up to the government whether MPs get to see it. Edit/ and now saying it would be good practice to publish it.
absolutely inappropriate once again. He is a snide little shit isn't he.
Which one of the ERG are you referring to?
Bercow actually.
(My grandfather was an excellent speaker of the house of lords, so I may have an idealised view on how they should operate. Bercow is unpleasant personally, too fond of the sound of his own voice, and uses the authority of the chair to pursue his personal goals).
There was no Lord Speaker until 2006.
He was Lord Chancellor before the role was emasculated - so chaired the house and performed the role the the Lord Speaker now carries out.
It was too complicated to explain all of that, so I went for a short hand version... I should have known better
Also name dropping your grandfather the Lord Chancellor might have seemed a bit uncouth.
This has probably been covered, but how exactly are Labour planning to justify voting down the WA tomorrow? I had thought they had decided the WA was acceptable (if not ideal)?
This could be the greatest trick Theresa ever played. We may get see her carried along shoulder high, her deal passed and her place in history secured.
But apparently they do intend to vote against? And so it will take 40-50 Labour votes to get through still? It seems like it should be able to pass, questions about process notwithstanding, but that relies on believing the words people have spouted rather than look at their actions.
A lot of people have said the problem is X, or Y, when actually it is Z. In this case plenty of people claim they need something before they could back the WA, but really they just want hard brexit, soft brexit or no deal, whatever, and will always find an excuse.
This has probably been covered, but how exactly are Labour planning to justify voting down the WA tomorrow? I had thought they had decided the WA was acceptable (if not ideal)?
They are going to claim it's a 'blind Brexit'. Which is extremely cynical, but that's no surprise.
No doubt the 'Lab rebels' will um and ah and then agree with the whip on that as per usual.
Labour can't afford to upset its Remainiac activists. That's the only reason.
This has probably been covered, but how exactly are Labour planning to justify voting down the WA tomorrow? I had thought they had decided the WA was acceptable (if not ideal)?
They are going to claim it's a 'blind Brexit'. Which is extremely cynical, but that's no surprise.
No doubt the 'Lab rebels' will um and ah and then agree with the whip on that as per usual.
I suspect there will be a few more Labour rebels, but the arithmetic remains extremely daunting for the government.
A few Labour rebels here, a few Labour rebels there pretty soon you are talking real deal passing.
This has probably been covered, but how exactly are Labour planning to justify voting down the WA tomorrow? I had thought they had decided the WA was acceptable (if not ideal)?
They are going to claim it's a 'blind Brexit'. Which is extremely cynical, but that's no surprise.
No doubt the 'Lab rebels' will um and ah and then agree with the whip on that as per usual.
I suspect there will be a few more Labour rebels, but the arithmetic remains extremely daunting for the government.
I'd expect fewer Labour rebels, unless there really is a chance of it getting through..
ERG pushing to see the draft Bill. Bercow mischievoulsly confirming it is already written but saying it's up to the government whether MPs get to see it. Edit/ and now saying it would be good practice to publish it.
absolutely inappropriate once again. He is a snide little shit isn't he.
Which one of the ERG are you referring to?
Bercow actually.
(My grandfather was an excellent speaker of the house of lords, so I may have an idealised view on how they should operate. Bercow is unpleasant personally, too fond of the sound of his own voice, and uses the authority of the chair to pursue his personal goals).
There was no Lord Speaker until 2006.
He was Lord Chancellor before the role was emasculated - so chaired the house and performed the role the the Lord Speaker now carries out.
It was too complicated to explain all of that, so I went for a short hand version... I should have known better
This has probably been covered, but how exactly are Labour planning to justify voting down the WA tomorrow? I had thought they had decided the WA was acceptable (if not ideal)?
They are voting it down without listening to the debate
In a time of national crisis we have a disaster of an opposition
It's a national crisis brought on by a disaster of a government.
This has probably been covered, but how exactly are Labour planning to justify voting down the WA tomorrow? I had thought they had decided the WA was acceptable (if not ideal)?
They are going to claim it's a 'blind Brexit'. Which is extremely cynical, but that's no surprise.
No doubt the 'Lab rebels' will um and ah and then agree with the whip on that as per usual.
I suspect there will be a few more Labour rebels, but the arithmetic remains extremely daunting for the government.
I'd expect fewer Labour rebels, unless there really is a chance of it getting through..
I do not get this at all. The WA contains the backstop and it is the backstop that the ERG and DUP hate. Why would taking the PD out change anything?
There is also the point that the PD is now fully and palpably meaningless - because it is Theresa May's vision of the Future Relationship and Theresa May will be gone by the time it is up for negotiation.
It makes no sense, therefore, for it to be voted on.
This has probably been covered, but how exactly are Labour planning to justify voting down the WA tomorrow? I had thought they had decided the WA was acceptable (if not ideal)?
They are voting it down without listening to the debate
In a time of national crisis we have a disaster of an opposition
It's a national crisis brought on by a disaster of a government.
This has probably been covered, but how exactly are Labour planning to justify voting down the WA tomorrow? I had thought they had decided the WA was acceptable (if not ideal)?
They are going to claim it's a 'blind Brexit'. Which is extremely cynical, but that's no surprise.
No doubt the 'Lab rebels' will um and ah and then agree with the whip on that as per usual.
I suspect there will be a few more Labour rebels, but the arithmetic remains extremely daunting for the government.
I'd expect fewer Labour rebels, unless there really is a chance of it getting through..
If this falls no deal becomes highly likely
They've been told that at every opportunity. Either they don't believe it, or they do not mind because they don't actually want to prevent no deal Brexit, they want to look Brexity without actually enabling Brexit.
ERG pushing to see the draft Bill. Bercow mischievoulsly confirming it is already written but saying it's up to the government whether MPs get to see it. Edit/ and now saying it would be good practice to publish it.
absolutely inappropriate once again. He is a snide little shit isn't he.
Which one of the ERG are you referring to?
Bercow actually.
(My grandfather was an excellent speaker of the house of lords, so I may have an idealised view on how they should operate. Bercow is unpleasant personally, too fond of the sound of his own voice, and uses the authority of the chair to pursue his personal goals).
There was no Lord Speaker until 2006.
He was Lord Chancellor before the role was emasculated - so chaired the house and performed the role the the Lord Speaker now carries out.
It was too complicated to explain all of that, so I went for a short hand version... I should have known better
Also name dropping your grandfather the Lord Chancellor might have seemed a bit uncouth.
I have fun explaining the role to Americans - it breaks just about every separation of powers you can imagine
This has probably been covered, but how exactly are Labour planning to justify voting down the WA tomorrow? I had thought they had decided the WA was acceptable (if not ideal)?
They are going to claim it's a 'blind Brexit'. Which is extremely cynical, but that's no surprise.
No doubt the 'Lab rebels' will um and ah and then agree with the whip on that as per usual.
I suspect there will be a few more Labour rebels, but the arithmetic remains extremely daunting for the government.
I'd expect fewer Labour rebels, unless there really is a chance of it getting through..
5. General election to decide what we want from our future arrangements.
6. New government behind negotiations for future trade deal.
Can that work?
Theoretically. A GE is much more justified post WA if there is no PD.
But we've been dashed before. What do people in parliament actually want? I suspect it is to vote on new options on Monday more than cutting in short now.
2. Theresa May resigns - Con leadership election - Theresa stays on as PM during leadership election.
3. We leave the EU on 22nd May with the WA.
4. New Con leader.
5. General election to decide what we want from our future arrangements.
6. New government behind negotiations for future trade deal.
Can that work?
1. Doesn't look very likely. 2. Follows 3. After 1. the WAIB needs to pass including formal agreement to both WA and PD. Otherwise it could work. Not sure 5. really makes sense for the Tories in terms of writing a manifesto, however.
Given the PD is worth about as much as the paper on which it’s written, it’ll be blind with or without it.
Absolutely. And the PD is now worth less than zero since TM will not be around to pursue it. Having a vote on it makes no sense whatsoever. 'WA only' does make at least some sense.
The Future Relationship will be shaped by whatever PM and government is in power after the GE which IMO is almost certainly coming.
The opposition line of attack is clearly going to be "blind Brexit" redoubled, contrasting the transparency of the indicative debate on options with the motion to write HMG a blank cheque.
MV (and semiMV) rule of thumb - unless someone explicitly says they are voting for it, assume they are not. I expect a number of Lab MPs to be quiet on the matter, as part of the general optimism cycle.
The opposition line of attack is clearly going to be "blind Brexit" redoubled, contrasting the transparency of the indicative debate on options with the motion to write HMG a blank cheque.
Which is garbage, of course, because you can still have the indicative debate (almost all the discussion was about the PD). Not that that will deter them.
I could see some logic in stripping out the PD and having a vote on the WA only - bound up with a dissolution of Parliament thereafter to elect a new Government to negotiate the new PD or more realistically as a non-EU member the actual future relationship doc.
But that's not what she's doing.
I am utterly baffled. Why does stripping out the PD make it more likely to pass? Surely it's less likely if we're junking the PD and "going blind"?
I thought this was a complete shambles 6 months ago. I never envisaged it descending to this level of fiasco!
The opposition line of attack is clearly going to be "blind Brexit" redoubled, contrasting the transparency of the indicative debate on options with the motion to write HMG a blank cheque.
Which is garbage, of course, because you can still have the indicative debate (almost all the discussion was about the PD). Not that that will deter them.
This has probably been covered, but how exactly are Labour planning to justify voting down the WA tomorrow? I had thought they had decided the WA was acceptable (if not ideal)?
The difficulty that Labour will have in answering this question is one of the benefits to TM of framing the vote this way.
The opposition line of attack is clearly going to be "blind Brexit" redoubled, contrasting the transparency of the indicative debate on options with the motion to write HMG a blank cheque.
Which is garbage, of course, because you can still have the indicative debate (almost all the discussion was about the PD). Not that that will deter them.
Except that it rules out the option (pass WA subject to confirmatory referendum) that got the most votes yesterday. It's a blank cheque to May and whatever headbanger replaces her, Labour would be mad to allow their fingerprints anywhere near it.
What is the capitalist pro-free market response to climate and environmental change? Apart from the cheap "Venezuela" jibes, has anyone got anything to offer?
Is it a Trumpian denial that anything is happening? Perhaps 70F in February isn't so bad after all but it's far more than climate change. Look at air quality and air pollution in our towns and cities. Do we want to breathe bad air - do we want our children to breathe bad air?
It's all very well sniping about the Greens and Labour but the centre and centre-right have abdicated the field to the authoritarian Left who make headway simply because they are offering some solutions. All the Right seems to be about is climate change denial and pro-nuclear power and that won't wash anymore.
The Venezuela remarks aren't just cheap jokes made for the sake of it. Plenty of members of the Corbyn faction, including the leader himself, were for many years voluble in their praise of the socialist authoritarian regime in Venezuela. Socialism - as distinct from social democracy - is a system that is deeply destructive both of personal liberty and of economic progress, and it always bears reiterating that it has never, in the long run, brought anything but misery to populations subjected to it. We certainly ought not to be giving it another doomed roll of the dice here.
Speaking more broadly of climate change, the current Government can hardly be accused of being Trumpian in its approach to the problem. The UK remains a signatory to the Paris Agreement and is committed to fulfilling its goals, the adoption of renewable energy continues apace, and IIRC in the last few months we've had the first instances since the very beginning of electricity generation of the country being able to manage for a full day at a time without using a single watt of coal-fired power. This will become a progressively more frequent occurrence in future. Most of the cost of a tank of petrol is duty and tax, and the Government has long-term plans for the abandonment of the internal combustion engine itself.
Finally, if new nuclear power stations are built then, yes, it's not an ideal solution, but the reliable base load is needed until we can work out how to get a sufficient continuous power supply solely from cleaner sources, and it's still better than resorting to burning more fossil fuels instead.
The opposition line of attack is clearly going to be "blind Brexit" redoubled, contrasting the transparency of the indicative debate on options with the motion to write HMG a blank cheque.
Which is garbage, of course, because you can still have the indicative debate (almost all the discussion was about the PD). Not that that will deter them.
Except that it rules out the option (pass WA subject to confirmatory referendum) that got the most votes yesterday. It's a blank cheque to May and whatever headbanger replaces her, Labour would be mad to allow their fingerprints anywhere near it.
If parliament wanted that option, it could have had it by amendment in MV1 and MV2. In any case, you're not comparing like with like - the 'pass WA subject to confirmatory referendum' wasn't limited to the actual WA which is available, but included unicorn WAs.
The opposition line of attack is clearly going to be "blind Brexit" redoubled, contrasting the transparency of the indicative debate on options with the motion to write HMG a blank cheque.
Which is garbage, of course, because you can still have the indicative debate (almost all the discussion was about the PD). Not that that will deter them.
Except that it rules out the option (pass WA subject to confirmatory referendum) that got the most votes yesterday. It's a blank cheque to May and whatever headbanger replaces her, Labour would be mad to allow their fingerprints anywhere near it.
No because you can still add that to the WAIB. Passing the WA is not the end , the WAIB can be amended .
The Third Meaningful Vote market has not been voided on Betfair but I really wouldn't advise betting on it now. It seems profoundly ambiguous to me whether this is or is not a Third Meaningful Vote within the terms of the bet.
The opposition line of attack is clearly going to be "blind Brexit" redoubled, contrasting the transparency of the indicative debate on options with the motion to write HMG a blank cheque.
Which is garbage, of course, because you can still have the indicative debate (almost all the discussion was about the PD). Not that that will deter them.
Except that it rules out the option (pass WA subject to confirmatory referendum) that got the most votes yesterday. It's a blank cheque to May and whatever headbanger replaces her, Labour would be mad to allow their fingerprints anywhere near it.
Perhaps so. But if fails, as expected, but gets more votes than the options voted on yesterday, what then? Does Customs union have to drop out? If it is provably more popular than any other option that could be very relevant.
What is the capitalist pro-free market response to climate and environmental change? Apart from the cheap "Venezuela" jibes, has anyone got anything to offer?.
Yes, of course. In the UK, the switch-over to renewable energy - especially, offshore wind - since 2010 has been stunningly fast. I don't think anyone was expecting anything even remotely so rapid and cost-effective as the private sector has been able to deliver over that period (with a bit of good government nudging).
Solar is less relevant to the UK, but the same story applies in that sector - a stunning reduction in costs over the last few years.
Yes, in that regard the UK has done well. However, the air quality in London and other cities continues to deteriorate as the number of cars increases and while I accept the individual vehicle is much "cleaner" than it was the quantity of them on our roads mitigates the benefit to a considerable extent.
In terms of air travel, technological advances are not keeping up with overall demand. Cruise ships are also environmentally good but there are far more of them.
There was a fascinating piece about Mongolia and how the average Mongolian citizen burns unprocessed coal as a fuel source - that's what we used to do in the 19th Century with all the health issues that flowed. I've nothing against a Mongolian keeping warm and I can't believe there aren't countries which could supply processed (much cleaner) coal at a price the average Mongolian can afford. Instead, the Government are trying to provide air filters but the figures on infants with bronchial problems are truly horrifying.
This has all come from the economic changes which have seen the steppe depopulated in favour of people working and living in cities. We didn't know any better two hundred and more years ago but now we know what the environmental negatives are around capitalism - we should be aiding China, India, brazil and others to achieve their economic growth without causing us all environmental problems.
The opposition line of attack is clearly going to be "blind Brexit" redoubled, contrasting the transparency of the indicative debate on options with the motion to write HMG a blank cheque.
Vote down the WDA tomorrow no deal risk rockets as 12th April is the end date for decisions, and the legal implementation to enable those decisions
Just two weeks to agree the alternatives, including most likely EU elections, and either agreeing a referendum, revoke or a GE.
The idea the EU will extend for the UK to carry on as we are is one of the many unicorns coming into view
The opposition line of attack is clearly going to be "blind Brexit" redoubled, contrasting the transparency of the indicative debate on options with the motion to write HMG a blank cheque.
The blind Brexit argument is nonsense especially if a GE occurs in June where the next stage can be debated adinfinitum. It's all about not upsetting their Remainiac fan base.
This has probably been covered, but how exactly are Labour planning to justify voting down the WA tomorrow? I had thought they had decided the WA was acceptable (if not ideal)?
They are voting it down without listening to the debate
In a time of national crisis we have a disaster of an opposition
It's a national crisis brought on by a disaster of a government.
Brought on by a disaster of a General Election, brought on by the disaster that is May.
The opposition line of attack is clearly going to be "blind Brexit" redoubled, contrasting the transparency of the indicative debate on options with the motion to write HMG a blank cheque.
The blind Brexit argument is nonsense especially if a GE occurs in June where the next stage can be debated ad-finitum. It's all about not upsetting their Remainiac fan base.
The blind brexit line is brilliant labelling though. Like any manifesto policy which can be given a snappy and negative name it will stick and be believed regardless of its merits.
What is the capitalist pro-free market response to climate and environmental change? Apart from the cheap "Venezuela" jibes, has anyone got anything to offer?.
Yes, of course. In the UK, the switch-over to renewable energy - especially, offshore wind - since 2010 has been stunningly fast. I don't think anyone was expecting anything even remotely so rapid and cost-effective as the private sector has been able to deliver over that period (with a bit of good government nudging).
Solar is less relevant to the UK, but the same story applies in that sector - a stunning reduction in costs over the last few years.
Yes, in that regard the UK has done well. However, the air quality in London and other cities continues to deteriorate as the number of cars increases and while I accept the individual vehicle is much "cleaner" than it was the quantity of them on our roads mitigates the benefit to a considerable extent.
In terms of air travel, technological advances are not keeping up with overall demand. Cruise ships are also environmentally good but there are far more of them.
There was a fascinating piece about Mongolia and how the average Mongolian citizen burns unprocessed coal as a fuel source - that's what we used to do in the 19th Century with all the health issues that flowed. I've nothing against a Mongolian keeping warm and I can't believe there aren't countries which could supply processed (much cleaner) coal at a price the average Mongolian can afford. Instead, the Government are trying to provide air filters but the figures on infants with bronchial problems are truly horrifying.
This has all come from the economic changes which have seen the steppe depopulated in favour of people working and living in cities. We didn't know any better two hundred and more years ago but now we know what the environmental negatives are around capitalism - we should be aiding China, India, brazil and others to achieve their economic growth without causing us all environmental problems.
The problem of air quality in our cities is largely unrelated to climate change, in fact it's partly a direct result of the Labour government pushing people to buy diesel cars (ironically in order to reduce CO2 emissions). The private sector is coming to the rescue with electric vehicles (where again there has been a remarkable speed of innovation).
So I was answering your question. Yes, the private sector can and does provide solutions. The points you make about Mongolia, China, India etc are good ones, but completely separate (and of course these are centrally planned economies to a quite large extent still).
Labour's solution being to create a Venezuelan-style economy, in which all those nasty greenhouse gas emissions are ended through the total destruction of industry, the cessation of electricity generation and of the use of powered transport, mass depopulation through the emigration of refugee boat people to the Continent, and the slow, agonising death by starvation of most of those who can't make the journey.
At the end of this process, the few miserable survivors will have regressed to living in Iron Age roundhouses.
The Green Party will pop up at the end of this process and remind us that reform still hasn't gone far enough, because we need to abandon agriculture and allow the wildwood to grow back again in order to be truly environmentally friendly.
What is the capitalist pro-free market response to climate and environmental change? Apart from the cheap "Venezuela" jibes, has anyone got anything to offer?
Is it a Trumpian denial that anything is happening? Perhaps 70F in February isn't so bad after all but it's far more than climate change. Look at air quality and air pollution in our towns and cities. Do we want to breathe bad air - do we want our children to breathe bad air?
It's all very well sniping about the Greens and Labour but the centre and centre-right have abdicated the field to the authoritarian Left who make headway simply because they are offering some solutions. All the Right seems to be about is climate change denial and pro-nuclear power and that won't wash anymore.
The government has been pretty successful in promoting renewable energy. Carbon emissions have fallen to their lowest level for 130 years.
The Third Meaningful Vote market has not been voided on Betfair but I really wouldn't advise betting on it now. It seems profoundly ambiguous to me whether this is or is not a Third Meaningful Vote within the terms of the bet.
The Third Meaningful Vote market has not been voided on Betfair but I really wouldn't advise betting on it now. It seems profoundly ambiguous to me whether this is or is not a Third Meaningful Vote within the terms of the bet.
The opposition line of attack is clearly going to be "blind Brexit" redoubled, contrasting the transparency of the indicative debate on options with the motion to write HMG a blank cheque.
Which is garbage, of course, because you can still have the indicative debate (almost all the discussion was about the PD). Not that that will deter them.
Except that it rules out the option (pass WA subject to confirmatory referendum) that got the most votes yesterday. It's a blank cheque to May and whatever headbanger replaces her, Labour would be mad to allow their fingerprints anywhere near it.
Perhaps so. But if fails, as expected, but gets more votes than the options voted on yesterday, what then? Does Customs union have to drop out? If it is provably more popular than any other option that could be very relevant.
The government had the chance to table it yesterday!
In any event the indicative option process needs to better than identify best loser, but to come up with a proposal that can be supported by a majority. If it succeeds then the government deal is dead.
Depends on the outcome of this process. If we end up with No Deal then the Tories will hold on for dear life and the DUP will then have no reason to abandon them. A GE this year then occurs only if the Conservative Party splits, and I think the moderates might only become desperate enough to secede if Johnson or some similar figure makes it through to the membership ballot and is elected as leader.
Given the total inability of the Commons either to back the Deal or identify a viable alternative, the next most likely outcome after No Deal seems to be an eleventh hour Revocation. Under those circumstances then yes, I think that a General Election would be highly likely. If there ends up being a long extension to A50, then there would probably also need to be an election so that Corbyn and the next Tory leader could present their ideas for what to do next to the people.
Depends on the outcome of this process. If we end up with No Deal then the Tories will hold on for dear life and the DUP will then have no reason to abandon them. A GE this year then occurs only if the Conservative Party splits, and I think the moderates might only become desperate enough to secede if Johnson or some similar figure makes it through to the membership ballot and is elected as leader.
Given the total inability of the Commons either to back the Deal or identify a viable alternative, the next most likely outcome after No Deal seems to be an eleventh hour Revocation. Under those circumstances then yes, I think that a General Election would be highly likely. If there ends up being a long extension to A50, then there would probably also need to be an election so that Corbyn and the next Tory leader could present their ideas for what to do next to the people.
The Tory party splits either way. In the first instance there is a batch of senior Tories (and probably a fair few juniors) who said they would walk rather than be in a party that takes us to no deal. In the second instance revocation requires some Tory votes and I don't see how those could then stay.
Except that it rules out the option (pass WA subject to confirmatory referendum) that got the most votes yesterday. It's a blank cheque to May and whatever headbanger replaces her, Labour would be mad to allow their fingerprints anywhere near it.
It's not really a blank cheque. A new Hard Brexit Tory PM would not be able to get that sort of Brexit through this Parliament. A GE would be required - which is what Labour want above all else.
The opposition line of attack is clearly going to be "blind Brexit" redoubled, contrasting the transparency of the indicative debate on options with the motion to write HMG a blank cheque.
Which is garbage, of course, because you can still have the indicative debate (almost all the discussion was about the PD). Not that that will deter them.
Except that it rules out the option (pass WA subject to confirmatory referendum) that got the most votes yesterday. It's a blank cheque to May and whatever headbanger replaces her, Labour would be mad to allow their fingerprints anywhere near it.
Perhaps so. But if fails, as expected, but gets more votes than the options voted on yesterday, what then? Does Customs union have to drop out? If it is provably more popular than any other option that could be very relevant.
The government had the chance to table it yesterday!
I agree, but people were whinging yesterday that the top two items yesterday were more popular than the deal as if that made a difference, therefore if the WA is more popular those same people must think it significant.
What is the capitalist pro-free market response to climate and environmental change? Apart from the cheap "Venezuela" jibes, has anyone got anything to offer?
Is it a Trumpian denial that anything is happening? Perhaps 70F in February isn't so bad after all but it's far more than climate change. Look at air quality and air pollution in our towns and cities. Do we want to breathe bad air - do we want our children to breathe bad air?
It's all very well sniping about the Greens and Labour but the centre and centre-right have abdicated the field to the authoritarian Left who make headway simply because they are offering some solutions. All the Right seems to be about is climate change denial and pro-nuclear power and that won't wash anymore.
The Venezuela remarks aren't just cheap jokes made for the sake of it. Plenty of members of the Corbyn faction, including the leader himself, were for many years voluble in their praise of the socialist authoritarian regime in Venezuela. Socialism - as distinct from social democracy - is a system that is deeply destructive both of personal liberty and of economic progress, and it always bears reiterating that it has never, in the long run, brought anything but misery to populations subjected to it. We certainly ought not to be giving it another doomed roll of the dice here.
Speaking more broadly of climate change, the current Government can hardly be accused of being Trumpian in its approach to the problem. The UK remains a signatory to the Paris Agreement and is committed to fulfilling its goals, the adoption of renewable energy continues apace, and IIRC in the last few months we've had the first instances since the very beginning of electricity generation of the country being able to manage for a full day at a time without using a single watt of coal-fired power. This will become a progressively more frequent occurrence in future. Most of the cost of a tank of petrol is duty and tax, and the Government has long-term plans for the abandonment of the internal combustion engine itself.
Finally, if new nuclear power stations are built then, yes, it's not an ideal solution, but the reliable base load is needed until we can work out how to get a sufficient continuous power supply solely from cleaner sources, and it's still better than resorting to burning more fossil fuels instead.
Just remember - 30 million cars charging at 7KW means a requirement of an additional 210GW capacity in the UK electricity gberating - current capacity is 90GW being reduced to 60GW over the next few years as some power stations go offline.
Depends on the outcome of this process. If we end up with No Deal then the Tories will hold on for dear life and the DUP will then have no reason to abandon them. A GE this year then occurs only if the Conservative Party splits, and I think the moderates might only become desperate enough to secede if Johnson or some similar figure makes it through to the membership ballot and is elected as leader.
Given the total inability of the Commons either to back the Deal or identify a viable alternative, the next most likely outcome after No Deal seems to be an eleventh hour Revocation. Under those circumstances then yes, I think that a General Election would be highly likely. If there ends up being a long extension to A50, then there would probably also need to be an election so that Corbyn and the next Tory leader could present their ideas for what to do next to the people.
The Third Meaningful Vote market has not been voided on Betfair but I really wouldn't advise betting on it now. It seems profoundly ambiguous to me whether this is or is not a Third Meaningful Vote within the terms of the bet.
Yes, in fact it's probably not.
Yes. "Meaningful vote" is a term in law and I think the government accepted in answer to earlier questioning that tomorrow isn't one.
The Venezuela remarks aren't just cheap jokes made for the sake of it. Plenty of members of the Corbyn faction, including the leader himself, were for many years voluble in their praise of the socialist authoritarian regime in Venezuela. Socialism - as distinct from social democracy - is a system that is deeply destructive both of personal liberty and of economic progress, and it always bears reiterating that it has never, in the long run, brought anything but misery to populations subjected to it. We certainly ought not to be giving it another doomed roll of the dice here.
Speaking more broadly of climate change, the current Government can hardly be accused of being Trumpian in its approach to the problem. The UK remains a signatory to the Paris Agreement and is committed to fulfilling its goals, the adoption of renewable energy continues apace, and IIRC in the last few months we've had the first instances since the very beginning of electricity generation of the country being able to manage for a full day at a time without using a single watt of coal-fired power. This will become a progressively more frequent occurrence in future. Most of the cost of a tank of petrol is duty and tax, and the Government has long-term plans for the abandonment of the internal combustion engine itself.
Finally, if new nuclear power stations are built then, yes, it's not an ideal solution, but the reliable base load is needed until we can work out how to get a sufficient continuous power supply solely from cleaner sources, and it's still better than resorting to burning more fossil fuels instead.
Thanks for the response. I agree Corbyn is Socialist in tooth and claw but the problem Conservatives have is what he offers id superficially attractive and especially so for people who are working hard to stand still. If your wages go up 2% and your Council Tax goes up 5% and your fares go up 4% you aren't really progressing.
The current economic model isn't working and as a non-Conservative, it angers me when I hear the siren calls for tax cuts. IF there is any spare money it needs to be invested not frittered away in pointless tax cuts. The issues of debt and the adequate funding of residential care for vulnerable children and adults should be the focus for the Chancellor.
As for climate change, I didn't accuse the Government of being Trumpian and Richard N has already made the argument for the ongoing transition to renewable energy and I have made the argument that air quality and air pollution remain problems.
I'd like to use Britain take a leading role in promoting sensible climate and environmental policies. We can lead by example outside the EU setting ourselves some serious targets and providing our technological knowledge across the world.
Comments
From the point of view of a political punter, there's a lot to recommend it.
While we have a Buggin's turn electoral system small numbers of party members should not have much power at all. Extremists have already twigged that the easiest way to exert power is not dominate one of the 2 main parties. The tiny size of the Tory membership make it ripe for infiltration Labour has already been swamped
(My grandfather was an excellent speaker of the house of lords, so I may have an idealised view on how they should operate. Bercow is unpleasant personally, too fond of the sound of his own voice, and uses the authority of the chair to pursue his personal goals).
It was too complicated to explain all of that, so I went for a short hand version... I should have known better
In a time of national crisis we have a disaster of an opposition
A lot of people have said the problem is X, or Y, when actually it is Z. In this case plenty of people claim they need something before they could back the WA, but really they just want hard brexit, soft brexit or no deal, whatever, and will always find an excuse.
It makes no sense, therefore, for it to be voted on.
1. WA passes minus PD
2. Theresa May resigns - Con leadership election - Theresa stays on as PM during leadership election.
3. We leave the EU on 22nd May with the WA.
4. New Con leader.
5. General election to decide what we want from our future arrangements.
6. New government begins negotiations for future trade deal endorsed by general election.
Can that work?
But we've been dashed before. What do people in parliament actually want? I suspect it is to vote on new options on Monday more than cutting in short now.
So no chance then.
The Future Relationship will be shaped by whatever PM and government is in power after the GE which IMO is almost certainly coming.
No surprise there.
I think what the government is actually trying to do is transfer some of the blame for No Deal on to Labour, which is fair enough.
But that's not what she's doing.
I am utterly baffled. Why does stripping out the PD make it more likely to pass? Surely it's less likely if we're junking the PD and "going blind"?
I thought this was a complete shambles 6 months ago. I never envisaged it descending to this level of fiasco!
Speaking more broadly of climate change, the current Government can hardly be accused of being Trumpian in its approach to the problem. The UK remains a signatory to the Paris Agreement and is committed to fulfilling its goals, the adoption of renewable energy continues apace, and IIRC in the last few months we've had the first instances since the very beginning of electricity generation of the country being able to manage for a full day at a time without using a single watt of coal-fired power. This will become a progressively more frequent occurrence in future. Most of the cost of a tank of petrol is duty and tax, and the Government has long-term plans for the abandonment of the internal combustion engine itself.
Finally, if new nuclear power stations are built then, yes, it's not an ideal solution, but the reliable base load is needed until we can work out how to get a sufficient continuous power supply solely from cleaner sources, and it's still better than resorting to burning more fossil fuels instead.
In terms of air travel, technological advances are not keeping up with overall demand. Cruise ships are also environmentally good but there are far more of them.
There was a fascinating piece about Mongolia and how the average Mongolian citizen burns unprocessed coal as a fuel source - that's what we used to do in the 19th Century with all the health issues that flowed. I've nothing against a Mongolian keeping warm and I can't believe there aren't countries which could supply processed (much cleaner) coal at a price the average Mongolian can afford. Instead, the Government are trying to provide air filters but the figures on infants with bronchial problems are truly horrifying.
This has all come from the economic changes which have seen the steppe depopulated in favour of people working and living in cities. We didn't know any better two hundred and more years ago but now we know what the environmental negatives are around capitalism - we should be aiding China, India, brazil and others to achieve their economic growth without causing us all environmental problems.
Just two weeks to agree the alternatives, including most likely EU elections, and either agreeing a referendum, revoke or a GE.
The idea the EU will extend for the UK to carry on as we are is one of the many unicorns coming into view
Or -
WA does not pass, then the GE is pre Brexit and Labour fight it offering REF2.
So I was answering your question. Yes, the private sector can and does provide solutions. The points you make about Mongolia, China, India etc are good ones, but completely separate (and of course these are centrally planned economies to a quite large extent still).
In any event the indicative option process needs to better than identify best loser, but to come up with a proposal that can be supported by a majority. If it succeeds then the government deal is dead.
Given the total inability of the Commons either to back the Deal or identify a viable alternative, the next most likely outcome after No Deal seems to be an eleventh hour Revocation. Under those circumstances then yes, I think that a General Election would be highly likely. If there ends up being a long extension to A50, then there would probably also need to be an election so that Corbyn and the next Tory leader could present their ideas for what to do next to the people.
The current economic model isn't working and as a non-Conservative, it angers me when I hear the siren calls for tax cuts. IF there is any spare money it needs to be invested not frittered away in pointless tax cuts. The issues of debt and the adequate funding of residential care for vulnerable children and adults should be the focus for the Chancellor.
As for climate change, I didn't accuse the Government of being Trumpian and Richard N has already made the argument for the ongoing transition to renewable energy and I have made the argument that air quality and air pollution remain problems.
I'd like to use Britain take a leading role in promoting sensible climate and environmental policies. We can lead by example outside the EU setting ourselves some serious targets and providing our technological knowledge across the world.