On of the most pernicious and widespread delusions is that we can make meaningful contributions to solving environmental problems by token personal actions such as eschewing plastic toys or recycling yoghurt cartons. These gestures are virtually useless and serve only to deflect from meaningful action.
The changes that are actually needed to significantly mitigate the danger of climate change require massive, centrally-coordinated efforts that will unavoidably impact our way of life. The politicians shy away from saying so, but there is simply no getting away from that. It's all a bit reminiscent of the Brexit debate.
I disagree. The point is that: until we - the general public - are willing to make such small sacrifices, the mood to make the massive changes that you want are remote - as the public aren't with your program.
You want a top-down, anti-democratic approach.
The interesting (and worrying) thing is the way that left-inclined people have jumped on the environmental debate: in many cases (not yours) not so that they can help the environment, but so they can have a massive opportunity to reshape society in their image.
The problem with the "democratic" approach is that it simply doesn't work. It supposes a degree of self-sacrifice that most people just don't have. We don't rely on people's sense of civic duty to, for example, refrain from littering, so why expect them to voluntarily refrain from other environmentally damaging actions?
What worries me is the tendency that some right-inclined people have to deny the existence of problems that cannot be solved without some form of collective action. It's delusional and dangerous.
What worries me is the tendency that some left-inclined people have to deny the ability of individuals to be responsible moral agents without the coercion of the state. I do not litter, even when there is no one to punish me for doing so, and I believe I am in the majority.
They constantly try to escape From the darkness outside and within By dreaming of systems so perfect that no one will need to be good.
On of the most pernicious and widespread delusions is that we can make meaningful contributions to solving environmental problems by token personal actions such as eschewing plastic toys or recycling yoghurt cartons. These gestures are virtually useless and serve only to deflect from meaningful action.
The changes that are actually needed to significantly mitigate the danger of climate change require massive, centrally-coordinated efforts that will unavoidably impact our way of life. The politicians shy away from saying so, but there is simply no getting away from that. It's all a bit reminiscent of the Brexit debate.
I disagree. The point is that: until we - the general public - are willing to make such small sacrifices, the mood to make the massive changes that you want are remote - as the public aren't with your program.
You want a top-down, anti-democratic approach.
The interesting (and worrying) thing is the way that left-inclined people have jumped on the environmental debate: in many cases (not yours) not so that they can help the environment, but so they can have a massive opportunity to reshape society in their image.
The problem with the "democratic" approach is that it simply doesn't work. It supposes a degree of self-sacrifice that most people just don't have. We don't rely on people's sense of civic duty to, for example, refrain from littering, so why expect them to voluntarily refrain from other environmentally damaging actions?
What worries me is the tendency that some right-inclined people have to deny the existence of problems that cannot be solved without some form of collective action. It's delusional and dangerous.
The democratic approach is preferable to your dictatorship in the name of the environment.
Mr. Eagles, possibly, though I'd be more inclined to lay blame on May.
I also doubt that's the motivation of Remainers. They, like hardline Leavers, see that getting a 'pure' result (no deal departure or remaining after all) is credibly possible. So why settle for compromise when you can seek a 'real' victory?
Mr. Meeks, Remain MPs voted to hold the referendum and to honour the result.
But as Gove told the cabinet, No Deal does not honour the referendum result.
Why does Leaving with No Deal not honour the referendum result? Disastrous unquestionably, but that wasn't foremost, apparently, in Leavers minds.
We were told that a favourable deal could be knocked up in a morning with time enough for a Leaver or two to enjoy a celebratory lunch at one of Brussels' Michelin starred restaurants. Prue Leith recipes for sataying rats were not advertised in advance.
Oh come on, Alistair. Where will we get peanuts from?!
On of the most pernicious and widespread delusions is that we can make meaningful contributions to solving environmental problems by token personal actions such as eschewing plastic toys or recycling yoghurt cartons. These gestures are virtually useless and serve only to deflect from meaningful action.
The changes that are actually needed to significantly mitigate the danger of climate change require massive, centrally-coordinated efforts that will unavoidably impact our way of life. The politicians shy away from saying so, but there is simply no getting away from that. It's all a bit reminiscent of the Brexit debate.
I disagree. The point is that: until we - the general public - are willing to make such small sacrifices, the mood to make the massive changes that you want are remote - as the public aren't with your program.
You want a top-down, anti-democratic approach.
The interesting (and worrying) thing is the way that left-inclined people have jumped on the environmental debate: in many cases (not yours) not so that they can help the environment, but so they can have a massive opportunity to reshape society in their image.
The problem with the "democratic" approach is that it simply doesn't work. It supposes a degree of self-sacrifice that most people just don't have. We don't rely on people's sense of civic duty to, for example, refrain from littering, so why expect them to voluntarily refrain from other environmentally damaging actions?
What worries me is the tendency that some right-inclined people have to deny the existence of problems that cannot be solved without some form of collective action. It's delusional and dangerous.
So what you prefer is an anti-democratic, daddy-knows-best approach? Don't bother with what the people think, let's do it anyway (but only when it agrees with my politics)?
I prefer approaches that actually work rather than empty gestures. For what it's worth, I favour market-based solutions over centrally dictated policies such as subsidies, but the framework for such solutions (e.g. a high carbon tax) has to be set by government.
Says the man who advised Major pre 1997 and Hague in 2001.
Finkrlstein is a good writer but he ignores the anger from Leavers
You seem to think that Leavers’ anger is not understood (you made a similar comment about me downthread). It is. The question is whether to pander to it.
It is also worth noting that neither Leavers nor Remainers are made up of clones. The emptiest vessels make most sound.
It is not a question of pandering, Leave won the referendum and the Commons has refused to respect that vote. It does not really matter what form Brexit now takes but it must still be Brexit
You can always back out of a suicide pact.
It is a question of pandering. Leavers are very clear on what they don’t want and clueless about what they do want. A lot have alighted on no deal for no other reason than it requires no thought.
Leavers are all united on Brexit, that needs to be delivered first, the future relationship with the EU can be determined later
So you undo 45 years of increasingly close co-operation in all sorts of industries, at all sorts of levels, plus similar co-operation in Government and quasi government departments and organisations and worry about the future later!
Really???????
what co-operation in industry ? Weve had 45 years of running ours down theres not much left to cooperate on.
It might be owned from outside but there's still a fair bit actually working.
the bits owned from outside take their decisions outside without much involvement from us,
Total nonsense. Industry is international. "We" (whoever we is) influence companies in masses of countries around the world, as well as having those dreaded furriners influence companies that reside here. It has ever been thus.You (like many who voted for Brexit) hanker after a time that never existed.
oh dear
furriners
and you were so hoping to make a serious point
Hehe. I thought it would be language you could relate to, and I also avoided using apostrophes.
I don't know any cleric in the CofE who would use language of that sort. If she found her spiritual home in Catholicism, which is a sister church within Christianity, then that's the right path for her.
She may have done many terrible things but 'betraying' the Church of England isn't one of them.
p.s. Factoid alert. Did you know her brother Malcom was a CofE priest of some renown? A charismatic evangelical who used to speak about the 'Holy Ghost.' The renewal under his stewardship at Pip n' Jay Bristol was one of the first of its kind.
Ann Widdecombe was honoured by a foreign power, we know where her loyalties lie, they aren't to the UK.
I could come up with a dozen or more things that each and every one of us could be doing to reduce carbon emissions and help the environment without much effort. They are not instead of government action but as well as and if a majority of us did them it would make a difference, small maybe, but a difference and a whole lot better than doing nothing.
I saw no practical proposals come from the protestors. I did read an interview with one of the leaders who, even now, is still driving a diesel car. There are plenty of alternatives. The fact that someone who claims to care so much cannot even be bothered to make a change some of the rest of us made a while ago did not impress me.
Mass protests demanding government action aren't usually designed to elaborate detailed proposals - there is really no shortage of fairly far-reaching action that governments can take that will be painful for lots of us, so the protests are aboutr shifting opinion and making such changes acceptable. It would be unexpected if banners had things like "Bring forward the 2050 deadline for carbon neutrality to 2038" or "Raise taxes by 1% to subsidise solar panels on all older housing".
Individual action is important too, and the protests help change attitudes for those as well. Changing cars frequently is not always environmentally advisable because of the climate cost of production - the trick is to take best advice when you do change. But if we leave the decisions only to individuals we won't really tackle the issue effectively.
I'm not in general a fan of direct action. But they've succeeded in making it a subject of popular debate again to an extent that hundreds of weighty papers with detailed recommendations (e.g. the EAT:Lancet report) really have not.
The removal of payments for solar panels is one of the stupider things this government has done. Bringing attention to it and demanding a reversal would be a useful thing to have done. I have solar panels here and in the Lake District where they also heat our water. We are benefiting from the previous schemes. But now there is little financial inventive to having them which seems daft.
In my side of my street in London, virtually every house has a south-facing flat roof. Some are unused. Some are used as roof terraces. One is used as both a roof terrace, for planting and for solar panels - mine. None of the others have solar panels or green roofs. That is such a waste. Governments ought to be incentivising people to make use of this sort of space in this way - and there is lots of it all over our cities. Bringing this to peoples’ attention - to the government’s attention - would have been a good use of last week’s protests or, indeed, of MPs’ time.
On of the most pernicious and widespread delusions is that we can make meaningful contributions to solving environmental problems by token personal actions such as eschewing plastic toys or recycling yoghurt cartons. These gestures are virtually useless and serve only to deflect from meaningful action.
The changes that are actually needed to significantly mitigate the danger of climate change require massive, centrally-coordinated efforts that will unavoidably impact our way of life. The politicians shy away from saying so, but there is simply no getting away from that. It's all a bit reminiscent of the Brexit debate.
I disagree. The point is that: until we - the general public - are willing to make such small sacrifices, the mood to make the massive changes that you want are remote - as the public aren't with your program.
You want a top-down, anti-democratic approach.
The interesting (and worrying) thing is the way that left-inclined people have jumped on the environmental debate: in many cases (not yours) not so that they can help the environment, but so they can have a massive opportunity to reshape society in their image.
The problem with the "democratic" approach is that it simply doesn't work. It supposes a degree of self-sacrifice that most people just don't have. We don't rely on people's sense of civic duty to, for example, refrain from littering, so why expect them to voluntarily refrain from other environmentally damaging actions?
What worries me is the tendency that some right-inclined people have to deny the existence of problems that cannot be solved without some form of collective action. It's delusional and dangerous.
So what you prefer is an anti-democratic, daddy-knows-best approach? Don't bother with what the people think, let's do it anyway (but only when it agrees with my politics)?
I prefer approaches that actually work rather than empty gestures. For what it's worth, I favour market-based solutions over centrally dictated policies such as subsidies, but the framework for such solutions (e.g a high carbon tax) has to be set by government.
But ti doesn't work if the politicians don't take the public with them, for the public will just vote in politicians that will agree more with them than the lot that ignore them.
Changing your lifestyle because of what you see is a threat is not an 'empty gesture': it is showing many things: including that you are willing to undergo the pain that you want forced on others. And others may see what you're doing and realise that they can do it too.
On of the most pernicious and widespread delusions is that we can make meaningful contributions to solving environmental problems by token personal actions such as eschewing plastic toys or recycling yoghurt cartons. These gestures are virtually useless and serve only to deflect from meaningful action.
The changes that are actually needed to significantly mitigate the danger of climate change require massive, centrally-coordinated efforts that will unavoidably impact our way of life. The politicians shy away from saying so, but there is simply no getting away from that. It's all a bit reminiscent of the Brexit debate.
I disagree. The point is that: until we - the general public - are willing to make such small sacrifices, the mood to make the massive changes that you want are remote - as the public aren't with your program.
You want a top-down, anti-democratic approach.
The interesting (and worrying) thing is the way that left-inclined people have jumped on the environmental debate: in many cases (not yours) not so that they can help the environment, but so they can have a massive opportunity to reshape society in their image.
The problem with the "democratic" approach is that it simply doesn't work. It supposes a degree of self-sacrifice that most people just don't have. We don't rely on people's sense of civic duty to, for example, refrain from littering, so why expect them to voluntarily refrain from other environmentally damaging actions?
What worries me is the tendency that some right-inclined people have to deny the existence of problems that cannot be solved without some form of collective action. It's delusional and dangerous.
What worries me is the tendency that some left-inclined people have to deny the ability of individuals to be responsible moral agents without the coercion of the state. I do not litter, even when there is no one to punish me for doing so, and I believe I am in the majority.
They constantly try to escape From the darkness outside and within By dreaming of systems so perfect that no one will need to be good.
Do you think that anti-littering laws should be abolished then?
I disagree. The point is that: until we - the general public - are willing to make such small sacrifices, the mood to make the massive changes that you want are remote - as the public aren't with your program.
You want a top-down, anti-democratic approach.
The interesting (and worrying) thing is the way that left-inclined people have jumped on the environmental debate: in many cases (not yours) not so that they can help the environment, but so they can have a massive opportunity to reshape society in their image.
The problem with the "democratic" approach is that it simply doesn't work. It supposes a degree of self-sacrifice that most people just don't have. We don't rely on people's sense of civic duty to, for example, refrain from littering, so why expect them to voluntarily refrain from other environmentally damaging actions?
What worries me is the tendency that some right-inclined people have to deny the existence of problems that cannot be solved without some form of collective action. It's delusional and dangerous.
So what you prefer is an anti-democratic, daddy-knows-best approach? Don't bother with what the people think, let's do it anyway (but only when it agrees with my politics)?
I prefer approaches that actually work rather than empty gestures. For what it's worth, I favour market-based solutions over centrally dictated policies such as subsidies, but the framework for such solutions (e.g a high carbon tax) has to be set by government.
But ti doesn't work if the politicians don't take the public with them, for the public will just vote in politicians that will agree more with them than the lot that ignore them.
Changing your lifestyle because of what you see is a threat is not an 'empty gesture': it is showing many things: including that you are willing to undergo the pain that you want forced on others. And others may see what you're doing and realise that they can do it too.
But they don't. The fact that I, for example, drive a small, efficient car doesn't seem to be inspiring my neighbours to give up their Chelsea tractors.
I could come up with a dozen or more things that ea better than doing nothing.
I saw no practical proposals come e ago did not impress me.
Mass protests demanding government action aren't usually designed to elaborate detailed proposals - there is really no shortage of fairly far-reaching action that governments can take that will be painful for lots of us, so the protests are aboutr shifting opinion and making such changes acceptable. It would be unexpected if banners had things like "Bring forward the 2050 deadline for carbon neutrality to 2038" or "Raise taxes by 1% to subsidise solar panels on all older housing".
Individual action is important too, and the protests help change attitudes for those as well. Changing cars frequently is not always environmentally advisable because of the climate cost of production - the trick is to take best advice when you do change. But if we leave the decisions only to individuals we won't really tackle the issue effectively.
I'm not in general a fan of direct action. But they've succeeded in making it a subject of popular debate again to an extent that hundreds of weighty papers with detailed recommendations (e.g. the EAT:Lancet report) really have not.
The removal of payments for solar panels is one of the stupider things this government has done. Bringing attention to it and demanding a reversal would be a useful thing to have done. I have solar panels here and in the Lake District where they also heat our water. We are benefiting from the previous schemes. But now there is little financial inventive to having them which seems daft.
In my side of my street in London, virtually every house has a south-facing flat roof. Some are unused. Some are used as roof terraces. One is used as both a roof terrace, for planting and for solar panels - mine. None of the others have solar panels or green roofs. That is such a waste. Governments ought to be incentivising people to make use of this sort of space in this way - and there is lots of it all over our cities. Bringing this to peoples’ attention - to the government’s attention - would have been a good use of last week’s protests or, indeed, of MPs’ time.
The cost of solar has now dropped to a point where it doesnt need such generous subsidy
I don't know any cleric in the CofE who would use language of that sort. If she found her spiritual home in Catholicism, which is a sister church within Christianity, then that's the right path for her.
She may have done many terrible things but 'betraying' the Church of England isn't one of them.
p.s. Factoid alert. Did you know her brother Malcom was a CofE priest of some renown? A charismatic evangelical who used to speak about the 'Holy Ghost.' The renewal under his stewardship at Pip n' Jay Bristol was one of the first of its kind.
Ann Widdecombe was honoured by a foreign power, we know where her loyalties lie, they aren't to the UK.
Yes, don't get me wrong, I think she's an awful, hectoring, old bat.
By the way, for some reason I thought you were a Spurs supporter?
the bits owned from outside take their decisions outside without much involvement from us,
Total nonsense. Industry is international. "We" (whoever we is) influence companies in masses of countries around the world, as well as having those dreaded furriners influence companies that reside here. It has ever been thus.You (like many who voted for Brexit) hanker after a time that never existed.
oh dear
furriners
and you were so hoping to make a serious point
Hehe. I thought it would be language you could relate to, and I also avoided using apostrophes.
so no real point then
Not really. Over many exchanged points with you, I am quite aware that I am unlikely to stop your enjoyment complaining about why the world used to be so much better than it is today, and how the UK is going to hell in a handcart. I find this amusing and even endearing, particularly as you paradoxically show a complete disregard for the obsession of the most traditional and old-fogey-minded; punctuation and grammar!
Re Change UK, I think Richard Dawkins would have been a good choice. They need to win 10%+, they don't need to worry that religious voters might vote for someone else.
But we are acting now. You can argue that it's not enough (and I have some sympathy with that view), but you can't argue that we're doing nothing.
But as other posters say, we can do much ourselves. The actions of these protesters aren't really designed to win over the general public, and may well alienate them.
I'll give a really simple example. My son is four, and whenever we go to the supermarket wants to go to the magazine aisle to buy one or other CBeebies magazine: whether it's Go Jetters, Andy's Dinosaur Adventures or whatever. He's not interested in the magazine itself, but in the cheap plastic imported-from-China tat that comes in it.
It's blooming hard to resist the pester power, especially as the toys generally get put in a playbox after an hour.
(The only 'good' one of these came with an Alphablocks magazinr, which had phonics letters that we play with together.)
On of the most pernicious and widespread delusions is that we can make meaningful contributions to solving environmental problems by token personal actions such as eschewing plastic toys or recycling yoghurt cartons. These gestures are virtually useless and serve only to deflect from meaningful action.
The changes that are actually needed to significantly mitigate the danger of climate change require massive, centrally-coordinated efforts that will unavoidably impact our way of life. The politicians shy away from saying so, but there is simply no getting away from that. It's all a bit reminiscent of the Brexit debate.
We need both. But you are falling into the delusion identified by Burke so many years ago, that because an individual can only do a little he may as well not bother doing anything. Small steps do help, lots of people taking small steps do help, they change the political climate and they make it easier to make the bigger changes needed.
Those leading the demos last week were saying that all gas boilers need to be ripped out of every house in the country and replaced without explaining how this would be feasible, who would pay etc. If some of their leaders cannot even be bothered to replace their diesel cars, something which is easily done, then others are entitled to question how green they really are or why they should be expected to do something so disruptive. It’s not ad hominem to point this out. “Do as I say not as I do” is as unattractive in a green leader as it is in an ultra-Brexiteer like Rees-Mogg.
the bits owned from outside take their decisions outside without much involvement from us,
Total nonsense. Industry is international. "We" (whoever we is) influence companies in masses of countries around the world, as well as having those dreaded furriners influence companies that reside here. It has ever been thus.You (like many who voted for Brexit) hanker after a time that never existed.
oh dear
furriners
and you were so hoping to make a serious point
Hehe. I thought it would be language you could relate to, and I also avoided using apostrophes.
so no real point then
Not really. Over many exchanged points with you, I am quite aware that I am unlikely to stop your enjoyment complaining about why the world used to be so much better than it is today, and how the UK is going to hell in a handcart. I find this amusing and even endearing, particularly as you paradoxically show a complete disregard for the obsession of the most traditional and old-fogey-minded; punctuation and grammar!
I don't know any cleric in the CofE who would use language of that sort. If she found her spiritual home in Catholicism, which is a sister church within Christianity, then that's the right path for her.
She may have done many terrible things but 'betraying' the Church of England isn't one of them.
p.s. Factoid alert. Did you know her brother Malcom was a CofE priest of some renown? A charismatic evangelical who used to speak about the 'Holy Ghost.' The renewal under his stewardship at Pip n' Jay Bristol was one of the first of its kind.
Ann Widdecombe was honoured by a foreign power, we know where her loyalties lie, they aren't to the UK.
If that is true, she will be right at home in the Brexit Nationalist Party; she will be willingly attempting to advance the foreign policy objectives of not just a foreign power, but a hostile one.
On of the most pernicious and widespread delusions is that we can make meaningful contributions to solving environmental problems by token personal actions such as eschewing plastic toys or recycling yoghurt cartons. These gestures are virtually useless and serve only to deflect from meaningful action.
The changes that are actually needed to significantly mitigate the danger of climate change require massive, centrally-coordinated efforts that will unavoidably impact our way of life. The politicians shy away from saying so, but there is simply no getting away from that. It's all a bit reminiscent of the Brexit debate.
I disagree. The point is that: until we - the general public - are willing to make such small sacrifices, the mood to make the massive changes that you want are remote - as the public aren't with your program.
You want a top-down, anti-democratic approach.
The interesting (and worrying) thing is the way that left-inclined people have jumped on the environmental debate: in many cases (not yours) not so that they can help the environment, but so they can have a massive opportunity to reshape society in their image.
The problem with the "democratic" approach is that it simply doesn't work. It supposes a degree of self-sacrifice that most people just don't have. We don't rely on people's sense of civic duty to, for example, refrain from littering, so why expect them to voluntarily refrain from other environmentally damaging actions?
What worries me is the tendency that some right-inclined people have to deny the existence of problems that cannot be solved without some form of collective action. It's delusional and dangerous.
What worries me is the tendency that some left-inclined people have to deny the ability of individuals to be responsible moral agents without the coercion of the state. I do not litter, even when there is no one to punish me for doing so, and I believe I am in the majority.
They constantly try to escape From the darkness outside and within By dreaming of systems so perfect that no one will need to be good.
Do you think that anti-littering laws should be abolished then?
Do you think that any effort to encourage people to believe that non-littering is something they should do, irrespective of legal sanctions, should be discontinued then?
the bits owned from outside take their decisions outside without much involvement from us,
Total nonsense. Industry is international. "We" (whoever we is) influence companies in masses of countries around the world, as well as having those dreaded furriners influence companies that reside here. It has ever been thus.You (like many who voted for Brexit) hanker after a time that never existed.
oh dear
furriners
and you were so hoping to make a serious point
Hehe. I thought it would be language you could relate to, and I also avoided using apostrophes.
so no real point then
Not really. Over many exchanged points with you, I am quite aware that I am unlikely to stop your enjoyment complaining about why the world used to be so much better than it is today, and how the UK is going to hell in a handcart. I find this amusing and even endearing, particularly as you paradoxically show a complete disregard for the obsession of the most traditional and old-fogey-minded; punctuation and grammar!
I don't know any cleric in the CofE who would use language of that sort. If she found her spiritual home in Catholicism, which is a sister church within Christianity, then that's the right path for her.
She may have done many terrible things but 'betraying' the Church of England isn't one of them.
p.s. Factoid alert. Did you know her brother Malcom was a CofE priest of some renown? A charismatic evangelical who used to speak about the 'Holy Ghost.' The renewal under his stewardship at Pip n' Jay Bristol was one of the first of its kind.
On of the most pernicious and widespread delusions is that we can make meaningful contributions to solving environmental problems by token personal actions such as eschewing plastic toys or recycling yoghurt cartons. These gestures are virtually useless and serve only to deflect from meaningful action.
The changes that are actually needed to significantly mitigate the danger of climate change require massive, centrally-coordinated efforts that will unavoidably impact our way of life. The politicians shy away from saying so, but there is simply no getting away from that. It's all a bit reminiscent of the Brexit debate.
I disagree. The point is that: until we - the general public - are willing to make such small sacrifices, the mood to make the massive changes that you want are remote - as the public aren't with your program.
You want a top-down, anti-democratic approach.
The interesting (and worrying) thing is the way that left-inclined people have jumped on the environmental debate: in many cases (not yours) not so that they can help the environment, but so they can have a massive opportunity to reshape society in their image.
The problem with the "democratic" approach is that it simply doesn't work. It supposes a degree of self-sacrifice that most people just don't have. We don't rely on people's sense of civic duty to, for example, refrain from littering, so why expect them to voluntarily refrain from other environmentally damaging actions?
What worries me is the tendency that some right-inclined people have to deny the existence of problems that cannot be solved without some form of collective action. It's delusional and dangerous.
The democratic approach is preferable to your dictatorship in the name of the environment.
Hmm. So you would make it legal to throw litter and have bonfires close to neighbours gardens, then just ask people to be nice and not to do it?
On topic, Nigel Farage was last matched at 25 for next Prime Minister. (I can confirm, because I laid that.)
Pop over to the SB and take the 41! Amazing that Betfair lay arbs off their own exchange like that
Nigel has already been very good to me through judicious backing and laying. But 25 is absurdly short for a man who is not in Parliament, has no MPs and when the Prime Minister might well be replaced in the next few weeks. I don't feel the need to reback.
I don't know any cleric in the CofE who would use language of that sort. If she found her spiritual home in Catholicism, which is a sister church within Christianity, then that's the right path for her.
She may have done many terrible things but 'betraying' the Church of England isn't one of them.
p.s. Factoid alert. Did you know her brother Malcom was a CofE priest of some renown? A charismatic evangelical who used to speak about the 'Holy Ghost.' The renewal under his stewardship at Pip n' Jay Bristol was one of the first of its kind.
Ann Widdecombe was honoured by a foreign power, we know where her loyalties lie, they aren't to the UK.
Yes, don't get me wrong, I think she's an awful, hectoring, old bat.
By the way, for some reason I thought you were a Spurs supporter?
She'll put off as many as she attracts however she keeps Brexit party in the news, and the drip, drip, drip of candidates is a good tactic. It does so far seem like they have been fairly well vetted too compared to CUK or UKIP.
The BP must be careful not to relaunch the career of too many more ex MPs or it dilutes from the suggestion they are rallying against Westminster. One ex Labour figure will do and then the rest should be representative of the general public.
I don't know any cleric in the CofE who would use language of that sort. If she found her spiritual home in Catholicism, which is a sister church within Christianity, then that's the right path for her.
She may have done many terrible things but 'betraying' the Church of England isn't one of them.
p.s. Factoid alert. Did you know her brother Malcom was a CofE priest of some renown? A charismatic evangelical who used to speak about the 'Holy Ghost.' The renewal under his stewardship at Pip n' Jay Bristol was one of the first of its kind.
Ann Widdecombe was honoured by a foreign power, we know where her loyalties lie, they aren't to the UK.
If that is true, she will be right at home in the Brexit Nationalist Party; she will be willingly attempting to advance the foreign policy objectives of not just a foreign power, but a hostile one.
Sorry to be late to the party but I think Alastair's making two big mistakes in his article, possibly out of wishful thinking.
Farage is not primarily interested in gaining MPs or in forming a government. As with UKIP1.0, he is building a political movement but one that's aiming at a policy outcome, not in achieving office for its own sake. If those things come along the way then he'd certainly take it but it's a secondary aim. Not for him the Lib Dem strategy of building from the bottom up through local activism; his is and always has been a top-down concept. And, it should be remembered, that with hardly any MPs, it worked first time round: the pressure his movement exerted achieved the delivery of an In/Out referendum, and Out won.
The criticisms aimed at the Brexit party are much the same as those which were aimed at UKIP under his leadership - yet UKIP achieved its primary goal (or thought it had), so those criticisms must be wrong, and they're wrong because they're viewing politics through too narrow a frame.
This isn't to say that there isn't some validity to some of what Alastair says but they're generally second-order issues that will be brushed aside, causing the same kind of stupefaction among commentators living in a Remain bubble as to why their attacks aren't working.
It doesn't matter that Farage has said iffy things about the NHS: people voting for him are not interested in his views on the NHS because they're interested in Brexit, and in protesting against the system. In any case, the very fact that Farage isn't bothered about gaining MPs, and is playing to only maybe 25% at most of the electorate means that it's an absurd claim to suggest that 'he'd abolish the NHS', when he has no MPs with which to do so.
Yes, he wouldn't have won the referendum by himself but again, so what? Leave *did* win, and wouldn't have done so without him (possibly he was a negative contribution during the race but he was an absolutely essential one in getting to the starting line).
The Brexit Party exists in order to deliver Brexit in a fairly hard form. It has no purpose beyond that. It doesn't want to fix potholes or change school governance or order new royal yachts - though it might have policies on these things in order to go through the motions of being a political party, and attracting support at the fringes is never to be turned down if it doesn't distract from the primary aim. But the truth is that once (if) Brexit is delivered, the movement will melt away and these other policies will fall with them.
Consequently, those who want to attack Farage and his party need to attack not him or it but the strong desire to leave the EU. Instead, they're fueling it. As ever, they don't understand his game, which is largely why he won it first time.
But we are acting now. You can argue that it's not enough (and I have some sympathy with that view), but you can't argue that we're doing nothing.
But as other posters say, we can do much ourselves. The actions of these protesters aren't really designed to win over the general public, and may well alienate them.
I'll give a really simple example. My son is four, and whenever we go to the supermarket wants to go to the magazine aisle to buy one or other CBeebies magazine: whether it's Go Jetters, Andy's Dinosaur Adventures or whatever. He's not interested in the magazine itself, but in the cheap plastic imported-from-China tat that comes in it.
It's blooming hard to resist the pester power, especially as the toys generally get put in a playbox after an hour.
(The only 'good' one of these came with an Alphablocks magazinr, which had phonics letters that we play with together.)
On of the most pernicious and widespread delusions is that we can make meaningful contributions to solving environmental problems by token personal actions such as eschewing plastic toys or recycling yoghurt cartons. These gestures are virtually useless and serve only to deflect from meaningful action.
The changes that are actually needed to significantly mitigate the danger of climate change require massive, centrally-coordinated efforts that will unavoidably impact our way of life. The politicians shy away from saying so, but there is simply no getting away from that. It's all a bit reminiscent of the Brexit debate.
We need both. But you are falling into the delusion identified by Burke so many years ago, that because an individual can only do a little he may as well not bother doing anything. Small steps do help, lots of people taking small steps do help, they change the political climate and they make it easier to make the bigger changes needed.
Those leading the demos last week were saying that all gas boilers need to be ripped out of every house in the country and replaced without explaining how this would be feasible, who would pay etc. If some of their leaders cannot even be bothered to replace their diesel cars, something which is easily done, then others are entitled to question how green they really are or why they should be expected to do something so disruptive. It’s not ad hominem to point this out. “Do as I say not as I do” is as unattractive in a green leader as it is in an ultra-Brexiteer like Rees-Mogg.
I don't think any of the protesters are suggesting that they should not be subject to the same laws as everybody else. That would be hypocritical.
On topic, Nigel Farage was last matched at 25 for next Prime Minister. (I can confirm, because I laid that.)
Pop over to the SB and take the 41! Amazing that Betfair lay arbs off their own exchange like that
Nigel has already been very good to me through judicious backing and laying. But 25 is absurdly short for a man who is not in Parliament, has no MPs and when the Prime Minister might well be replaced in the next few weeks. I don't feel the need to reback.
Laying a tenner at 25 and backing 41 w a bookie for a fiver is an effective lay at 9 for £5... so if there was enough money there it would be worth doing, and it forces the bookie price down, which will probably mean you can lay lower again.
I think Farage has played a blinder by recruiting Ann Widdecombe. The voters he's after will either a) appreciate her authoritarian streak or b) know her from various TV shows and think that rather groovy. ChUK made a mistake in rejecting Richard Dawkins in my view. He's a non-identity-politics liberal Remain intellectual - a niche that was crying out to be filled.
Yes I’d have liked to see Dawkins, he is as marmite as Farage though, and has a few quotes in his past that people would claim are islamaphobic
Agreed, me too. I know what you mean about the Islam stuff but I think he is really all-religion-phobic –including Islam. He's not a particularly tolerant guy, but he has his niche as you rightly imply.
On of the most pernicious and widespread delusions is that we can make meaningful contributions to solving environmental problems by token personal actions such as eschewing plastic toys or recycling yoghurt cartons. These gestures are virtually useless and serve only to deflect from meaningful action.
The changes that are actually needed to significantly mitigate the danger of climate change require massive, centrally-coordinated efforts that will unavoidably impact our way of life. The politicians shy away from saying so, but there is simply no getting away from that. It's all a bit reminiscent of the Brexit debate.
I disagree. The point is that: until we - the general public - are willing to make such small sacrifices, the mood to make the massive changes that you want are remote - as the public aren't with your program.
You want a top-down, anti-democratic approach.
The interesting (and worrying) thing is the way that left-inclined people have jumped on the environmental debate: in many cases (not yours) not so that they can help the environment, but so they can have a massive opportunity to reshape society in their image.
The problem with the "democratic" approach is that it simply doesn't work. It supposes a degree of self-sacrifice that most people just don't have. We don't rely on people's sense of civic duty to, for example, refrain from littering, so why expect them to voluntarily refrain from other environmentally damaging actions?
What worries me is the tendency that some right-inclined people have to deny the existence of problems that cannot be solved without some form of collective action. It's delusional and dangerous.
What worries me is the tendency that some left-inclined people have to deny the ability of individuals to be responsible moral agents without the coercion of the state. I do not litter, even when there is no one to punish me for doing so, and I believe I am in the majority.
They constantly try to escape From the darkness outside and within By dreaming of systems so perfect that no one will need to be good.
Do you think that anti-littering laws should be abolished then?
Do you think that any effort to encourage people to believe that non-littering is something they should do, irrespective of legal sanctions, should be discontinued then?
Of course not. But I would also not be so naive as to think that such efforts negated the need for anti-littering laws.
I quite admire Thunberg for having the strength to stand up for what she believes, and for entering the bear-pit. However she's wrong on that point. Should we allow incorrect statements by a campaigner pass just because she is young?
She reminds me of the vampire kid from Let The Right One In. Her peely-wally sanctimony gets on my nerves and I'm a member of the Greens. Fuck knows what normal people who don't have six different types of vinegar in the kitchen think of her.
There is a thoughtful comment in The Times (highlight below):
“I think Greta comes across as a composed young woman but we are being asked to believe (i) she is an authority on climate change; (ii) to pretend that her Aspergers allows her to “see the truth”; (iii) that “nothing is being done” about climate change which is simply a lie; and (iv) take radical action with our economy that will impact the poorest and most vulnerable in our society - just the dull uninteresting sort of vulnerable (who don’t claim special protected status due to medical issues or sexuality) who might rely on a gas boiler or old banger to make life liveable.
There has been two weeks of climate change activism and not one practical solution and not one proposal that doesn’t involve “someone else” paying the price.”
I could come up with a dozen or more things that each and every one of us could be doing to reduce carbon emissions and help the environment without much effort. They are not instead of government action but as well as and if a majority of us did them it would make a difference, small maybe, but a difference and a whole lot better than doing nothing.
I saw no practical proposals come from the protestors. I did read an interview with one of the leaders who, even now, is still driving a diesel car. There are plenty of alternatives. The fact that someone who claims to care so much cannot even be bothered to make a change some of the rest of us made a while ago did not impress me.
Diesel cars are better than petrol from an AGW point of view, their problem is that they emit particulates which kill people (which, thinking about it, is itself one of the most eco friendly things you can do. The dead have no carbon footprint).
As someone with asthma and bronchiectasis I have no sympathy with diesel drivers. Or with those thinking that killing people is the way to go to save the planet.
But we are acting now. You can argue that it's not enough (and I have some sympathy with that view), but you can't argue that we're doing nothing.
But as other posters say, we can do much ourselves. The actions of these protesters aren't really designed to win over the general public, and may well alienate them.
I'll give a really simple example. My son is four, and whenever we go to the supermarket wants to go to the magazine aisle to buy one or other CBeebies magazine: whether it's Go Jetters, Andy's Dinosaur Adventures or whatever. He's not interested in the magazine itself, but in the cheap plastic imported-from-China tat that comes in it.
It's blooming hard to resist the pester power, especially as the toys generally get put in a playbox after an hour.
(The only 'good' one of these came with an Alphablocks magazinr, which had phonics letters that we play with together.)
On of the most pernicious and w so, but there is simply no getting away from that. It's all a bit reminiscent of the Brexit debate.
We need both. But you are falling into the delusion identified by Burke so many years ago, that because an individual can only do a little he may as well not bother doing anything. Small steps do help, lots of people taking small steps do help, they change the political climate and they make it easier to make the bigger changes needed.
Those leading the demos last week were saying that all gas boilers need to be ripped out of every house in the country and replaced without explaining how this would be feasible, who would pay etc. If some of their leaders cannot even be bothered to replace their diesel cars, something which is easily done, then others are entitled to question how green they really are or why they should be expected to do something so disruptive. It’s not ad hominem to point this out. “Do as I say not as I do” is as unattractive in a green leader as it is in an ultra-Brexiteer like Rees-Mogg.
I don't think any of the protesters are suggesting that they should not be subject to the same laws as everybody else. That would be hypocritical.
so why are they stopping people going about their lawful business ?
But they don't. The fact that I, for example, drive a small, efficient car doesn't seem to be inspiring my neighbours to give up their Chelsea tractors.
How do you know that it isn't, or that it hasn't helped inspire others outside your immediate neighbourhood? How do you know that your purchase of that car was another datapoint car manufacturers use when working out trends on which models to design next?
Also: how do you know your neighbours don't actually *need* their 'Chelsea tractor'; they can be a legitimate tool, as it is for my sister who has one and is involved with farming.
If you pretend to care about the environment, and cannot even be arsed to do the simple stuff, then why should anyone else support the big stuff?
I would love to agree with a piece downplaying the prospects of Nigel Farage but am unable to do so. I think this guy is formidable, has plans for us and a good shot at realizing them. It goes beyond Brexit, that is just a launch pad for the sort of reactionary populist movement which is meeting with success in other western countries but which we have thus far been deprived of here. It's coming, the gap in the market is there, all it needs is the right leader and Farage is that man. The numbers are big when it comes to reactionaries in this country. There are lots and lots of them. Two main types, the gin and jag in the shires, the white working class everywhere else, Farage connects with both of these groups. They love him. He is their sort of bloke. Pint down the pub, some risque banter, tell it like it is. Good old Nigel. He's not like other politicians. Sweep the Euros, several seats at the General, break through, that is my gloomy prediction. Think of it from the reactionaries point of view. They are many and they are feeling empowered by events, e.g. Trump, e.g. Brexit. This is their time and Farage is their man. Or to put it another way, paraphrasing JFK - if not now, when? - and if not Nigel, who?
Sorry to be late to the party but I think Alastair's making two big mistakes in his article, possibly out of wishful thinking.
Farage is not primarily interested in gaining MPs or in forming a government. As with UKIP1.0, he is building a political movement but one that's aiming at a policy outcome, not in achieving office for its own sake. If those things come along the way then he'd certainly take it but it's a secondary aim. Not for him the Lib Dem strategy of building from the bottom up through local activism; his is and always has been a top-down concept. And, it should be remembered, that with hardly any MPs, it worked first time round: the pressure his movement exerted achieved the delivery of an In/Out referendum, and Out won.
It doesn't matter that Farage has said iffy things about the NHS: people voting for him are not interested in his views on the NHS because they're interested in Brexit, and in protesting against the system. In any case, the very fact that Farage isn't bothered about gaining MPs, and is playing to only maybe 25% at most of the electorate means that it's an absurd claim to suggest that 'he'd abolish the NHS', when he has no MPs with which to do so.
Yes, he wouldn't have won the referendum by himself but again, so what? Leave *did* win, and wouldn't have done so without him (possibly he was a negative contribution during the race but he was an absolutely essential one in getting to the starting line).
The Brexit Party exists in order to deliver Brexit in a fairly hard form. It has no purpose beyond that. It doesn't want to fix potholes or change school governance or order new royal yachts - though it might have policies on these things in order to go through the motions of being a political party, and attracting support at the fringes is never to be turned down if it doesn't distract from the primary aim. But the truth is that once (if) Brexit is delivered, the movement will melt away and these other policies will fall with them.
Consequently, those who want to attack Farage and his party need to attack not him or it but the strong desire to leave the EU. Instead, they're fueling it. As ever, they don't understand his game, which is largely why he won it first time.
In his political dinner date with Rachel Johnson, he said he had no interest in becoming an MP but had to stand for publicity. I can’t imagine he is dying to be elected to the commons, it’s so much worse than what he does now.
I quite admire Thunberg for having the strength to stand up for what she believes, and for entering the bear-pit. However she's wrong on that point. Should we allow incorrect statements by a campaigner pass just because she is young?
She reminds me of the vampire kid from Let The Right One In. Her peely-wally sanctimony gets on my nerves and I'm a member of the Greens. Fuck knows what normal people who don't have six different types of vinegar in the kitchen think of her.
There is a thoughtful comment in The Times (highlight below):
“I think Greta comes across as a composed young woman but we are being asked to believe (i) she is an authority on climate change; (ii) to pretend that her Aspergers allows her to “see the truth”; (iii) that “nothing is being done” about climate change which is simply a lie; and (iv) take radical action with our economy that will impact the poorest and most vulnerable in our society - just the dull uninteresting sort of vulnerable (who don’t claim special protected status due to medical issues or sexuality) who might rely on a gas boiler or old banger to make life liveable.
There has been two weeks of climate change activism and not one practical solution and not one proposal that doesn’t involve “someone else” paying the price.”
I could come up with a dozen or more things that each and every one of us could be doing to reduce carbon emissions and help the environment without much effort. They are not instead of government action but as well as and if a majority of us did them it would make a difference, small maybe, but a difference and a whole lot better than doing nothing.
I saw no practical proposals come from the protestors. I did read an interview with one of the leaders who, even now, is still driving a diesel car. There are plenty of alternatives. The fact that someone who claims to care so much cannot even be bothered to make a change some of the rest of us made a while ago did not impress me.
Diesel cars are better than petrol from an AGW point of view, their problem is that they emit particulates which kill people (which, thinking about it, is itself one of the most eco friendly things you can do. The dead have no carbon footprint).
As someone with asthma and bronchiectasis I have no sympathy with diesel drivers. Or with those thinking that killing people is the way to go to save the planet.
Saving the planet = not killing people.
Of course, the sensible approach would be to limit as far as possible the use of diesels to long-distance journeys outside of urban areas that cannot be easily undertaken by train.
Mr. Brooke, reminds me of the psychology behind gang initiation rituals being deliberately painful (high barrier, the 'reward' inside simply must be great).
Sure, you can show how holy you are by preaching normally, but if you really want to show your devotion, better be a martyr and unnecessarily bugger up other people's days by breaking the law. What better way to show your morals matter more to you than the puny legal code by which lesser mortals live?
But they don't. The fact that I, for example, drive a small, efficient car doesn't seem to be inspiring my neighbours to give up their Chelsea tractors.
How do you know that it isn't, or that it hasn't helped inspire others outside your immediate neighbourhood? How do you know that your purchase of that car was another datapoint car manufacturers use when working out trends on which models to design next?
Also: how do you know your neighbours don't actually *need* their 'Chelsea tractor'; they can be a legitimate tool, as it is for my sister who has one and is involved with farming.
If you pretend to care about the environment, and cannot even be arsed to do the simple stuff, then why should anyone else support the big stuff?
Or, alternatively, why should I waste my time trying to bail out the sinking ship alone if no-one else will help?
Edit: Toyota Landcruisers and the like can be legitimate tools, but it's hard to see them as anything other than a status symbol in my neck of suburbia.
Sorry to be late to the party but I think Alastair's making two big mistakes in his article, possibly out of wishful thinking.
Farage is not primarily interested in gaining MPs or in forming a government. As with UKIP1.0, he is building a political movement but one that's aiming at a policy outcome, not in achieving office for its own sake. If those things come along the way then he'd certainly take it but it's a secondary aim. Not for him the Lib Dem strategy of building from the bottom up through local activism; his is and always has been a top-down concept. And, it should be remembered, that with hardly any MPs, it worked first time round: the pressure his movement exerted achieved the delivery of an In/Out referendum, and Out won.
The criticisms aimed at the Brexit party are much the same as those which were aimed at UKIP under his leadership - yet UKIP achieved its primary goal (or thought it had), so those criticisms must be wrong, and they're wrong because they're viewing politics through too narrow a frame.
This isn't to say that there isn't some validity to some of what Alastair says but they're generally second-order issues that will be brushed aside, causing the same kind of stupefaction among commentators living in a Remain bubble as to why their attacks aren't working.
[SNIP]
The Brexit Party exists in order to deliver Brexit in a fairly hard form. It has no purpose beyond that. It doesn't want to fix potholes or change school governance or order new royal yachts - though it might have policies on these things in order to go through the motions of being a political party, and attracting support at the fringes is never to be turned down if it doesn't distract from the primary aim. But the truth is that once (if) Brexit is delivered, the movement will melt away and these other policies will fall with them.
Consequently, those who want to attack Farage and his party need to attack not him or it but the strong desire to leave the EU. Instead, they're fueling it. As ever, they don't understand his game, which is largely why he won it first time.
Without MPs he is doomed to fail. In 2010-15 he was pulling on a rope of Conservative Euroscepticism.
In 2019, the driving force of politics is among those opposed to no deal. They are not suddenly going to become no dealers because of Nigel Farage or, indeed, because the Brexit party does well in the polls. He is pushing on a string.
To succeed, he needs Parliament to move towards no deal. That needs MPs.
I quite admire Thunberg for having the strength to stand up for what she believes, and for entering the bear-pit. However she's wrong on that point. Should we allow incorrect statements by a campaigner pass just because she is young?
She reminds me of the vampire kid from Let The Right One In. Her peely-wally sanctimony gets on my nerves and I'm a member of the Greens. Fuck knows what normal people who don't have six different types of vinegar in the kitchen think of her.
There is a thoughtful comment in The Times (highlight below):
“I think Greta comes across as a composed young woman but we are being asked to believe (i) she is an authority on climate change; (ii) to pretend that her Aspergers allows her to “see the truth”; (iii) that “nothing is being done” about climate change which is simply a lie; and (iv) take radical action with our economy that will impact the poorest and most vulnerable in our society - just the dull uninteresting sort of vulnerable (who don’t claim special protected status due to medical issues or sexuality) who might rely on a gas boiler or old banger to make life liveable.
There has been two weeks of climate change activism and not one practical solution and not one proposal that doesn’t involve “someone else” paying the price.”
I could come up with a dozen or more things that each and every one of us could be doing to reduce carbon emissions and help the environment without much effort. They are not instead of government action but as well as and if a majority of us did them it would make a difference, small maybe, but a difference and a whole lot better than doing nothing.
I saw no practical proposals come from the protestors. I did read an interview with one of the leaders who, even now, is still driving a diesel car. There are plenty of alternatives. The fact that someone who claims to care so much cannot even be bothered to make a change some of the rest of us made a while ago did not impress me.
Diesel cars are better than petrol from an AGW point of view, their problem is that they emit particulates which kill people (which, thinking about it, is itself one of the most eco friendly things you can do. The dead have no carbon footprint).
As someone with asthma and bronchiectasis I have no sympathy with diesel drivers. Or with those thinking that killing people is the way to go to save the planet.
So a quarter of European Parliament elections voters, probably more, will be 'vile bigots' in your eyes? Diehard Remainers still wonder why they lost
The quarter aren’t supporting leaving the EU , those Eurosceptic parties after seeing the shambles in the UK have decided to not make the same mistake . As for vile bigots I stand by my comments , Widdecombe is a loathsome creature and will fit in nicely with Farage .
You seem a bit OTT in your description of Ann Widdecombe.
I think Farage has played a blinder by recruiting Ann Widdecombe. The voters he's after will either a) appreciate her authoritarian streak or b) know her from various TV shows and think that rather groovy. ChUK made a mistake in rejecting Richard Dawkins in my view. He's a non-identity-politics liberal Remain intellectual - a niche that was crying out to be filled.
Yes I’d have liked to see Dawkins, he is as marmite as Farage though, and has a few quotes in his past that people would claim are islamaphobic
Agreed, me too. I know what you mean about the Islam stuff but I think he is really all-religion-phobic –including Islam. He's not a particularly tolerant guy, but he has his niche as you rightly imply.
Yes, he made the point in one of his shows that what westerners don’t get about Muslims is that more of them tend to actually mean it, rather than our kind of nod to an old fashioned tradition. So maybe he thinks that their religion is more dangerous because of that, but not inherently any better or worse.
Trying to articulate that in an election campaign would just be seen as islamsphovic though.
I could come up with a dozen or more things that each and every one of us could be doing to reduce carbon emissions and help the environment without much effort. They are not instead of government action but as well as and if a majority of us did them it would make a difference, small maybe, but a difference and a whole lot better than doing nothing.
I saw no practical proposals come from the protestors. I did read an interview with one of the leaders who, even now, is still driving a diesel car. There are plenty of alternatives. The fact that someone who claims to care so much cannot even be bothered to make a change some of the rest of us made a while ago did not impress me.
Mass protests demanding government action aren't usually designed to elaborate detailed proposals - there is really no shortage of fairly far-reaching action that governments can take that will be painful for lots of us, so the protests are aboutr shifting opinion and making such changes acceptable. It would be unexpected if banners had things like "Bring forward the 2050 deadline for carbon neutrality to 2038" or "Raise taxes by 1% to subsidise solar panels on all older housing".
Individual action is important too, and the protests help change attitudes for those as well. Changing cars frequently is not always environmentally advisable because of the climate cost of production - the trick is to take best advice when you do change. But if we leave the decisions only to individuals we won't really tackle the issue effectively.
I'm not in general a fan of direct action. But they've succeeded in making it a subject of popular debate again to an extent that hundreds of weighty papers with detailed recommendations (e.g. the EAT:Lancet report) really have not.
In my side of my street in London, virtually every house has a south-facing flat roof. Some are unused. Some are used as roof terraces. One is used as both a roof terrace, for planting and for solar panels - mine. None of the others have solar panels or green roofs. That is such a waste. Governments ought to be incentivising people to make use of this sort of space in this way - and there is lots of it all over our cities. Bringing this to peoples’ attention - to the government’s attention - would have been a good use of last week’s protests or, indeed, of MPs’ time.
Solar panels look like crap on the roof of a house, personally I would not want to be forced to have them. Horrible looking things.
But they don't. The fact that I, for example, drive a small, efficient car doesn't seem to be inspiring my neighbours to give up their Chelsea tractors.
How do you know that it isn't, or that it hasn't helped inspire others outside your immediate neighbourhood? How do you know that your purchase of that car was another datapoint car manufacturers use when working out trends on which models to design next?
Also: how do you know your neighbours don't actually *need* their 'Chelsea tractor'; they can be a legitimate tool, as it is for my sister who has one and is involved with farming.
If you pretend to care about the environment, and cannot even be arsed to do the simple stuff, then why should anyone else support the big stuff?
Or, alternatively, why should I waste my time trying to bail out the sinking ship alone if no-one else will help?
Mr. Brooke, reminds me of the psychology behind gang initiation rituals being deliberately painful (high barrier, the 'reward' inside simply must be great).
Sure, you can show how holy you are by preaching normally, but if you really want to show your devotion, better be a martyr and unnecessarily bugger up other people's days by breaking the law. What better way to show your morals matter more to you than the puny legal code by which lesser mortals live?
Those aren't handcuffs. They're virtue bracelets.
Problem is theyre not actually targetting the people who could make a difference.
I don't know any cleric in the CofE who would use language of that sort. If she found her spiritual home in Catholicism, which is a sister church within Christianity, then that's the right path for her.
She may have done many terrible things but 'betraying' the Church of England isn't one of them.
p.s. Factoid alert. Did you know her brother Malcom was a CofE priest of some renown? A charismatic evangelical who used to speak about the 'Holy Ghost.' The renewal under his stewardship at Pip n' Jay Bristol was one of the first of its kind.
Ann Widdecombe was honoured by a foreign power, we know where her loyalties lie, they aren't to the UK.
If that is true, she will be right at home in the Brexit Nationalist Party; she will be willingly attempting to advance the foreign policy objectives of not just a foreign power, but a hostile one.
Why is it so many Leavers take their whip from Rome?
Really, what rubbish. And how very seventeenth century of you: Catholics are traitors are they because the Pope is based in Rome? Presumably you’d have no issues, then, with others saying that Muslims take their whip from a hostile power,Teheran, if say an Ayatollah- ordered an author to be killed.
If the Catholic church has adopted a political position on Brexit, if anything, it is pro-Remain.
I disagree. The point is that: until we - the general public - are willing to make such small sacrifices, the mood to make the massive changes that you want are remote - as the public aren't with your program.
You want a top-down, anti-democratic approach.
The interesting (and worrying) thing is the way that left-inclined people have jumped on the environmental debate: in many cases (not yours) not so that they can help the environment, but so they can have a massive opportunity to reshape society in their image.
The problem with the "democratic" approach is that it simply doesn't work. It supposes a degree of self-sacrifice that most people just don't have. We don't rely on people's sense of civic duty to, for example, refrain from littering, so why expect them to voluntarily refrain from other environmentally damaging actions?
What worries me is the tendency that some right-inclined people have to deny the existence of problems that cannot be solved without some form of collective action. It's delusional and dangerous.
So what you prefer is an anti-democratic, daddy-knows-best approach? Don't bother with what the people think, let's do it anyway (but only when it agrees with my politics)?
I prefer approaches that actually work rather than empty gestures. For what it's worth, I favour market-based solutions over centrally dictated policies such as subsidies, but the framework for such solutions (e.g a high carbon tax) has to be set by government.
But ti doesn't work if the politicians don't take the public with them, for the public will just vote in politicians that will agree more with them than the lot that ignore them.
Changing your lifestyle because of what you see is a threat is not an 'empty gesture': it is showing many things: including that you are willing to undergo the pain that you want forced on others. And others may see what you're doing and realise that they can do it too.
But they don't. The fact that I, for example, drive a small, efficient car doesn't seem to be inspiring my neighbours to give up their Chelsea tractors.
Some of them are likely to be as efficient or even better than your three wheeler. Sounds more like green cheese.
I would love to agree with a piece downplaying the prospects of Nigel Farage but am unable to do so. I think this guy is formidable, has plans for us and a good shot at realizing them. It goes beyond Brexit, that is just a launch pad for the sort of reactionary populist movement which is meeting with success in other western countries but which we have thus far been deprived of here. It's coming, the gap in the market is there, all it needs is the right leader and Farage is that man. The numbers are big when it comes to reactionaries in this country. There are lots and lots of them. Two main types, the gin and jag in the shires, the white working class everywhere else, Farage connects with both of these groups. They love him. He is their sort of bloke. Pint down the pub, some risque banter, tell it like it is. Good old Nigel. He's not like other politicians. Sweep the Euros, several seats at the General, break through, that is my gloomy prediction. Think of it from the reactionaries point of view. They are many and they are feeling empowered by events, e.g. Trump, e.g. Brexit. This is their time and Farage is their man. Or to put it another way, paraphrasing JFK - if not now, when? - and if not Nigel, who?
I agree. The Brexit Party could soon be replacing the Tories as the main party of the Right in Britain. Yes, Farage repels; but he also has adoring fans in equal number. The best the Tories ever get is grudging respect for their flinty competence, which Brexit might well destroy if it hasn't already. Farage just looks unstoppable.
But we are acting now. You can argue that it's not enough (and I have some sympathy with that view), but you can't argue that we're doing nothing.
But as other posters say, we can do much ourselves. The actions of these protesters aren't really designed to win over the general public, and may well alienate them.
I'll give a really simple example. My son is four, and whenever we go to the supermarket wants to go to the magazine aisle to buy one or other CBeebies magazine: whether it's Go Jetters, Andy's Dinosaur Adventures or whatever. He's not interested in the magazine itself, but in the cheap plastic imported-from-China tat that comes in it.
It's blooming hard to resist the pester power, especially as the toys generally get put in a playbox after an hour.
(The only 'good' one of these came with an Alphablocks magazinr, which had phonics letters that we play with together.)
On of the most pernicious and w so, but there is simply no getting away from that. It's all a bit reminiscent of the Brexit debate.
We need both. But you are falling into the delusion identified by Burke so many years ago, that because an individual can only do a little he may as well not bother doing anything. Small steps do help, lots of people taking small steps do help, they change the political climate and they make it easier to make the bigger changes needed.
Those leading the demos last week were saying that all gas boilers need to be ripped out of every house in the country and replaced without explaining how this would be feasible, who would pay etc. If some of their leaders cannot even be bothered to replace their diesel cars, something which is easily done, then others are entitled to question how green they really are or why they should be expected to do something so disruptive. It’s not ad hominem to point this out. “Do as I say not as I do” is as unattractive in a green leader as it is in an ultra-Brexiteer like Rees-Mogg.
I don't think any of the protesters are suggesting that they should not be subject to the same laws as everybody else. That would be hypocritical.
so why are they stopping people going about their lawful business ?
they can protest within the law if they choose.
When you're at war with the state you have to, by necessity and definition, go beyond the law.
No voter voted for Mrs May’s deal. The deal is the executive’s judgement on how best to exit the EU as instructed by the voters
People will have their opportunity to judge the executive’s overall performance at the next general election. I suspect that, for some people, the deal will be an important contributing factor to their overall assessment
Charles, If you think I'm agreeing with you, then you've utterly lost track of the argument.
It's impossible to follow the 'instruction' of the vote because leavers did not make it clear what it meant. That does not mean the PM can steamroller through her interpretation.
(Note: I'm in favour of May's deal.)
Just playing you back in kind
The reason we disagree is that I believe that the voters were asked “should we leave or remain” and answered “leave”
You want to make assumptions as to what they really meant by “leave”. I take the view they meant we should leave.
I could come up with a dozen or more things that each and every one of us could be doing to reduce carbon emissions and help the environment without much effort. They are not instead of government action but as well as and if a majority of us did them it would make a difference, small maybe, but a difference and a whole lot better than doing nothing.
I saw no practical proposals come from the protestors. I did read an interview with one of the leaders who, even now, is still driving a diesel car. There are plenty of alternatives. The fact that someone who claims to care so much cannot even be bothered to make a change some of the rest of us made a while ago did not impress me.
Mass protests demanding government action aren't usually designed to elaborate detailed proposals - there is really no shortage of fairly far-reaching action that governments can take that will be painful for lots of us, so the protests are aboutr shifting opinion and making such changes acceptable. It would be unexpected if banners had things like "Bring forward the 2050 deadline for carbon neutrality to 2038" or "Raise taxes by 1% to subsidise solar panels on all older housing".
Individual action is important too, and the protests help change attitudes for those as well. Changing cars frequently is not always environmentally advisable because of the climate cost of production - the trick is to take best advice when you do change. But if we leave the decisions only to individuals we won't really tackle the issue effectively.
I'm not in general a fan of direct action. But they've succeeded in making it a subject of popular debate again to an extent that hundreds of weighty papers with detailed recommendations (e.g. the EAT:Lancet report) really have not.
In my side of my street in London, virtually every house has a south-facing flat roof. Some are unused. Some are used as roof terraces. One is used as both a roof terrace, for planting and for solar panels - mine. None of the others have solar panels or green roofs. That is such a waste. Governments ought to be incentivising people to make use of this sort of space in this way - and there is lots of it all over our cities. Bringing this to peoples’ attention - to the government’s attention - would have been a good use of last week’s protests or, indeed, of MPs’ time.
Solar panels look like crap on the roof of a house, personally I would not want to be forced to have them. Horrible looking things.
You can’t build a new house or flat n Spain without solar water heating, you rapidly get used to the roof line.
I quite admire Thunberg for having the strength to stand up for what she believes, and for entering the bear-pit. However she's wrong on that point. Should we allow incorrect statements by a campaigner pass just because she is young?
She reminds me of the vampire kid from Let The Right One In. Her peely-wally sanctimony gets on my nerves and I'm a member of the Greens. Fuck knows what normal people who don't have six different types of vinegar in the kitchen think of her.
There is a thoughtful comment in The Times (highlight below):
“I think Greta comes across as a composed young woman but we are being asked to believe (i) she is an authority on climate change; (ii) to pretend that her Aspergers allows her to “see the truth”; (iii) that “nothing is being done” about climate change which is simply a lie; and (iv) take radical action with our economy that will impact the poorest and most vulnerable in our society - just the dull uninteresting sort of vulnerable (who don’t claim special protected status due to medical issues or sexuality) who might rely on a gas boiler or old banger to make life liveable.
There has been two weeks of climate change activism and not one practical solution and not one proposal that doesn’t involve “someone else” paying the price.”
I could come up with a dozen or more things that each and every one of us could be doing to reduce carbon emissions and help the environment without much effort. They are not instead of government action but as well as and if a majority of us did them it would make a difference, small maybe, but a difference and a whole lot better than doing nothing.
I saw no practical proposals come from the protestors. I did read an interview with one of the leaders who, even now, is still driving a diesel car. There are plenty of alternatives. The fact that someone who claims to care so much cannot even be bothered to make a change some of the rest of us made a while ago did not impress me.
Diesel cars are better than petrol from an AGW point of view, their problem is that they emit particulates which kill people (which, thinking about it, is itself one of the most eco friendly things you can do. The dead have no carbon footprint).
As someone with asthma and bronchiectasis I have no sympathy with diesel drivers. Or with those thinking that killing people is the way to go to save the planet.
I have no sympathy with people with multiple properties , travelling all the time in a more polluting petrol car and no doubt flying off on holiday often as well, rich and hypocrite come to mind.
But they don't. The fact that I, for example, drive a small, efficient car doesn't seem to be inspiring my neighbours to give up their Chelsea tractors.
How do you know that it isn't, or that it hasn't helped inspire others outside your immediate neighbourhood? How do you know that your purchase of that car was another datapoint car manufacturers use when working out trends on which models to design next?
Also: how do you know your neighbours don't actually *need* their 'Chelsea tractor'; they can be a legitimate tool, as it is for my sister who has one and is involved with farming.
If you pretend to care about the environment, and cannot even be arsed to do the simple stuff, then why should anyone else support the big stuff?
Or, alternatively, why should I waste my time trying to bail out the sinking ship alone if no-one else will help?
How do you know no-one else is helping?
The point is that too few are helping, and that discourages others from helping.
If you are bailing out a sinking ship and too few people are helping for it to be saved, then you might as well give up and conserve your energy for swimming.
But we are acting now. You can argue that it's not enough (and I have some sympathy with that view), but you can't argue that we're doing nothing.
But as other posters say, we can do much ourselves. The actions of these protesters aren't really designed to win over the general public, and may well alienate them.
I'll give a really simple example. My son is four, and whenever we go to the supermarket wants to go to the magazine aisle to buy one or other CBeebies magazine: whether it's Go Jetters, Andy's Dinosaur Adventures or whatever. He's not interested in the magazine itself, but in the cheap plastic imported-from-China tat that comes in it.
It's blooming hard to resist the pester power, especially as the toys generally get put in a playbox after an hour.
(The only 'good' one of these came with an Alphablocks magazinr, which had phonics letters that we play with together.)
On of the most pernicious and w so, but there is simply no getting away from that. It's all a bit reminiscent of the Brexit debate.
We need both. But you are falling into the delusion identified by Burke so many years ago, that because an individual can only do a little he may as well not bother doing anything. Small steps do help, lots of people taking small steps do help, they change the political climate and they make it easier to make the bigger changes needed.
Those leading the demos last week were saying that all gas boilers need to be ripped out of every house in the country and replaced without explaining how this would be feasible, who would pay etc. If some of their leaders cannot even be bothered to replace their diesel cars, something which is easily done, then others are entitled to question how green they really are or why they should be expected to do something so disruptive. It’s not ad hominem to point this out. “Do as I say not as I do” is as unattractive in a green leader as it is in an ultra-Brexiteer like Rees-Mogg.
I don't think any of the protesters are suggesting that they should not be subject to the same laws as everybody else. That would be hypocritical.
so why are they stopping people going about their lawful business ?
they can protest within the law if they choose.
When you're at war with the state you have to, by necessity and definition, go beyond the law.
or you could just try getting elected and then run the state
I don't know any cleric in the CofE who would use language of that sort. If she found her spiritual home in Catholicism, which is a sister church within Christianity, then that's the right path for her.
She may have done many terrible things but 'betraying' the Church of England isn't one of them.
p.s. Factoid alert. Did you know her brother Malcom was a CofE priest of some renown? A charismatic evangelical who used to speak about the 'Holy Ghost.' The renewal under his stewardship at Pip n' Jay Bristol was one of the first of its kind.
Ann Widdecombe was honoured by a foreign power, we know where her loyalties lie, they aren't to the UK.
If that is true, she will be right at home in the Brexit Nationalist Party; she will be willingly attempting to advance the foreign policy objectives of not just a foreign power, but a hostile one.
Why is it so many Leavers take their whip from Rome?
Really, what rubbish. And how very seventeenth century of you: Catholics are traitors are they because the Pope is based in Rome? Presumably you’d have no issues, then, with others saying that Muslims take their whip from a hostile power,Teheran, if say an Ayatollah- ordered an author to be killed.
If the Catholic church has adopted a political position on Brexit, if anything, it is pro-Remain.
I was pointing out the hypocrisy of Leavers who questioned Dominic Grieve’s patriotism and loyalty because he received an award from the French.
She reminds me of the vampire kid from Let The Right One In. Her peely-wally sanctimony gets on my nerves and I'm a member of the Greens.
There is a thoughtful comment in The Times (highlight below):
“I think Greta comes across as a composed young woman but we are being asked to believe (i) she is an authority on climate change; (ii) to pretend that her Aspergers allows her to “see the truth”; (iii) that “nothing is being done” about climate change which is simply a lie; and (iv) take radical action with our economy that will impact the poorest and most vulnerable in our society - just the dull uninteresting sort of vulnerable (who don’t claim special protected status due to medical issues or sexuality) who might rely on a gas boiler or old banger to make life liveable.
There has been two weeks of climate change activism and not one practical solution and not one proposal that doesn’t involve “someone else” paying the price.”
I could come up with a dozen or more things that each and every one of us could be doing to reduce carbon emissions and help the environment without much effort. They are not instead of government action but as well as and if a majority of us did them it would make a difference, small maybe, but a difference and a whole lot better than doing nothing.
I saw no practical proposals come from the protestors. I did read an interview with one of the leaders who, even now, is still driving a diesel car. There are plenty of alternatives. The fact that someone who claims to care so much cannot even be bothered to make a change some of the rest of us made a while ago did not impress me.
Diesel cars are better than petrol from an AGW point of view, their problem is that they emit particulates which kill people (which, thinking about it, is itself one of the most eco friendly things you can do. The dead have no carbon footprint).
As someone with asthma and bronchiectasis I have no sympathy with diesel drivers. Or with those thinking that killing people is the way to go to save the planet.
Do you teleport between your two homes, then?
The killing people suggestion was <100% serious.</p>
I am no saint. I drive a car to get there as it is usually loaded with stuff for the house. My husband who does 95% of the travelling there takes the train as there is a station in the village. When there he mostly cycles or walks. Once I move there permanently we will have a car but are hoping that by then an electric car will be feasible.
On of the most pernicious and widespread delusions is that we can make meaningful contributions to solving environmental problems by token personal actions such as eschewing plastic toys or recycling yoghurt cartons. These gestures are virtually useless and serve only to deflect from meaningful action.
The changes that are actually needed to significantly mitigate the danger of climate change require massive, centrally-coordinated efforts that will unavoidably impact our way of life. The politicians shy away from saying so, but there is simply no getting away from that. It's all a bit reminiscent of the Brexit debate.
We need both. But you are falling into the delusion identified by Burke so many years ago, that because an individual can only do a little he may as well not bother doing anything. Small steps do help, lots of people taking small steps do help, they change the political climate and they make it easier to make the bigger changes needed.
Those leading the demos last week were saying that all gas boilers need to be ripped out of every house in the country and replaced without explaining how this would be feasible, who would pay etc. If some of their leaders cannot even be bothered to replace their diesel cars, something which is easily done, then others are entitled to question how green they really are or why they should be expected to do something so disruptive. It’s not ad hominem to point this out. “Do as I say not as I do” is as unattractive in a green leader as it is in an ultra-Brexiteer like Rees-Mogg.
I tend to agree with that, though it is of course ad hominem.
Those leading the demos last week were saying that all gas boilers need to be ripped out of every house in the country and replaced without explaining how this would be feasible
But we are acting now. You can argue that it's not enough (and I have some sympathy with that view), but you can't argue that we're doing nothing.
But as other posters say, we can do much ourselves. The actions of these protesters aren't really designed to win over the general public, and may well alienate them.
I'll give a really simple example. My son is four, and whenever we go to the supermarket wants to go to the magazine aisle to buy one or other CBeebies magazine: whether it's Go Jetters, Andy's Dinosaur Adventures or whatever. He's not interested in the magazine itself, but in the cheap plastic imported-from-China tat that comes in it.
It's blooming hard to resist the pester power, especially as the toys generally get put in a playbox after an hour.
(The only 'good' one of these came with an Alphablocks magazinr, which had phonics letters that we play with together.)
On of the most pernicious and widespread delusions is that we can make meaningful contributions to solving environmental problems by token personal actions such as eschewing plastic toys or recycling yoghurt cartons. These gestures are virtually useless and serve only to deflect from meaningful action.
The changes that are actually needed to significantly mitigate the danger of climate change require massive, centrally-coordinated efforts that will unavoidably impact our way of life. The politicians shy away from saying so, but there is simply no getting away from that. It's all a bit reminiscent of the Brexit debate.
W
Those leading the demos last week were saying that all gas boilers need to be ripped out of every house in the country and replaced without explaining how this would be feasible, who would pay etc. If some of their leaders cannot even be bothered to replace their diesel cars, something which is easily done, then others are entitled to question how green they really are or why they should be expected to do something so disruptive. It’s not ad hominem to point this out. “Do as I say not as I do” is as unattractive in a green leader as it is in an ultra-Brexiteer like Rees-Mogg.
Their is absolutely nothing wrong with modern EU6 diesels, less polluting than petrol cars for sure. It may be easy for you being rich to replace cars at a whim , most people don't have that luxury and drive old bangers as a necessity to be able to get to work. Amazing how the rich always think it is so easy.
I don't know any cleric in the CofE who would use language of that sort. If she found her spiritual home in Catholicism, which is a sister church within Christianity, then that's the right path for her.
She may have done many terrible things but 'betraying' the Church of England isn't one of them.
p.s. Factoid alert. Did you know her brother Malcom was a CofE priest of some renown? A charismatic evangelical who used to speak about the 'Holy Ghost.' The renewal under his stewardship at Pip n' Jay Bristol was one of the first of its kind.
Ann Widdecombe was honoured by a foreign power, we know where her loyalties lie, they aren't to the UK.
If that is true, she will be right at home in the Brexit Nationalist Party; she will be willingly attempting to advance the foreign policy objectives of not just a foreign power, but a hostile one.
Why is it so many Leavers take their whip from Rome?
Really, what rubbish. And how very seventeenth century of you: Catholics are traitors are they because the Pope is based in Rome? Presumably you’d have no issues, then, with others saying that Muslims take their whip from a hostile power,Teheran, if say an Ayatollah- ordered an author to be killed.
If the Catholic church has adopted a political position on Brexit, if anything, it is pro-Remain.
I was pointing out the hypocrisy of Leavers who questioned Dominic Grieve’s patriotism and loyalty because he received an award from the French.
Fair enough. I rather like Grieve but I know that I am in a minority on here.
I don't know any cleric in the CofE who would use language of that sort. If she found her spiritual home in Catholicism, which is a sister church within Christianity, then that's the right path for her.
She may have done many terrible things but 'betraying' the Church of England isn't one of them.
p.s. Factoid alert. Did you know her brother Malcom was a CofE priest of some renown? A charismatic evangelical who used to speak about the 'Holy Ghost.' The renewal under his stewardship at Pip n' Jay Bristol was one of the first of its kind.
Ann Widdecombe was honoured by a foreign power, we know where her loyalties lie, they aren't to the UK.
If that is true, she will be right at home in the Brexit Nationalist Party; she will be willingly attempting to advance the foreign policy objectives of not just a foreign power, but a hostile one.
Why is it so many Leavers take their whip from Rome?
Really, what rubbish. And how very seventeenth century of you: Catholics are traitors are they because the Pope is based in Rome? Presumably you’d have no issues, then, with others saying that Muslims take their whip from a hostile power,Teheran, if say an Ayatollah- ordered an author to be killed.
If the Catholic church has adopted a political position on Brexit, if anything, it is pro-Remain.
I was pointing out the hypocrisy of Leavers who questioned Dominic Grieve’s patriotism and loyalty because he received an award from the French.
The French kindly honour our WW2 veterans for the part they played in the liberation. What has Dominic Grieve done to deserve an equivalent award?
I don't know any cleric in the CofE who would use language of that sort. If she found her spiritual home in Catholicism, which is a sister church within Christianity, then that's the right path for her.
She may have done many terrible things but 'betraying' the Church of England isn't one of them.
p.s. Factoid alert. Did you know her brother Malcom was a CofE priest of some renown? A charismatic evangelical who used to speak about the 'Holy Ghost.' The renewal under his stewardship at Pip n' Jay Bristol was one of the first of its kind.
On of the most pernicious and widespread delusions is that we can make meaningful contributions to solving environmental problems by token
I disagree. The point is that: until we - the general public - are willing to make such small sacrifices, the mood to make the massive changes that you want are remote - as the public aren't with your program.
You want a top-down, anti-democratic approach.
The interesting (and worrying) thing is the way that left-inclined people have jumped on the environmental debate: in many cases (not yours) not so that they can help the environment, but so they can have a massive opportunity to reshape society in their image.
The problem with the "democratic" approach is that it simply doesn't work. It supposes a degree of self-sacrifice that most people just don't have. We don't rely on people's sense of civic duty to, for example, refrain from littering, so why expect them to voluntarily refrain from other environmentally damaging actions?
What worries me is the tendency that some right-inclined people have to deny the existence of problems that cannot be solved without some form of collective action. It's delusional and dangerous.
The democratic approach is preferable to your dictatorship in the name of the environment.
Hmm. So you would make it legal to throw litter and have bonfires close to neighbours gardens, then just ask people to be nice and not to do it?
No, it's just that when people say the "democratic approach" has failed, you should be extremely wary of them. That's the excuse of any tyrant.
The French kindly honour our WW2 veterans for the part they played in the liberation. What has Dominic Grieve done to deserve an equivalent award?
Dominic Grieve QC MP has been awarded the Légion d’honneur by Ambassador Bermann during a ceremony at the French Residence, Kensington.
The Conservative MP, who chairs the Intelligence and Security Committee in Parliament, has a long-standing personal connection to France, and serves currently as President of the Franco-British Society as well as Vice-Chairman of the Franco-British Council.
The Ambassador said: “Cher Dominic, you provide a vital link between our two countries, which know each other so well.
"In the peculiar times we’re living in, your role is more important than ever.”
In his speech Dominic Grieve also told guests how he was following in the footsteps of his own father who was himself awarded the Légion d’honneur at the French Residence while the young Dominic was still a student at Magdalen College, Oxford.
The French kindly honour our WW2 veterans for the part they played in the liberation. What has Dominic Grieve done to deserve an equivalent award?
Dominic Grieve QC MP has been awarded the Légion d’honneur by Ambassador Bermann during a ceremony at the French Residence, Kensington.
The Conservative MP, who chairs the Intelligence and Security Committee in Parliament, has a long-standing personal connection to France, and serves currently as President of the Franco-British Society as well as Vice-Chairman of the Franco-British Council.
The Ambassador said: “Cher Dominic, you provide a vital link between our two countries, which know each other so well.
"In the peculiar times we’re living in, your role is more important than ever.”
In his speech Dominic Grieve also told guests how he was following in the footsteps of his own father who was himself awarded the Légion d’honneur at the French Residence while the young Dominic was still a student at Magdalen College, Oxford.
Of course not. But I would also not be so naive as to think that such efforts negated the need for anti-littering laws.
But that is exactly how naive you are. You, not me, said "We don't rely on people's sense of civic duty to, for example, refrain from littering." when we partly do. Your XOR and AND logic gates are fucked.
There is a thoughtful comment in The Times (highlight below):
“I think Greta comes across as a composed young woman but we are being asked to believe (i) she is an authority on climate change; (ii) to pretend that her Aspergers allows her to “see the truth”; (iii) that “nothing is being done” about climate change which is simply a lie; and (iv) take radical action with our economy that will impact the poorest and most vulnerable in our society - just the dull uninteresting sort of vulnerable (who don’t claim special protected status due to medical issues or sexuality) who might rely on a gas boiler or old banger to make life liveable.
There has been two weeks of climate change activism and not one practical solution and not one proposal that doesn’t involve “someone else” paying the price.”
I could come up with a dozen or more things that each and every one of us could be doing to reduce carbon emissions and help the environment without much effort. They are not instead of government action but as well as and if a majority of us did them it would make a difference, small maybe, but a difference and a whole lot better than doing nothing.
I saw no practical proposals come from the protestors. I did read an interview with one of the leaders who, even now, is still driving a diesel car. There are plenty of alternatives. The fact that someone who claims to care so much cannot even be bothered to make a change some of the rest of us made a while ago did not impress me.
Diesel cars are better than petrol from an AGW point of view, their problem is that they emit particulates which kill people (which, thinking about it, is itself one of the most eco friendly things you can do. The dead have no carbon footprint).
As someone with asthma and bronchiectasis I have no sympathy with diesel drivers. Or with those thinking that killing people is the way to go to save the planet.
I have no sympathy with people with multiple properties , travelling all the time in a more polluting petrol car and no doubt flying off on holiday often as well, rich and hypocrite come to mind.
I don’t fly on holiday. Tend now to spend mine in the Lakes. But like pretty much everyone I have my fair share of hypocrisy. Ultimately I intend leaving London altogether and if only the bloody builders would get on with it the date for that wouldn’t keep being put off. But that is another story.......
The Brexit Party exists in order to deliver Brexit in a fairly hard form. It has no purpose beyond that. It doesn't want to fix potholes or change school governance or order new royal yachts - though it might have policies on these things in order to go through the motions of being a political party, and attracting support at the fringes is never to be turned down if it doesn't distract from the primary aim. But the truth is that once (if) Brexit is delivered, the movement will melt away and these other policies will fall with them.
Consequently, those who want to attack Farage and his party need to attack not him or it but the strong desire to leave the EU. Instead, they're fueling it. As ever, they don't understand his game, which is largely why he won it first time.
Without MPs he is doomed to fail. In 2010-15 he was pulling on a rope of Conservative Euroscepticism.
In 2019, the driving force of politics is among those opposed to no deal. They are not suddenly going to become no dealers because of Nigel Farage or, indeed, because the Brexit party does well in the polls. He is pushing on a string.
To succeed, he needs Parliament to move towards no deal. That needs MPs.
He needs about 80 MPs, and they're all Conservatives.
May will very likely be replaced this summer. Her successor will almost certainly have to pledge to leave on October 31 no matter what, in order to win the leadership contest - especially if the Brexit Party wins the Euros. *That* is the crucial dynamic, just as it was in 2013-16: the fear among Con MPs and activists of losing public support (whether their analysis is right isn't the issue here, though is well worth exploring separately).
It's true that there is no majority for No Deal in parliament; it's also true that it's extremely difficult for parliament to prevent a legal default from occurring, if the government is set upon that course. Cooper-Letwin, for example, would not have prevented it on April 12; it was May choosing to accept the EU's extension which did that.
The suggestion earlier that the LDs should merge into them was ridiculous.
It has the advantages of detoxifying the Libs.
Are the LDs still that toxic from the coalition? Personally, I think their problems are that they have given yup trying to appeal to the 52% of the country who voted for Brexit, and that their last 2 leaders have been poor.
Bit of both maybe. People still bring up tuition fees and the like, and they seem keen to repudiate their time in power and alienate anyone who did still vote for them back then like me. But also they do seem to have nothing of interest except Brexit. Didn't Lamb lament that fact recently?
I saw a LD PPB broadcast the other day and even that was going on about Brexit! They have almost made themselves the anti-Brexit party.
If they are going to make progress again, they need to change leader and try and put out some olive branches to Brexit voters. And come up with some other policies.
It's a shame Lamb isn't leader.
The advantages the LDs do have over CHUK are:
- 12 seats, of which maybe 8 are reasonably safe - Large numbers of councillors and activists - Large numbers of members - A place in the election debates
I don't think they are guaranteed a place in any election debates next time based on their poor performances at two consecutive general elections.
Surely it'd be like last time where there's a "big boys debate" between Lab and Con, and then a "little boys debate" which added the Greens, LDs and AN Other.
There was no 'big boys debate' between Lab and Con in 2017 - May declined to turn up.
The Brexit Party exists in order to deliver Brexit in a fairly hard form. It has no purpose beyond that. It doesn't want to fix potholes or change school governance or order new royal yachts - though it might have policies on these things in order to go through the motions of being a political party, and attracting support at the fringes is never to be turned down if it doesn't distract from the primary aim. But the truth is that once (if) Brexit is delivered, the movement will melt away and these other policies will fall with them.
Consequently, those who want to attack Farage and his party need to attack not him or it but the strong desire to leave the EU. Instead, they're fueling it. As ever, they don't understand his game, which is largely why he won it first time.
Without MPs he is doomed to fail. In 2010-15 he was pulling on a rope of Conservative Euroscepticism.
In 2019, the driving force of politics is among those opposed to no deal. They are not suddenly going to become no dealers because of Nigel Farage or, indeed, because the Brexit party does well in the polls. He is pushing on a string.
To succeed, he needs Parliament to move towards no deal. That needs MPs.
He needs about 80 MPs, and they're all Conservatives.
May will very likely be replaced this summer. Her successor will almost certainly have to pledge to leave on October 31 no matter what, in order to win the leadership contest - especially if the Brexit Party wins the Euros. *That* is the crucial dynamic, just as it was in 2013-16: the fear among Con MPs and activists of losing public support (whether their analysis is right isn't the issue here, though is well worth exploring separately).
It's true that there is no majority for No Deal in parliament; it's also true that it's extremely difficult for parliament to prevent a legal default from occurring, if the government is set upon that course. Cooper-Letwin, for example, would not have prevented it on April 12; it was May choosing to accept the EU's extension which did that.
Would you support such a Conservative leader set on a default?
Of course not. But I would also not be so naive as to think that such efforts negated the need for anti-littering laws.
But that is exactly how naive you are. You, not me, said "We don't rely on people's sense of civic duty to, for example, refrain from littering." when we partly do. Your XOR and AND logic gates are fucked.
The word "partly" is doing some heavy lifting there.
The Brexit Party exists in order to deliver Brexit in a fairly hard form. It has no purpose beyond that. It doesn't want to fix potholes or change school governance or order new royal yachts - though it might have policies on these things in order to go through the motions of being a political party, and attracting support at the fringes is never to be turned down if it doesn't distract from the primary aim. But the truth is that once (if) Brexit is delivered, the movement will melt away and these other policies will fall with them.
Consequently, those who want to attack Farage and his party need to attack not him or it but the strong desire to leave the EU. Instead, they're fueling it. As ever, they don't understand his game, which is largely why he won it first time.
Without MPs he is doomed to fail. In 2010-15 he was pulling on a rope of Conservative Euroscepticism.
In 2019, the driving force of politics is among those opposed to no deal. They are not suddenly going to become no dealers because of Nigel Farage or, indeed, because the Brexit party does well in the polls. He is pushing on a string.
To succeed, he needs Parliament to move towards no deal. That needs MPs.
He needs about 80 MPs, and they're all Conservatives.
May will very likely be replaced this summer. Her successor will almost certainly have to pledge to leave on October 31 no matter what, in order to win the leadership contest - especially if the Brexit Party wins the Euros. *That* is the crucial dynamic, just as it was in 2013-16: the fear among Con MPs and activists of losing public support (whether their analysis is right isn't the issue here, though is well worth exploring separately).
It's true that there is no majority for No Deal in parliament; it's also true that it's extremely difficult for parliament to prevent a legal default from occurring, if the government is set upon that course. Cooper-Letwin, for example, would not have prevented it on April 12; it was May choosing to accept the EU's extension which did that.
If it is clear that the next Conservative leader will not command the confidence of Parliament, he (or she) will not be called to be Prime Minister.
A no deal supporting Conservative leader will obviously not command the confidence of Parliament.
Says the man who advised Major pre 1997 and Hague in 2001.
Finkrlstein is a good writer but he ignores the anger from Leavers
You seem to think that Leavers’ anger is not understood (you made a similar comment about me downthread). It is. The question is whether to pander to it.
It is also worth noting that neither Leavers nor Remainers are made up of clones. The emptiest vessels make most sound.
It is not a question of pandering, Leave won the referendum and the Commons has refused to respect that vote. It does not really matter what form Brexit now takes but it must still be Brexit
You can always back out of a suicide pact.
It is a question of pandering. Leavers are very clear on what they don’t want and clueless about what they do want. A lot have alighted on no deal for no other reason than it requires no thought.
Leavers are all united on Brexit, that needs to be delivered first, the future relationship with the EU can be determined later
So you undo 45 years of increasingly close co-operation in all sorts of industries, at all sorts of levels, plus similar co-operation in Government and quasi government departments and organisations and worry about the future later!
Really???????
what co-operation in industry ? Weve had 45 years of running ours down theres not much left to cooperate on.
It might be owned from outside but there's still a fair bit actually working.
the bits owned from outside take their decisions outside without much involvement from us,
Provide employment though. And day to day, or even month-to-month decisions are taken, very often on a co-operative basis.
The Brexit Party exists in order to deliver Brexit in a fairly hard form. It has no purpose beyond that. It doesn't want to fix potholes or change school governance or order new royal yachts - though it might have policies on these things in order to go through the motions of being a political party, and attracting support at the fringes is never to be turned down if it doesn't distract from the primary aim. But the truth is that once (if) Brexit is delivered, the movement will melt away and these other policies will fall with them.
Consequently, those who want to attack Farage and his party need to attack not him or it but the strong desire to leave the EU. Instead, they're fueling it. As ever, they don't understand his game, which is largely why he won it first time.
Without MPs he is doomed to fail. In 2010-15 he was pulling on a rope of Conservative Euroscepticism.
In 2019, the driving force of politics is among those opposed to no deal. They are not suddenly going to become no dealers because of Nigel Farage or, indeed, because the Brexit party does well in the polls. He is pushing on a string.
To succeed, he needs Parliament to move towards no deal. That needs MPs.
He needs about 80 MPs, and they're all Conservatives.
May will very likely be replaced this summer. Her successor will almost certainly have to pledge to leave on October 31 no matter what, in order to win the leadership contest - especially if the Brexit Party wins the Euros. *That* is the crucial dynamic, just as it was in 2013-16: the fear among Con MPs and activists of losing public support (whether their analysis is right isn't the issue here, though is well worth exploring separately).
It's true that there is no majority for No Deal in parliament; it's also true that it's extremely difficult for parliament to prevent a legal default from occurring, if the government is set upon that course. Cooper-Letwin, for example, would not have prevented it on April 12; it was May choosing to accept the EU's extension which did that.
If it is clear that the next Conservative leader will not command the confidence of Parliament, he (or she) will not be called to be Prime Minister.
A no deal supporting Conservative leader will obviously not command the confidence of Parliament.
Not true. May (and technically the cabinet) will make a recommendation to HM for the next PM. Unless there is a GE, that person will be the next Conservative leader. They will become PM and will form a government. How long that government lasts, is perhaps the interesting question.
But we are acting now. You can argue that it's not enough (and I have some sympathy with that view), but you can't argue that we're doing nothing.
But as other posters say, we can do much ourselves. The actions of these protesters aren't really designed to win over the general public, and may well alienate them.
I'll give a really simple example. My son is four, and whenever we go to the supermarket wants to go to the magazine aisle to buy one or other CBeebies magazine: whether it's Go Jetters, Andy's Dinosaur Adventures or whatever. He's not interested in the magazine itself, but in the cheap plastic imported-from-China tat that comes in it.
It's blooming hard to resist the pester power, especially as the toys generally get put in a playbox after an hour.
(The only 'good' one of these came with an Alphablocks magazinr, which had phonics letters that we play with together.)
On of the most pernicious and w so, but there is simply no getting away from that. It's all a bit reminiscent of the Brexit debate.
We need both. But you are falling into the delusion identified by Burke so many years ago, that because an individual can only do a little he may as well not bother doing anything. Small steps do help, lots of people taking small steps do help, they change the political climate and they make it easier to make the bigger changes needed.
Those leading the demos last week were saying that all gas boilers need to be ripped out of every house in the country and replaced without explaining how this would be feasible, who would pay etc. If some of their leaders cannot even be bothered to replace their diesel cars, something which is easily done, then others are entitled to question how green they really are or why they should be expected to do something so disruptive. It’s not ad hominem to point this out. “Do as I say not as I do” is as unattractive in a green leader as it is in an ultra-Brexiteer like Rees-Mogg.
I don't think any of the protesters are suggesting that they should not be subject to the same laws as everybody else. That would be hypocritical.
so why are they stopping people going about their lawful business ?
they can protest within the law if they choose.
When you're at war with the state you have to, by necessity and definition, go beyond the law.
Although they demand that the state abide by the law in their turn. Indeed, they expect that the state will play nice and not apply the law strictly. This assumption of double-standards is of itself enormously hypocritical.
On of the most pernicious and widespread delusions is that we can make meaningful contributions to solving environmental problems by token personal actions such as eschewing plastic toys or recycling yoghurt cartons. These gestures are virtually useless and serve only to deflect from meaningful action.
The changes that are actually needed to significantly mitigate the danger of climate change require massive, centrally-coordinated efforts that will unavoidably impact our way of life. The politicians shy away from saying so, but there is simply no getting away from that. It's all a bit reminiscent of the Brexit debate.
W
Those leading the demos last week were saying that all gas boilers need to be ripped out of every house in the country and replaced without explaining how this would be feasible, who would pay etc. If some of their leaders cannot even be bothered to replace their diesel cars, something which is easily done, then others are entitled to question how green they really are or why they should be expected to do something so disruptive. It’s not ad hominem to point this out. “Do as I say not as I do” is as unattractive in a green leader as it is in an ultra-Brexiteer like Rees-Mogg.
Their is absolutely nothing wrong with modern EU6 diesels, less polluting than petrol cars for sure. It may be easy for you being rich to replace cars at a whim , most people don't have that luxury and drive old bangers as a necessity to be able to get to work. Amazing how the rich always think it is so easy.
I don’t replace cars at a whim. I don’t think it is easy. That is precisely my criticism of some of the green lobby who expect people without much money to make expensive and impractical changes. I know I am better off than many and am very conscious of my good fortune. I try and use that good fortune to make what changes I can to improve the environment around me. But I do not hold myself up as any sort of example to anyone.
I don’t like diesels because of the effect on human health, especially that of children, which seems to me to be an important consideration, especially in cities where there is generally good public transport.
Incidentally, there are now I understand solar roof tiles so that you don’t need to have panels on top of roofs.
Of course not. But I would also not be so naive as to think that such efforts negated the need for anti-littering laws.
But that is exactly how naive you are. You, not me, said "We don't rely on people's sense of civic duty to, for example, refrain from littering." when we partly do. Your XOR and AND logic gates are fucked.
The word "partly" is doing some heavy lifting there.
"Zebras are partly black and partly white".
'The word "partly" is doing some heavy lifting there.'
Says the man who advised Major pre 1997 and Hague in 2001.
Finkrlstein is a good writer but he ignores the anger from Leavers
You seem to think that Leavers’ anger is not understood (you made a similar comment about me downthread). It is. The question is whether to pander to it.
It is also worth noting that neither Leavers nor Remainers are made up of clones. The emptiest vessels make most sound.
It is not a question of pandering, Leave won the referendum and the Commons has refused to respect that vote. It does not really matter what form Brexit now takes but it must still be Brexit
You can always back out of a suicide pact.
It is a question of pandering. Leavers are very clear on what they don’t want and clueless about what they do want. A lot have alighted on no deal for no other reason than it requires no thought.
Leavers are all united on Brexit, that needs to be delivered first, the future relationship with the EU can be determined later
So you undo 45 years of increasingly close co-operation in all sorts of industries, at all sorts of levels, plus similar co-operation in Government and quasi government departments and organisations and worry about the future later!
Really???????
what co-operation in industry ? Weve had 45 years of running ours down theres not much left to cooperate on.
It might be owned from outside but there's still a fair bit actually working.
the bits owned from outside take their decisions outside without much involvement from us,
Provide employment though. And day to day, or even month-to-month decisions are taken, very often on a co-operative basis.
but not the major policy ones or formation of regulations. Thats what head offices do and if your head office is elsewhere you're simply an operating unit that will do as it is told.
The French kindly honour our WW2 veterans for the part they played in the liberation. What has Dominic Grieve done to deserve an equivalent award?
Dominic Grieve QC MP has been awarded the Légion d’honneur by Ambassador Bermann during a ceremony at the French Residence, Kensington.
The Conservative MP, who chairs the Intelligence and Security Committee in Parliament, has a long-standing personal connection to France, and serves currently as President of the Franco-British Society as well as Vice-Chairman of the Franco-British Council.
The Ambassador said: “Cher Dominic, you provide a vital link between our two countries, which know each other so well.
"In the peculiar times we’re living in, your role is more important than ever.”
In his speech Dominic Grieve also told guests how he was following in the footsteps of his own father who was himself awarded the Légion d’honneur at the French Residence while the young Dominic was still a student at Magdalen College, Oxford.
Thank you. I still rate his contribution lower than the veterans.
They don't just award it for piling up German corpses. Violet Trefusis got one and I don't recall her wading through the surf on Omaha beach in Portrait of a Marriage.
Without MPs he is doomed to fail. In 2010-15 he was pulling on a rope of Conservative Euroscepticism.
In 2019, the driving force of politics is among those opposed to no deal. They are not suddenly going to become no dealers because of Nigel Farage or, indeed, because the Brexit party does well in the polls. He is pushing on a string.
To succeed, he needs Parliament to move towards no deal. That needs MPs.
The problem is none of the options - the WA, a second referendum, revoke, leaving without a WA - enjoys a majority in Parliament. The idea we should go with the least unpopular is absurd so we are stuck like the proverbial fly in the metaphorical flypaper. We cannot leave and we cannot remain.
Assuming the current arithmetic can't be changed we need a GE to try to change the balance in Parliament. Given they are polling in the 20s the Conservatives are understandably less than keen. The problem is on the current numbers the Brexit Party might poll 15% and win the sum total of not much. As OGH reminds us frequently, elections are about bums on benches not vote shares - an election on current shares would likely produce another stalemate in terms of forming a Government but it seems equally likely none of the four options will command a majority.
In other words, we may have a different PM and Government but the dynamics will be the same. The WA won't change and Corbyn is no more a fan of revoking, a second referendum or leaving without a WA than May.
The only option would be for the EU to throw us out on October 31st which would break the logjam. It might work well for the British Government politically in the short term though the economic effects, if as suggested, would be much less advantageous but the EU will take the blame.
Says the man who advised Major pre 1997 and Hague in 2001.
Finkrlstein is a good writer but he ignores the anger from Leavers
You seem to think that Leavers’ anger is not understood (you made a similar comment about me downthread). It is. The question is whether to pander to it.
It is also worth noting that neither Leavers nor Remainers are made up of clones. The emptiest vessels make most sound.
It is not a question of pandering, Leave won the referendum and the Commons has refused to respect that vote. It does not really matter what form Brexit now takes but it must still be Brexit
You can always back out of a suicide pact.
It is a question of pandering. Leavers are very clear on what they don’t want and clueless about what they do want. A lot have alighted on no deal for no other reason than it requires no thought.
Leavers are all united on Brexit, that needs to be delivered first, the future relationship with the EU can be determined later
So you undo 45 years of increasingly close co-operation in all sorts of industries, at all sorts of levels, plus similar co-operation in Government and quasi government departments and organisations and worry about the future later!
Really???????
what co-operation in industry ? Weve had 45 years of running ours down theres not much left to cooperate on.
It might be owned from outside but there's still a fair bit actually working.
the bits owned from outside take their decisions outside without much involvement from us,
Provide employment though. And day to day, or even month-to-month decisions are taken, very often on a co-operative basis.
but not the major policy ones or formation of regulations. Thats what head offices do and if your head office is elsewhere you're simply an operating unit that will do as it is told.
Quite. However we had some decision making organisations, such as the Medicines Agency and we effectively gave it the boot as a result of Brexit. There were also, I'm told, a lot of financial decision making organisations based in London. Or were until a period starting June 2016.
There has been two weeks of climate change activism and not one practical solution and not one proposal that doesn’t involve “someone else” paying the price.”
I saw no practical proposals come from the protestors. I did read an interview with one of the leaders who, even now, is still driving a diesel car. There are plenty of alternatives. The fact that someone who claims to care so much cannot even be bothered to make a change some of the rest of us made a while ago did not impress me.
Diesel cars are better than petrol from an AGW point of view, their problem is that they emit particulates which kill people (which, thinking about it, is itself one of the most eco friendly things you can do. The dead have no carbon footprint).
As someone with asthma and bronchiectasis I have no sympathy with diesel drivers. Or with those thinking that killing people is the way to go to save the planet.
I have no sympathy with people with multiple properties , travelling all the time in a more polluting petrol car and no doubt flying off on holiday often as well, rich and hypocrite come to mind.
I don’t fly on holiday. Tend now to spend mine in the Lakes. But like pretty much everyone I have my fair share of hypocrisy. Ultimately I intend leaving London altogether and if only the bloody builders would get on with it the date for that wouldn’t keep being put off. But that is another story.......
All these comments about how individuals may be hypocritical if they drive a particular type of car or where they go on holidays is missing the point. If you don't like Extinction Rebellion then take notice of David Attenborough, more has to be done about Climate Change than is being done currently. Although we can and should take actions to preserve the planet for our offspring, it is really up to the government to make the big decisions that need to be made. Individually we cannot decide where and what sort of power stations are needed, whether to roll out charging points for electric cars or what sort of incentives to give for energy saving or production - to name just a few. Our present government has made some recent decisions that indicate they are not taking the problem seriously - Swansea Bay Tidal Lagoon and dropping the solar feed in tariff to name two.
Without MPs he is doomed to fail. In 2010-15 he was pulling on a rope of Conservative Euroscepticism.
In 2019, the driving force of politics is among those opposed to no deal. They are not suddenly going to become no dealers because of Nigel Farage or, indeed, because the Brexit party does well in the polls. He is pushing on a string.
To succeed, he needs Parliament to move towards no deal. That needs MPs.
He needs about 80 MPs, and they're all Conservatives.
May will very likely be replaced this summer. Her successor will almost certainly have to pledge to leave on October 31 no matter what, in order to win the leadership contest - especially if the Brexit Party wins the Euros. *That* is the crucial dynamic, just as it was in 2013-16: the fear among Con MPs and activists of losing public support (whether their analysis is right isn't the issue here, though is well worth exploring separately).
It's true that there is no majority for No Deal in parliament; it's also true that it's extremely difficult for parliament to prevent a legal default from occurring, if the government is set upon that course. Cooper-Letwin, for example, would not have prevented it on April 12; it was May choosing to accept the EU's extension which did that.
If it is clear that the next Conservative leader will not command the confidence of Parliament, he (or she) will not be called to be Prime Minister.
A no deal supporting Conservative leader will obviously not command the confidence of Parliament.
So who do you think will be called to form a government when May formally resigns then?
A Con leader who is committed to leaving on Oct 31 with or without a deal - though the likely policy on election would be to renegotiate the WA, not to embrace No Deal outright - will almost certainly be appointed PM. The DUP will go along with that, as will Con MPs. For the time being, that'd be enough. Labour might well table a VoNC immediately but I'd expect the new PM to survive that while (doomed) attempts to renegotiate took place.
In any case, suppose the leadership election result is announced mid-Sept. The Commons won't sit again until after the Con conference, by which time it's far too late to form a different government before Oct 31 other than from the existing House, which means TIG (and virtually everyone else outside the Conservatives) having to support Corbyn.
No Deal in October remains quite a likely outcome.
I agree. The Brexit Party could soon be replacing the Tories as the main party of the Right in Britain. Yes, Farage repels; but he also has adoring fans in equal number. The best the Tories ever get is grudging respect for their flinty competence, which Brexit might well destroy if it hasn't already. Farage just looks unstoppable.
He really is a great communicator. Take me, for example. I'm quite ridiculously progressive in my politics. I astonish even myself a lot of the time with just how woke I am on more or less everything except euthanasia. Yet, I listen to Farage and he has me nodding along half the time. I have to go away and give myself a stern talking to, in order to get clean afterwards. So imagine the impact he has on people who actually share his views, or who are generally apolitical and looking for a bit of a fling. I will be pleasantly surprised if he fizzles out but I think it more likely that his time in the sun is only just beginning.
If it is clear that the next Conservative leader will not command the confidence of Parliament, he (or she) will not be called to be Prime Minister.
A no deal supporting Conservative leader will obviously not command the confidence of Parliament.
Not true. May (and technically the cabinet) will make a recommendation to HM for the next PM. Unless there is a GE, that person will be the next Conservative leader. They will become PM and will form a government. How long that government lasts, is perhaps the interesting question.
I don't see where you get that from. The Cabinet manual (Chapter 2) does not suggest a decisive role for the outgoing Prime Minister:
The French kindly honour our WW2 veterans for the part they played in the liberation. What has Dominic Grieve done to deserve an equivalent award?
Dominic Grieve QC MP has been awarded the Légion d’honneur by Ambassador Bermann during a ceremony at the French Residence, Kensington.
The Conservative MP, who chairs the Intelligence and Security Committee in Parliament, has a long-standing personal connection to France, and serves currently as President of the Franco-British Society as well as Vice-Chairman of the Franco-British Council.
The Ambassador said: “Cher Dominic, you provide a vital link between our two countries, which know each other so well.
"In the peculiar times we’re living in, your role is more important than ever.”
In his speech Dominic Grieve also told guests how he was following in the footsteps of his own father who was himself awarded the Légion d’honneur at the French Residence while the young Dominic was still a student at Magdalen College, Oxford.
Thank you. I still rate his contribution lower than the veterans.
They don't just award it for piling up German corpses. Violet Trefusis got one and I don't recall her wading through the surf on Omaha beach in Portrait of a Marriage.
Wading through Vita Sackville-West required a certain amount of heroism.
I agree. The Brexit Party could soon be replacing the Tories as the main party of the Right in Britain. Yes, Farage repels; but he also has adoring fans in equal number. The best the Tories ever get is grudging respect for their flinty competence, which Brexit might well destroy if it hasn't already. Farage just looks unstoppable.
He really is a great communicator. Take me, for example. I'm quite ridiculously progressive in my politics. I astonish even myself a lot of the time with just how woke I am on more or less everything except euthanasia. Yet, I listen to Farage and he has me nodding along half the time. I have to go away and give myself a stern talking to, in order to get clean afterwards. So imagine the impact he has on people who actually share his views, or who are generally apolitical and looking for a bit of a fling. I will be pleasantly surprised if he fizzles out but I think it more likely that his time in the sun is only just beginning.
I think Farage has played a blinder by recruiting Ann Widdecombe. The voters he's after will either a) appreciate her authoritarian streak or b) know her from various TV shows and think that rather groovy. ChUK made a mistake in rejecting Richard Dawkins in my view. He's a non-identity-politics liberal Remain intellectual - a niche that was crying out to be filled.
Yes I’d have liked to see Dawkins, he is as marmite as Farage though, and has a few quotes in his past that people would claim are islamaphobic
Agreed, me too. I know what you mean about the Islam stuff but I think he is really all-religion-phobic –including Islam. He's not a particularly tolerant guy, but he has his niche as you rightly imply.
Yes, he made the point in one of his shows that what westerners don’t get about Muslims is that more of them tend to actually mean it, rather than our kind of nod to an old fashioned tradition. So maybe he thinks that their religion is more dangerous because of that, but not inherently any better or worse.
Trying to articulate that in an election campaign would just be seen as islamsphovic though.
Fair point. Reminds me of the old saw: 'we're not religious, we are CoE'.
If it is clear that the next Conservative leader will not command the confidence of Parliament, he (or she) will not be called to be Prime Minister.
A no deal supporting Conservative leader will obviously not command the confidence of Parliament.
So who do you think will be called to form a government when May formally resigns then?
A Con leader who is committed to leaving on Oct 31 with or without a deal - though the likely policy on election would be to renegotiate the WA, not to embrace No Deal outright - will almost certainly be appointed PM. The DUP will go along with that, as will Con MPs. For the time being, that'd be enough. Labour might well table a VoNC immediately but I'd expect the new PM to survive that while (doomed) attempts to renegotiate took place.
In any case, suppose the leadership election result is announced mid-Sept. The Commons won't sit again until after the Con conference, by which time it's far too late to form a different government before Oct 31 other than from the existing House, which means TIG (and virtually everyone else outside the Conservatives) having to support Corbyn.
No Deal in October remains quite a likely outcome.
Theresa May stays in harness until a reasonably sure replacement is found. No obvious replacement, no resignation (cf Gordon Brown in 2010). It is an irony that, having long outstayed her usefulness in Number 10, her last duty might be to stay in office.
Says the man who advised Major pre 1997 and Hague in 2001.
Finkrlstein is a good writer but he ignores the anger from Leavers
You seem to think that Leavers’ anger is not understood (you made a similar comment about me downthread). It is. The question is whether to pander to it.
It is also worth noting that neither Leavers nor Remainers are made up of clones. The emptiest vessels make most sound.
It is not a question of pandering, Leave won the referendum and the Commons has refused to respect that vote. It does not really matter what form Brexit now takes but it must still be Brexit
You can always back out of a suicide pact.
It is a question of pandering. Leavers are very clear on what they don’t want and clueless about what they do want. A lot have alighted on no deal for no other reason than it requires no thought.
Leavers are all united on Brexit, that needs to be delivered first, the future relationship with the EU can be determined later
So you undo 45 years of increasingly close co-operation in all sorts of industries, at all sorts of levels, plus similar co-operation in Government and quasi government departments and organisations and worry about the future later!
Really???????
what co-operation in industry ? Weve had 45 years of running ours down theres not much left to cooperate on.
It might be owned from outside but there's still a fair bit actually working.
the bits owned from outside take their decisions outside without much involvement from us,
Provide employment though. And day to day, or even month-to-month decisions are taken, very often on a co-operative basis.
but not the major policy ones or formation of regulations. Thats what head offices do and if your head office is elsewhere you're simply an operating unit that will do as it is told.
Quite. However we had some decision making organisations, such as the Medicines Agency and we effectively gave it the boot as a result of Brexit. There were also, I'm told, a lot of financial decision making organisations based in London. Or were until a period starting June 2016.
I suspect being out will become one of Londons biggest advantages
If it is clear that the next Conservative leader will not command the confidence of Parliament, he (or she) will not be called to be Prime Minister.
A no deal supporting Conservative leader will obviously not command the confidence of Parliament.
Not true. May (and technically the cabinet) will make a recommendation to HM for the next PM. Unless there is a GE, that person will be the next Conservative leader. They will become PM and will form a government. How long that government lasts, is perhaps the interesting question.
I don't see where you get that from. The Cabinet manual (Chapter 2) does not suggest a decisive role for the outgoing Prime Minister:
Love that you have the Haynes manual for government. To be completely honest I am not sure where I picked that up, the convention is designed to protect HM from making a political act. The cabinet recommend the next PM as the person most able to command a majority in the HoC.
Says the man who advised Major pre 1997 and Hague in 2001.
Finkrlstein is a good writer but he ignores the anger from Leavers
You seem to think that Leavers’ anger is not understood (you made a similar comment about me downthread). It is. The question is whether to pander to it.
It is also worth noting that neither Leavers nor Remainers are made up of clones. The emptiest vessels make most sound.
It is not a question of pandering, Leave won the referendum and the Commons has refused to respect that vote. It does not really matter what form Brexit now takes but it must still be Brexit
You can always back out of a suicide pact.
It is a question of pandering. Leavers are very clear on what they don’t want and clueless about what they do want. A lot have alighted on no deal for no other reason than it requires no thought.
Leavers are all united on Brexit, that needs to be delivered first, the future relationship with the EU can be determined later
Really???????
what co-operation in industry ? Weve had 45 years of running ours down theres not much left to cooperate on.
It might be owned from outside but there's still a fair bit actually working.
the bits owned from outside take their decisions outside without much involvement from us,
Provide employment though. And day to day, or even month-to-month decisions are taken, very often on a co-operative basis.
but not the major policy ones or formation of regulations. Thats what head offices do and if your head office is elsewhere you're simply an operating unit that will do as it is told.
Quite. However we had some decision making organisations, such as the Medicines Agency and we effectively gave it the boot as a result of Brexit. There were also, I'm told, a lot of financial decision making organisations based in London. Or were until a period starting June 2016.
I suspect being out will become one of Londons biggest advantages
Suspicion and conviction are very different kettles of fish.
Comments
They constantly try to escape
From the darkness outside and within
By dreaming of systems so perfect that no one will need to be good.
In my side of my street in London, virtually every house has a south-facing flat roof. Some are unused. Some are used as roof terraces. One is used as both a roof terrace, for planting and for solar panels - mine. None of the others have solar panels or green roofs. That is such a waste. Governments ought to be incentivising people to make use of this sort of space in this way - and there is lots of it all over our cities. Bringing this to peoples’ attention - to the government’s attention - would have been a good use of last week’s protests or, indeed, of MPs’ time.
Changing your lifestyle because of what you see is a threat is not an 'empty gesture': it is showing many things: including that you are willing to undergo the pain that you want forced on others. And others may see what you're doing and realise that they can do it too.
By the way, for some reason I thought you were a Spurs supporter?
the bits owned from outside take their decisions outside without much involvement from us,
Total nonsense. Industry is international. "We" (whoever we is) influence companies in masses of countries around the world, as well as having those dreaded furriners influence companies that reside here. It has ever been thus.You (like many who voted for Brexit) hanker after a time that never existed.
oh dear
furriners
and you were so hoping to make a serious point
Hehe. I thought it would be language you could relate to, and I also avoided using apostrophes.
so no real point then
Not really. Over many exchanged points with you, I am quite aware that I am unlikely to stop your enjoyment complaining about why the world used to be so much better than it is today, and how the UK is going to hell in a handcart. I find this amusing and even endearing, particularly as you paradoxically show a complete disregard for the obsession of the most traditional and old-fogey-minded; punctuation and grammar!
Re Change UK, I think Richard Dawkins would have been a good choice. They need to win 10%+, they don't need to worry that religious voters might vote for someone else.
Those leading the demos last week were saying that all gas boilers need to be ripped out of every house in the country and replaced without explaining how this would be feasible, who would pay etc. If some of their leaders cannot even be bothered to replace their diesel cars, something which is easily done, then others are entitled to question how green they really are or why they should be expected to do something so disruptive. It’s not ad hominem to point this out. “Do as I say not as I do” is as unattractive in a green leader as it is in an ultra-Brexiteer like Rees-Mogg.
oh dear
furriners
and you were so hoping to make a serious point
Hehe. I thought it would be language you could relate to, and I also avoided using apostrophes.
so no real point then
Not really. Over many exchanged points with you, I am quite aware that I am unlikely to stop your enjoyment complaining about why the world used to be so much better than it is today, and how the UK is going to hell in a handcart. I find this amusing and even endearing, particularly as you paradoxically show a complete disregard for the obsession of the most traditional and old-fogey-minded; punctuation and grammar!
punctuation is for rule takers
furriners
and you were so hoping to make a serious point
Hehe. I thought it would be language you could relate to, and I also avoided using apostrophes.
so no real point then
Not really. Over many exchanged points with you, I am quite aware that I am unlikely to stop your enjoyment complaining about why the world used to be so much better than it is today, and how the UK is going to hell in a handcart. I find this amusing and even endearing, particularly as you paradoxically show a complete disregard for the obsession of the most traditional and old-fogey-minded; punctuation and grammar!
punctuation is for rule takers
The BP must be careful not to relaunch the career of too many more ex MPs or it dilutes from the suggestion they are rallying against Westminster. One ex Labour figure will do and then the rest should be representative of the general public.
https://www.indcatholicnews.com/news/21860
Why is it so many Leavers take their whip from Rome?
Farage is not primarily interested in gaining MPs or in forming a government. As with UKIP1.0, he is building a political movement but one that's aiming at a policy outcome, not in achieving office for its own sake. If those things come along the way then he'd certainly take it but it's a secondary aim. Not for him the Lib Dem strategy of building from the bottom up through local activism; his is and always has been a top-down concept. And, it should be remembered, that with hardly any MPs, it worked first time round: the pressure his movement exerted achieved the delivery of an In/Out referendum, and Out won.
The criticisms aimed at the Brexit party are much the same as those which were aimed at UKIP under his leadership - yet UKIP achieved its primary goal (or thought it had), so those criticisms must be wrong, and they're wrong because they're viewing politics through too narrow a frame.
This isn't to say that there isn't some validity to some of what Alastair says but they're generally second-order issues that will be brushed aside, causing the same kind of stupefaction among commentators living in a Remain bubble as to why their attacks aren't working.
It doesn't matter that Farage has said iffy things about the NHS: people voting for him are not interested in his views on the NHS because they're interested in Brexit, and in protesting against the system. In any case, the very fact that Farage isn't bothered about gaining MPs, and is playing to only maybe 25% at most of the electorate means that it's an absurd claim to suggest that 'he'd abolish the NHS', when he has no MPs with which to do so.
Yes, he wouldn't have won the referendum by himself but again, so what? Leave *did* win, and wouldn't have done so without him (possibly he was a negative contribution during the race but he was an absolutely essential one in getting to the starting line).
The Brexit Party exists in order to deliver Brexit in a fairly hard form. It has no purpose beyond that. It doesn't want to fix potholes or change school governance or order new royal yachts - though it might have policies on these things in order to go through the motions of being a political party, and attracting support at the fringes is never to be turned down if it doesn't distract from the primary aim. But the truth is that once (if) Brexit is delivered, the movement will melt away and these other policies will fall with them.
Consequently, those who want to attack Farage and his party need to attack not him or it but the strong desire to leave the EU. Instead, they're fueling it. As ever, they don't understand his game, which is largely why he won it first time.
they can protest within the law if they choose.
Also: how do you know your neighbours don't actually *need* their 'Chelsea tractor'; they can be a legitimate tool, as it is for my sister who has one and is involved with farming.
If you pretend to care about the environment, and cannot even be arsed to do the simple stuff, then why should anyone else support the big stuff?
Of course, the sensible approach would be to limit as far as possible the use of diesels to long-distance journeys outside of urban areas that cannot be easily undertaken by train.
Sure, you can show how holy you are by preaching normally, but if you really want to show your devotion, better be a martyr and unnecessarily bugger up other people's days by breaking the law. What better way to show your morals matter more to you than the puny legal code by which lesser mortals live?
Those aren't handcuffs. They're virtue bracelets.
Edit: Toyota Landcruisers and the like can be legitimate tools, but it's hard to see them as anything other than a status symbol in my neck of suburbia.
In 2019, the driving force of politics is among those opposed to no deal. They are not suddenly going to become no dealers because of Nigel Farage or, indeed, because the Brexit party does well in the polls. He is pushing on a string.
To succeed, he needs Parliament to move towards no deal. That needs MPs.
The killing people suggestion was <100% serious.
Trying to articulate that in an election campaign would just be seen as islamsphovic though.
If the Catholic church has adopted a political position on Brexit, if anything, it is pro-Remain.
The reason we disagree is that I believe that the voters were asked “should we leave or remain” and answered “leave”
You want to make assumptions as to what they really meant by “leave”. I take the view they meant we should leave.
If you are bailing out a sinking ship and too few people are helping for it to be saved, then you might as well give up and conserve your energy for swimming.
Good Londoner now are we?
Those leading the demos last week were saying that all gas boilers need to be ripped out of every house in the country and replaced without explaining how this would be feasible
This is a fair point.
One of the reasons I keep posting the link to the lengthy study into a 100% renewable global energy system is that it does consider in some detail what might be required to take effective action to deal with the CO2 problem.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320934766_Global_Energy_System_based_on_100_Renewable_Energy_-_Power_Sector
Individual actions as a demonstration of intent are laudable, but don't begin to be a solution to the problem.
My support for United is a modern day Molotov-Ribbentrop pact.
It will end at around 10pm when my focus shifts to Endgame.
The Conservative MP, who chairs the Intelligence and Security Committee in Parliament, has a long-standing personal connection to France, and serves currently as President of the Franco-British Society as well as Vice-Chairman of the Franco-British Council.
The Ambassador said: “Cher Dominic, you provide a vital link between our two countries, which know each other so well.
"In the peculiar times we’re living in, your role is more important than ever.”
In his speech Dominic Grieve also told guests how he was following in the footsteps of his own father who was himself awarded the Légion d’honneur at the French Residence while the young Dominic was still a student at Magdalen College, Oxford.
https://uk.ambafrance.org/Dominic-Grieve-decorated-for-work-in-Franco-British-relations
May will very likely be replaced this summer. Her successor will almost certainly have to pledge to leave on October 31 no matter what, in order to win the leadership contest - especially if the Brexit Party wins the Euros. *That* is the crucial dynamic, just as it was in 2013-16: the fear among Con MPs and activists of losing public support (whether their analysis is right isn't the issue here, though is well worth exploring separately).
It's true that there is no majority for No Deal in parliament; it's also true that it's extremely difficult for parliament to prevent a legal default from occurring, if the government is set upon that course. Cooper-Letwin, for example, would not have prevented it on April 12; it was May choosing to accept the EU's extension which did that.
http://www.gb-sol.co.uk/products/pvslates/default.htm?gclid=Cj0KCQjwkoDmBRCcARIsAG3xzl86w-CORQpDbXkQnaCrlYzjWOrDNM-1BQIyOc_CcFlX91Kt-HvPmd0aAvOnEALw_wcB
A no deal supporting Conservative leader will obviously not command the confidence of Parliament.
I don’t like diesels because of the effect on human health, especially that of children, which seems to me to be an important consideration, especially in cities where there is generally good public transport.
Incidentally, there are now I understand solar roof tiles so that you don’t need to have panels on top of roofs.
'The word "partly" is doing some heavy lifting there.'
Assuming the current arithmetic can't be changed we need a GE to try to change the balance in Parliament. Given they are polling in the 20s the Conservatives are understandably less than keen. The problem is on the current numbers the Brexit Party might poll 15% and win the sum total of not much. As OGH reminds us frequently, elections are about bums on benches not vote shares - an election on current shares would likely produce another stalemate in terms of forming a Government but it seems equally likely none of the four options will command a majority.
In other words, we may have a different PM and Government but the dynamics will be the same. The WA won't change and Corbyn is no more a fan of revoking, a second referendum or leaving without a WA than May.
The only option would be for the EU to throw us out on October 31st which would break the logjam. It might work well for the British Government politically in the short term though the economic effects, if as suggested, would be much less advantageous but the EU will take the blame.
There were also, I'm told, a lot of financial decision making organisations based in London. Or were until a period starting June 2016.
Although we can and should take actions to preserve the planet for our offspring, it is really up to the government to make the big decisions that need to be made. Individually we cannot decide where and what sort of power stations are needed, whether to roll out charging points for electric cars or what sort of incentives to give for energy saving or production - to name just a few. Our present government has made some recent decisions that indicate they are not taking the problem seriously - Swansea Bay Tidal Lagoon and dropping the solar feed in tariff to name two.
A Con leader who is committed to leaving on Oct 31 with or without a deal - though the likely policy on election would be to renegotiate the WA, not to embrace No Deal outright - will almost certainly be appointed PM. The DUP will go along with that, as will Con MPs. For the time being, that'd be enough. Labour might well table a VoNC immediately but I'd expect the new PM to survive that while (doomed) attempts to renegotiate took place.
In any case, suppose the leadership election result is announced mid-Sept. The Commons won't sit again until after the Con conference, by which time it's far too late to form a different government before Oct 31 other than from the existing House, which means TIG (and virtually everyone else outside the Conservatives) having to support Corbyn.
No Deal in October remains quite a likely outcome.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/60641/cabinet-manual.pdf