Just watched Geoffrey Cox speech from earlier. Can see why it's getting so much praise. Rousing stuff and best parliament has heard in a long time I reckon. That'll be all over the news and social media.
Is that the one in which he said this Parliament was dead. It was only elected 2 years ago.
Such is the nature of no party winning a majority.
What a great advert these past months have been for PR. Not.
He shouldn't go for a tactcal resignation. He should instead go for a VONC and instruct his MPs to vote against. Defy the MPs to either vote they have confidence in him - and how much of a laugh would that be? Or else defy the House to find somebody to head up the Remainer Coup.
Not sure what a mocked up VONC would achieve, the opposition would presumably abstain. Symbolically that looks naff but not a great deal worse than their refusal to have VONC now, and they'd have the same excuse/rationale up their sleeve. Winning a VONC wouldn't alleviate any of the actual problems Johnson is facing.
Would kick off the process for a General Election without 2/3rds being required is what....
Come up with a new PM - or off to the races we go.
I wonder how Hitchens - and others in the magna-carta-underpants brigade - would have reacted if, say, Mr Blair had prorogued parliament for over a month. Somehow I can't imagine their principal concern being whether or not the courts had the right to overrule him.
Hitchens disagrees with Boris’ prorogation, yet his principal concern seems to be just that.
Just watched Geoffrey Cox speech from earlier. Can see why it's getting so much praise. Rousing stuff and best parliament has heard in a long time I reckon. That'll be all over the news and social media.
Is that the one in which he said this Parliament was dead. It was only elected 2 years ago.
Such is the nature of no party winning a majority.
What a great advert these past months have been for PR. Not.
What a great advert Boris is for FPTP...
He will be - when he gets his stonking majority.....
I have some sympathy with this argument. I'm glad, for example, that abortion law was changed in the UK in the 60s by a Parliamentary vote, than because of a changing interpretation of a 200 year old constitution.
In the present example I cannot agree.
Let uelect committees.
Under of MPs.
A new session of Parliament can be brought about by a short prorogation of less than a week. A prorogation of five weeks is an attempt to evade Parliamentary scrutiny.
It might have been preferable for Parliament to have prevented the prorogation by replacing the PM, but the Courts must be able to protect Parliament when a majority of MPs are not willing to take that action.
I am not as nannies for incompetent MPs would couldn't organise themselves out of the proverbial paper bag.
But of course all the issues you're talking about here in a rather half-baked way - the Supreme Court's own role, the roles of statute law and common law, and so on - are discussed systematically in the judgment, with reference to the relevant precedents.
That judgment was assented to by all 11 judges unanimously. We're not talking about arguments that were viewed doubtfully by even a single judge.
You can't just say they were wrong without addressing what the judgment actually said. Or if you do, you can't expect to persuade anyone who doesn't already agree with you.
You will that there is no precedent whatsoever in paragraph 50. It is not compatible with previous decisions. The SC has the right to do that but the right and it being desirable are not the same things.
If events are unprecedented then, by definition, there is no precedent governing them. The government argued it was necessary to close down parliament for five weeks in order to prepare for a Queen's Speech. It was unable to explain why this was necessary. The court looked at what a five week shut down would involve, observed the government's failure to justify it and concluded that there was no reason for the shutdown to be any longer than the one usually required for a Queen's Speech. If there are no limits to the government's ability to prorogue, we are but a short step from there being no need for a Parliament at all. In years to come, we may well be very relieved that a minority government does not have unlimited powers to shut down scrutiny of its policies.
He shouldn't go for a tactcal resignation. He should instead go for a VONC and instruct his MPs to vote against. Defy the MPs to either vote they have confidence in him - and how much of a laugh would that be? Or else defy the House to find somebody to head up the Remainer Coup.
Not sure what a mocked up VONC would achieve, the opposition would presumably abstain. Symbolically that looks naff but not a great deal worse than their refusal to have VONC now, and they'd have the same excuse/rationale up their sleeve. Winning a VONC wouldn't alleviate any of the actual problems Johnson is facing.
Cummings has game theorised it and will give each tory MP a random number generator which will instruct them individually whether to vote confidence, no confidence or abstain. The opposition will not know what to do in response, and in panic will make an error.
There is, apparently, a chance it will be killed before it makes the manifesto. I suspect they will do that... but with Corbyn's Labour, who knows.
Even if they do kill it, much of the damage will have been done, as knowledge of this ripples out from Twitter into Facebook and the papers. Labour Want An Open Border.
And here's ANOTHER delightful idea from Labour's migration virtuefest
"Reject any immigration system based on incomes, migrants’ utility to business, and number caps/targets"
So that means Labour's immigration policy is.... what? What exactly? Their policy seems to be to not have a policy ,just invite as many people as possible, whatever their skills, or values, or attitudes, and basically let them all in. If you can get here we will take you in, and give you all benefits, and you also get a vote.
I can't work out if Labour think this is vote-winning, or they reckon they can sneak it past the voters amongst all the other crazy ideas, or they don't care about winning and just want to say pleasing things to each other.
It is grandiloquently irresponsible.
It is a ridiculous policy but I am surprised you cannot work out what drives it. They dont care about pragmatism, instead for them at the moment it is all about emotion and righteousness. If you try hard, might you be able to think of another similar set of nonsensical policies driven by emotion and righteousness rather than pragmatism that you happily cheer on?
And here's ANOTHER delightful idea from Labour's migration virtuefest
"Reject any immigration system based on incomes, migrants’ utility to business, and number caps/targets"
You said before it would be "an open invitation to everyone in the EU, and most people outside it, to come straight to the UK."
Now you're complaining about the criteria?
Maybe it would be better if people read about it for themselves rather than relying on your hysterical propaganda.
Labour is not going to have any criteria. That's the point. They are abandoning any pretence of having a migration policy. The idea is, pretty much, Open Borders.
Let's try to be factually accurate. This is what they voted for: "Reject any immigration system based on incomes, migrants’ utility to business, and number caps/targets."
It doesn't surprise me in the least that Labour's opponents are saying they are not going to have an immigration system at all, or that everyone who wants to come to the UK is going to be let in. That's the nature of political propaganda.
But there's very little point trying to deceive people here with propaganda. I don't think the readership is large enough for it to be worthwhile.
Farage only need some to come with him and in so doing sink Boris and brexit. I think he will oblige and enough will go with him.
Farage is simply thinking one step ahead, to after October 31st when Boris will be a busted flush with all those naïfs who still think Boris is going to deliver his pledge.
Indeed. This is about levelling the killing field. When Boris turns into a Pumpkin at 11pm on Hallowe'en and becomes just another politican Farage's early spade work on a " I told you so " narrative will pay off. Farage has absolutely nothing to gain by helping Johnson as Johnson's positioning and persona are his biggest strategic competitor.
Farage is good strategist, a mediocre tactician, and appalling at execution.
Hence, he “won” Brexit but still can’t get elected to Parliament at the umpteenth time of trying.
Nabavi’s analysis is correct. Farage is fattening his pig for market.
The ‘Farage failed to get elected 7 times’ meme is so disingenuous, without context, that it frames whoever tries to use it as either wilfully ignorant or a complete imbecile
Farage only need some to come with him and in so doing sink Boris and brexit. I think he will oblige and enough will go with him.
Farage is simply thinking one step ahead, to after October 31st when Boris will be a busted flush with all those naïfs who still think Boris is going to deliver his pledge.
Indeed. This is about levelling the killing field. When Boris turns into a Pumpkin at 11pm on Hallowe'en and becomes just another politican Farage's early spade work on a " I told you so " narrative will pay off. Farage has absolutely nothing to gain by helping Johnson as Johnson's positioning and persona are his biggest strategic competitor.
Farage is good strategist, a mediocre tactician, and appalling at execution.
Hence, he “won” Brexit but still can’t get elected to Parliament at the umpteenth time of trying.
Nabavi’s analysis is correct. Farage is fattening his pig for market.
The ‘Farage failed to get elected 7 times’ meme is so disingenuous, without context, that it frames whoever tries to use it as either wilfully ignorant or a complete imbecile
And here's ANOTHER delightful idea from Labour's migration virtuefest
"Reject any immigration system based on incomes, migrants’ utility to business, and number caps/targets"
You said before it would be "an open invitation to everyone in the EU, and most people outside it, to come straight to the UK."
Now you're complaining about the criteria?
Maybe it would be better if people read about it for themselves rather than relying on your hysterical propaganda.
Labour is not going to have any criteria. That's the point. They are abandoning any pretence of having a migration policy. The idea is, pretty much, Open Borders.
Let's try to be factually accurate. This is what they voted for: "Reject any immigration system based on incomes, migrants’ utility to business, and number caps/targets."
It doesn't surprise me in the least that Labour's opponents are saying they are not going to have an immigration system at all, or that everyone who wants to come to the UK is going to be let in. That's the nature of political propaganda.
But there's very little point trying to deceive people here with propaganda. I don't think the readership is large enough for it to be worthwhile.
If the immigration system is not based on income, having a job, or doesn't have numbers or caps, what is it based on?
Just watched Geoffrey Cox speech from earlier. Can see why it's getting so much praise. Rousing stuff and best parliament has heard in a long time I reckon. That'll be all over the news and social media.
Is that the one in which he said this Parliament was dead. It was only elected 2 years ago.
Such is the nature of no party winning a majority.
What a great advert these past months have been for PR. Not.
What a great advert Boris is for FPTP...
He will be - when he gets his stonking majority.....
He shouldn't go for a tactcal resignation. He should instead go for a VONC and instruct his MPs to vote against. Defy the MPs to either vote they have confidence in him - and how much of a laugh would that be? Or else defy the House to find somebody to head up the Remainer Coup.
Cabinet members were obviously reading PB this morning.
Johnson resigning the government and handing over responsibility for requesting A50 extension to Corbyn would be an absolute hammer blow to Labour.
Not that they will need finishing off by the look of their latest policies.
And here's ANOTHER delightful idea from Labour's migration virtuefest
"Reject any immigration system based on incomes, migrants’ utility to business, and number caps/targets"
You said before it would be "an open invitation to everyone in the EU, and most people outside it, to come straight to the UK."
Now you're complaining about the criteria?
Maybe it would be better if people read about it for themselves rather than relying on your hysterical propaganda.
Labour is not going to have any criteria. That's the point. They are abandoning any pretence of having a migration policy. The idea is, pretty much, Open Borders.
Let's try to be factually accurate. This is what they voted for: "Reject any immigration system based on incomes, migrants’ utility to business, and number caps/targets."
It doesn't surprise me in the least that Labour's opponents are saying they are not going to have an immigration system at all, or that everyone who wants to come to the UK is going to be let in. That's the nature of political propaganda.
But there's very little point trying to deceive people here with propaganda. I don't think the readership is large enough for it to be worthwhile.
Here's the new policy in full,
In its next manifesto, Labour will commit to:
Oppose the current Tory immigration legislation and any curbing of rights. Campaign for free movement, equality and rights for migrants. Reject any immigration system based on incomes, migrants’ utility to business, and number caps/targets. Close all detention centres. Ensure unconditional right to family reunion. Maintain and extend free movement rights. End “no recourse to public funds” policies. Scrap all Hostile Environment measures, use of landlords and public service providers as border guards, and restrictions on migrants’ NHS access. Actively challenge anti-immigrant narratives. Extend equal rights to vote to all UK residents
There is, apparently, a chance it will be killed before it makes the manifesto. I suspect they will do that... but with Corbyn's Labour, who knows.
Even if they do kill it, much of the damage will have been done, as knowledge of this ripples out from Twitter into Facebook and the papers. Labour Want An Open Border.
This week has told us very clearly is that Labour does not believe it can win the next election. It has been all about keeping the base on board with the Corbyn project after the inevitable defeat.
And here's ANOTHER delightful idea from Labour's migration virtuefest
"Reject any immigration system based on incomes, migrants’ utility to business, and number caps/targets"
So that means Labour's immigration policy is.... what? What exactly? Their policy seems to be to not have a policy ,just invite as many people as possible, whatever their skills, or values, or attitudes, and basically let them all in. If you can get here we will take you in, and give you all benefits, and you also get a vote.
I can't work out if Labour think this is vote-winning, or they reckon they can sneak it past the voters amongst all the other crazy ideas, or they don't care about winning and just want to say pleasing things to each other.
It is grandiloquently irresponsible.
It is a ridiculous policy but I am surprised you cannot work out what drives it. They dont care about pragmatism, instead for them at the moment it is all about emotion and righteousness. If you try hard, might you be able to think of another similar set of nonsensical policies driven by emotion and righteousness rather than pragmatism that you happily cheer on?
You think he'll get 17.4m to vote for it then?
Pillock.
No because it is a ridiculous policy. It wont even get anywhere near the actual Labour manifesto.
Brexit is not a ridiculous policy, it is not optimal but has some merits as well as downsides. We voted for it so I support leaving with a deal.
No deal is the ridiculous policy and it got 1.8% of the electoral support at the last GE.
There is, apparently, a chance it will be killed before it makes the manifesto. I suspect they will do that... but with Corbyn's Labour, who knows.
Even if they do kill it, much of the damage will have been done, as knowledge of this ripples out from Twitter into Facebook and the papers. Labour Want An Open Border.
This week has told us very clearly is that Labour does not believe it can win the next election. It has been all about keeping the base on board with the Corbyn project after the inevitable defeat.
When do we get the SO type rational Labour party back i.e. one that somebody who isn't a Marxist can vote for?
Just watched Geoffrey Cox speech from earlier. Can see why it's getting so much praise. Rousing stuff and best parliament has heard in a long time I reckon. That'll be all over the news and social media.
Is that the one in which he said this Parliament was dead. It was only elected 2 years ago.
Such is the nature of no party winning a majority.
What a great advert these past months have been for PR. Not.
What a great advert Boris is for FPTP...
He will be - when he gets his stonking majority.....
Haha. The delusions of the supremely gullible are so quaint..
I am not trying to defend what Boris did. I criticised it from the moment it was announced. But I respectfully disagree with your last sentence. The point of having a Supreme Parliament is that it regulates itself according to the membership at the time. The only restriction is the laws already passed and not repealed so, for example, if a majority decided to sit on for 10 years without an election the courts could uphold the laws that Parliament has passed and require an election. The courts are not there to act as nannies for incompetent MPs would couldn't organise themselves out of the proverbial paper bag.
But of course all the issues you're talking about here in a rather half-baked way - the Supreme Court's own role, the roles of statute law and common law, and so on - are discussed systematically in the judgment, with reference to the relevant precedents.
That judgment was assented to by all 11 judges unanimously. We're not talking about arguments that were viewed doubtfully by even a single judge.
You can't just say they were wrong without addressing what the judgment actually said. Or if you do, you can't expect to persuade anyone who doesn't already agree with you.
You will that there is no precedent whatsoever in paragraph 50. It is not compatible with previous decisions. The SC has the right to do that but the right and it being desirable are not the same things.
The word "therefore" in the first sentence of that paragraph indicates that the judges are drawing a conclusion from what they have said just before that.
There is, apparently, a chance it will be killed before it makes the manifesto. I suspect they will do that... but with Corbyn's Labour, who knows.
Even if they do kill it, much of the damage will have been done, as knowledge of this ripples out from Twitter into Facebook and the papers. Labour Want An Open Border.
This week has told us very clearly is that Labour does not believe it can win the next election. It has been all about keeping the base on board with the Corbyn project after the inevitable defeat.
That is certainly one rational explanation. The others are even scarier.
And here's ANOTHER delightful idea from Labour's migration virtuefest
"Reject any immigration system based on incomes, migrants’ utility to business, and number caps/targets"
You said before it would be "an open invitation to everyone in the EU, and most people outside it, to come straight to the UK."
Now you're complaining about the criteria?
Maybe it would be better if people read about it for themselves rather than relying on your hysterical propaganda.
Labour is not going to have any criteria. That's the point. They are abandoning any pretence of having a migration policy. The idea is, pretty much, Open Borders.
Let's try to be factually accurate. This is what they voted for: "Reject any immigration system based on incomes, migrants’ utility to business, and number caps/targets."
It doesn't surprise me in the least that Labour's opponents are saying they are not going to have an immigration system at all, or that everyone who wants to come to the UK is going to be let in. That's the nature of political propaganda.
But there's very little point trying to deceive people here with propaganda. I don't think the readership is large enough for it to be worthwhile.
Well if we dispense with income/assets considerations and ability to work / education or usefulness to the domestic economy what other criteria do you suggest? Aside from refugees/asylum seekers which we're not talking about here.
Willingness to vote for Labour perhaps? Swearing an oath to Dear Leader?
Here's a thing. Why don't Labour kite-fly this policy if you're so assured of its inherent virtue. Put up say twenty or thirty billboards in and around Stoke. "Labour promise to give benefits to EVERY immigrant". Or put it on the side of a bus perhaps and drive it through Sunderland. See what happens.
Just watched Geoffrey Cox speech from earlier. Can see why it's getting so much praise. Rousing stuff and best parliament has heard in a long time I reckon. That'll be all over the news and social media.
Is that the one in which he said this Parliament was dead. It was only elected 2 years ago.
Such is the nature of no party winning a majority.
What a great advert these past months have been for PR. Not.
What a great advert Boris is for FPTP...
He will be - when he gets his stonking majority.....
If
After this Labour conference? When.....
The prorogation exercise has prevented Labour from cancelling it. Job done.
Farage only need some to come with him and in so doing sink Boris and brexit. I think he will oblige and enough will go with him.
Farage is simply thinking one step ahead, to after October 31st when Boris will be a busted flush with all those naïfs who still think Boris is going to deliver his pledge.
Indeed. This is about levelling the killing field. When Boris turns into a Pumpkin at 11pm on Hallowe'en and becomes just another politican Farage's early spade work on a " I told you so " narrative will pay off. Farage has absolutely nothing to gain by helping Johnson as Johnson's positioning and persona are his biggest strategic competitor.
Farage is good strategist, a mediocre tactician, and appalling at execution.
Hence, he “won” Brexit but still can’t get elected to Parliament at the umpteenth time of trying.
Nabavi’s analysis is correct. Farage is fattening his pig for market.
The ‘Farage failed to get elected 7 times’ meme is so disingenuous, without context, that it frames whoever tries to use it as either wilfully ignorant or a complete imbecile
Do expand.
Have a think
I think you were asked to. My guess, if you need some help, is that in the constituencies he tried he was seen for what he is: A narcissistic toff acting the part of a spiv at best or at worst, a nasty xenophobic crypto-fascist. Which side of his personality most appeals to you?
And here's ANOTHER delightful idea from Labour's migration virtuefest
"Reject any immigration system based on incomes, migrants’ utility to business, and number caps/targets"
You said before it would be "an open invitation to everyone in the EU, and most people outside it, to come straight to the UK."
Now you're complaining about the criteria?
Maybe it would be better if people read about it for themselves rather than relying on your hysterical propaganda.
Labour is not going to have any criteria. That's the point. They are abandoning any pretence of having a migration policy. The idea is, pretty much, Open Borders.
Let's try to be factually accurate. This is what they voted for: "Reject any immigration system based on incomes, migrants’ utility to business, and number caps/targets."
It doesn't surprise me in the least that Labour's opponents are saying they are not going to have an immigration system at all, or that everyone who wants to come to the UK is going to be let in. That's the nature of political propaganda.
But there's very little point trying to deceive people here with propaganda. I don't think the readership is large enough for it to be worthwhile.
Well if we dispense with income/assets considerations and ability to work / education or usefulness to the domestic economy what other criteria do you suggest? Aside from refugees/asylum seekers which we're not talking about here.
Willingness to vote for Labour perhaps? Swearing an oath to Dear Leader?
Here's a thing. Why don't Labour kite-fly this policy if you're so assured of its inherent virtue. Put up say twenty or thirty billboards in and around Stoke. "Labour promise to give benefits to EVERY immigrant". Or put it on the side of a bus perhaps and drive it through Sunderland. See what happens.
I'm not assured of anything. I'm not advocating the policy. I'm just cautioning people against swallowing the wilder misrepresentations by Labour's opponents.
[Edit: It's probably worth pointing out that you've just introduced several more misrepresentations, with your insertion of references to "assets," "ability to work" and "education." Thanks for underlining my note of caution not to believe what people here say.]
There is, apparently, a chance it will be killed before it makes the manifesto. I suspect they will do that... but with Corbyn's Labour, who knows.
Even if they do kill it, much of the damage will have been done, as knowledge of this ripples out from Twitter into Facebook and the papers. Labour Want An Open Border.
This week has told us very clearly is that Labour does not believe it can win the next election. It has been all about keeping the base on board with the Corbyn project after the inevitable defeat.
When do we get the SO type rational Labour party back i.e. one that somebody who isn't a Marxist can vote for?
There is, apparently, a chance it will be killed before it makes the manifesto. I suspect they will do that... but with Corbyn's Labour, who knows.
Even if they do kill it, much of the damage will have been done, as knowledge of this ripples out from Twitter into Facebook and the papers. Labour Want An Open Border.
This week has told us very clearly is that Labour does not believe it can win the next election. It has been all about keeping the base on board with the Corbyn project after the inevitable defeat.
When do we get the SO type rational Labour party back i.e. one that somebody who isn't a Marxist can vote for?
There is, apparently, a chance it will be killed before it makes the manifesto. I suspect they will do that... but with Corbyn's Labour, who knows.
Even if they do kill it, much of the damage will have been done, as knowledge of this ripples out from Twitter into Facebook and the papers. Labour Want An Open Border.
This week has told us very clearly is that Labour does not believe it can win the next election. It has been all about keeping the base on board with the Corbyn project after the inevitable defeat.
When do we get the SO type rational Labour party back i.e. one that somebody who isn't a Marxist can vote for?
Never, I suspect.
oh come on, youll get to the GE and crack for Jezza "to keep out the Tory"
Farage only need some to come with him and in so doing sink Boris and brexit. I think he will oblige and enough will go with him.
Farage is simply thinking one step ahead, to after October 31st when Boris will be a busted flush with all those naïfs who still think Boris is going to deliver his pledge.
Indeed. This is about levelling the killing field. When Boris turns into a Pumpkin at 11pm on Hallowe'en and becomes just another politican Farage's early spade work on a " I told you so " narrative will pay off. Farage has absolutely nothing to gain by helping Johnson as Johnson's positioning and persona are his biggest strategic competitor.
Farage is good strategist, a mediocre tactician, and appalling at execution.
Hence, he “won” Brexit but still can’t get elected to Parliament at the umpteenth time of trying.
Nabavi’s analysis is correct. Farage is fattening his pig for market.
The ‘Farage failed to get elected 7 times’ meme is so disingenuous, without context, that it frames whoever tries to use it as either wilfully ignorant or a complete imbecile
Do expand.
Have a think
I think you were asked to. My guess, if you need some help, is that in the constituencies he tried he was seen for what he is: A narcissistic toff acting the part of a spiv at best or at worst, a nasty xenophobic crypto-fascist. Which side of his personality most appeals to you?
I think you are a something with the initials CC, I won’t expand
Greta Grump is suing France for not taking climate change seriously
but not China or the USA.
France is one of the greenest developed nations in the world, 4.57 metric tonnes of CO2 per person - their love of nuclear power practically guarantees a decent CO2 footprint.
73% nuclear, 18% renewables !
I can understand Macron hitting the roof at this one.
And here's ANOTHER delightful idea from Labour's migration virtuefest
"Reject any immigration system based on incomes, migrants’ utility to business, and number caps/targets"
You said before it would be "an open invitation to everyone in the EU, and most people outside it, to come straight to the UK."
Now you're complaining about the criteria?
Maybe it would be better if people read about it for themselves rather than relying on your hysterical propaganda.
Labour is not going to have any criteria. That's the point. They are abandoning any pretence of having a migration policy. The idea is, pretty much, Open Borders.
Let's try to be factually accurate. This is what they voted for: "Reject any immigration system based on incomes, migrants’ utility to business, and number caps/targets."
It doesn't surprise me in the least that Labour's opponents are saying they are not going to have an immigration system at all, or that everyone who wants to come to the UK is going to be let in. That's the nature of political propaganda.
But there's very little point trying to deceive people here with propaganda. I don't think the readership is large enough for it to be worthwhile.
Well if we dispense with income/assets considerations and ability to work / education or usefulness to the domestic economy what other criteria do you suggest? Aside from refugees/asylum seekers which we're not talking about here.
Willingness to vote for Labour perhaps? Swearing an oath to Dear Leader?
Here's a thing. Why don't Labour kite-fly this policy if you're so assured of its inherent virtue. Put up say twenty or thirty billboards in and around Stoke. "Labour promise to give benefits to EVERY immigrant". Or put it on the side of a bus perhaps and drive it through Sunderland. See what happens.
I'm not assured of anything. I'm not advocating the policy. I'm just cautioning people against swallowing the wilder misrepresentations by Labour's opponents.
It is a ridiculous policy and should be called out and never heard of again. Just because the people shouting the loudest about it are wrong on other matters doesnt mean they are not right here.
And here's ANOTHER delightful idea from Labour's migration virtuefest
"Reject any immigration system based on incomes, migrants’ utility to business, and number caps/targets"
You said before it would be "an open invitation to everyone in the EU, and most people outside it, to come straight to the UK."
Now you're complaining about the criteria?
Maybe it would be better if people read about it for themselves rather than relying on your hysterical propaganda.
Labour is not going to have any criteria. That's the point. They are abandoning any pretence of having a migration policy. The idea is, pretty much, Open Borders.
Let's try to be factually accurate. This is what they voted for: "Reject any immigration system based on incomes, migrants’ utility to business, and number caps/targets."
It doesn't surprise me in the least that Labour's opponents are saying they are not going to have an immigration system at all, or that everyone who wants to come to the UK is going to be let in. That's the nature of political propaganda.
But there's very little point trying to deceive people here with propaganda. I don't think the readership is large enough for it to be worthwhile.
Here's the new policy in full,
In its next manifesto, Labour will commit to:
Oppose the current Tory immigration legislation and any curbing of rights. Campaign for free movement, equality and rights for migrants. Reject any immigration system based on incomes, migrants’ utility to business, and number caps/targets. Close all detention centres. Ensure unconditional right to family reunion. Maintain and extend free movement rights. End “no recourse to public funds” policies. Scrap all Hostile Environment measures, use of landlords and public service providers as border guards, and restrictions on migrants’ NHS access. Actively challenge anti-immigrant narratives. Extend equal rights to vote to all UK residents
Good luck.
Perhaps their strategy is to propose such extremely mental policies that when the real ones come out they will seem moderate by comparison?
He shouldn't go for a tactcal resignation. He should instead go for a VONC and instruct his MPs to vote against. Defy the MPs to either vote they have confidence in him - and how much of a laugh would that be? Or else defy the House to find somebody to head up the Remainer Coup.
Cabinet members were obviously reading PB this morning.
Johnson resigning the government and handing over responsibility for requesting A50 extension to Corbyn would be an absolute hammer blow to Labour.
Not that they will need finishing off by the look of their latest policies.
I know that Brexit has challenged many of our previous assumptions about politics but the idea that being appointed PM is "an absolute hammer blow" for a LOTO is not easy to grasp.
Read some interesting things about the Trump Ukraine transcript. Mostly that it is not a verbatim copy of the conversation.
The real meat is the whistle-blower complaint.
Also Guiliani seem to be admitting to crimes all over the shop.
Adam Schiff said yesterday that the whistleblower wasn't complaing about Trump asking for dirt, but about Trump inviting the fabrication of dirt to harm Biden in return for military aid. i.e. Please do to Biden in 2020, what the Russians did to Clinton in 2016, except in the 2016 case it was going to be for sanctions being weakened or removed.
I know that Brexit has challenged many of our previous assumptions about politics but the idea that being appointed PM is "an absolute hammer blow" for a LOTO is not easy to grasp.
If you fully quoted what I wrote it would be very clear.
Greta Grump is suing France for not taking climate change seriously
but not China or the USA.
France is one of the greenest developed nations in the world, 4.57 metric tonnes of CO2 per person - their love of nuclear power practically guarantees a decent CO2 footprint.
73% nuclear, 18% renewables !
well maybe but La Thunberg is taking a number of countries to court
And here's ANOTHER delightful idea from Labour's migration virtuefest
"Reject any immigration system based on incomes, migrants’ utility to business, and number caps/targets"
You said before it would be "an open invitation to everyone in the EU, and most people outside it, to come straight to the UK."
Now you're complaining about the criteria?
Maybe it would be better if people read about it for themselves rather than relying on your hysterical propaganda.
Labour is not going to have any criteria. That's the point. They are abandoning any pretence of having a migration policy. The idea is, pretty much, Open Borders.
Let's try to be factually accurate. This is what they voted for: "Reject any immigration system based on incomes, migrants’ utility to business, and number caps/targets."
It doesn't surprise me in the least that Labour's opponents are saying they are not going to have an immigration system at all, or that everyone who wants to come to the UK is going to be let in. That's the nature of political propaganda.
But there's very little point trying to deceive people here with propaganda. I don't think the readership is large enough for it to be worthwhile.
Well if we dispense with income/assets considerations and ability to work / education or usefulness to the domestic economy what other criteria do you suggest? Aside from refugees/asylum seekers which we're not talking about here.
Willingness to vote for Labour perhaps? Swearing an oath to Dear Leader?
Here's a thing. Why don't Labour kite-fly this policy if you're so assured of its inherent virtue. Put up say twenty or thirty billboards in and around Stoke. "Labour promise to give benefits to EVERY immigrant". Or put it on the side of a bus perhaps and drive it through Sunderland. See what happens.
I'm not assured of anything. I'm not advocating the policy. I'm just cautioning people against swallowing the wilder misrepresentations by Labour's opponents.
It is a ridiculous policy and should be called out and never heard of again. Just because the people shouting the loudest about it are wrong on other matters doesnt mean they are not right here.
I wonder if Labour are too emotionally invested in this new policy, to go back now. Twitter lefties are absolutely exulting in it. It will be very difficult to row back.
And this is an absolutely impossible policy to sell on the doorstep. Labour have surrendered their last slender chance of winning the election.
Farage only need some to come with him and in so doing sink Boris and brexit. I think he will oblige and enough will go with him.
Farage is simply thinking one step ahead, to after October 31st when Boris will be a busted flush with all those naïfs who still think Boris is going to deliver his pledge.
Indeed. This is about levelling the killing field. When Boris turns into a Pumpkin at 11pm on Hallowe'en and becomes just another politican Farage's early spade work on a " I told you so " narrative will pay off. Farage has absolutely nothing to gain by helping Johnson as Johnson's positioning and persona are his biggest strategic competitor.
Farage is good strategist, a mediocre tactician, and appalling at execution.
Hence, he “won” Brexit but still can’t get elected to Parliament at the umpteenth time of trying.
Nabavi’s analysis is correct. Farage is fattening his pig for market.
The ‘Farage failed to get elected 7 times’ meme is so disingenuous, without context, that it frames whoever tries to use it as either wilfully ignorant or a complete imbecile
Do expand.
Have a think
I think you were asked to. My guess, if you need some help, is that in the constituencies he tried he was seen for what he is: A narcissistic toff acting the part of a spiv at best or at worst, a nasty xenophobic crypto-fascist. Which side of his personality most appeals to you?
I think you are a something with the initials CC, I won’t expand
Oh, I am skewered by your rapier wit. Perhaps not. Please do expand. I am intrigued at the inner workings of the UKIPer/Faragist mind.
And here's ANOTHER delightful idea from Labour's migration virtuefest
"Reject any immigration system based on incomes, migrants’ utility to business, and number caps/targets"
You said before it would be "an open invitation to everyone in the EU, and most people outside it, to come straight to the UK."
Now you're complaining about the criteria?
Maybe it would be better if people read about it for themselves rather than relying on your hysterical propaganda.
Labour is not going to have any criteria. That's the point. They are abandoning any pretence of having a migration policy. The idea is, pretty much, Open Borders.
Let's try to be factually accurate. This is what they voted for: "Reject any immigration system based on incomes, migrants’ utility to business, and number caps/targets."
It doesn't surprise me in the least that Labour's opponents are saying they are not going to have an immigration system at all, or that everyone who wants to come to the UK is going to be let in. That's the nature of political propaganda.
But there's very little point trying to deceive people here with propaganda. I don't think the readership is large enough for it to be worthwhile.
Here's the new policy in full,
In its next manifesto, Labour will commit to:
Oppose the current Tory immigration legislation and any curbing of rights. Campaign for free movement, equality and rights for migrants. Reject any immigration system based on incomes, migrants’ utility to business, and number caps/targets. Close all detention centres. Ensure unconditional right to family reunion. Maintain and extend free movement rights. End “no recourse to public funds” policies. Scrap all Hostile Environment measures, use of landlords and public service providers as border guards, and restrictions on migrants’ NHS access. Actively challenge anti-immigrant narratives. Extend equal rights to vote to all UK residents
Good luck.
Ensure unconditional right to family reunion. Extend equal rights to vote to all UK residents
That embraces the world - none of the others matter
Greta Grump is suing France for not taking climate change seriously
but not China or the USA.
France is one of the greenest developed nations in the world, 4.57 metric tonnes of CO2 per person - their love of nuclear power practically guarantees a decent CO2 footprint.
73% nuclear, 18% renewables !
well maybe but La Thunberg is taking a number of countries to court
Oppose the current Tory immigration legislation and any curbing of rights. Campaign for free movement, equality and rights for migrants. Reject any immigration system based on incomes, migrants’ utility to business, and number caps/targets. Close all detention centres. Ensure unconditional right to family reunion. Maintain and extend free movement rights. End “no recourse to public funds” policies. Scrap all Hostile Environment measures, use of landlords and public service providers as border guards, and restrictions on migrants’ NHS access. Actively challenge anti-immigrant narratives. Extend equal rights to vote to all UK residents
Good luck.
I don't think of myself as a "Marxist" or especially left wing, but I don't really see anything on that list that I disagree with outright. Some of it I would qualify or limit. But most of it is quite sensible in my opinion. I don't pretend that this will be a majority opinion on here or in the country, of course - putting this in the manifesto would be what Sir Humphrey would call "brave".
Greta Grump is suing France for not taking climate change seriously
but not China or the USA.
France is one of the greenest developed nations in the world, 4.57 metric tonnes of CO2 per person - their love of nuclear power practically guarantees a decent CO2 footprint.
73% nuclear, 18% renewables !
well maybe but La Thunberg is taking a number of countries to court
yet weirdly not the worlds two largest polluters China and USA who account for nearly 50% of CO2 output.
Nor India, one of the fastest growing polluters either.
Absolute state of that speech yesterday. Dear God. It's spawned many comic moments on twitter so it was good for something. Action has to be taken and it has been taken and is being taken but this is a form of extremism in climate terms. Labour talking of adopting zero emissions by 2030. How. Its nigh on impossible.
Greta Grump is suing France for not taking climate change seriously
but not China or the USA.
France is one of the greenest developed nations in the world, 4.57 metric tonnes of CO2 per person - their love of nuclear power practically guarantees a decent CO2 footprint.
73% nuclear, 18% renewables !
I can understand Macron hitting the roof at this one.
The Gauleiter of Paris has enough issues on his plate at the moment,.
I think that the Supreme Court decision has politicised the SC but its not really about Brexit. The problem, so brilliantly discussed by Lord Sumption in his Reith lectures this year, is that the modern judiciary can never see an issue which they think is not a legal issue. The result is that matters that are not legal issues at all get reclassified and a judicial determination is then undertaken.
This does not give politics or indeed civil society its proper role...
I have some sympathy with this argument. I'm glad, for example, that abortion law was changed in the UK in the 60s by a Parliamentary vote, than because of a changing interpretation of a 200 year old constitution.
In the present example I cannot agree.
... ...
It might have been preferable for Parliament to have prevented the prorogation by replacing the PM, but the Courts must be able to protect Parliament when a majority of MPs are not willing to take that action.
I am not trying to defend what Boris did. I criticised it from the moment it was announced. But I respectfully disagree with your last sentence. The point of having a Supreme Parliament is that it regulates itself according to the membership at the time. The only restriction is the laws already passed and not repealed so, for example, if a majority decided to sit on for 10 years without an election the courts could uphold the laws that Parliament has passed and require an election. The courts are not there to act as nannies for incompetent MPs would couldn't organise themselves out of the proverbial paper bag.
I'm almost convinced - but since prorogation is a prerogative power, ie the legal fiction is that it is the Monarch instructing Parliamentarians to shut up shop and go away for a bit, then it isn't quite a matter of Parliament regulating itself.
It's more the Judiciary intervening between the Monarch and the Legislature, although by the means of reviewing the advice to the Monarch, rather than the actions of the Monarch.
After all, Parliament cannot regulate itself if it isn't allowed to sit.
I think that the Supreme Court decision has politicised the SC but its not really about Brexit. The problem, so brilliantly discussed by Lord Sumption in his Reith lectures this year, is that the modern judiciary can never see an issue which they think is not a legal issue. The result is that matters that are not legal issues at all get reclassified and a judicial determination is then undertaken.
This does not give politics or indeed civil society its proper role...
I have some sympathy with this argument. I'm glad, for example, that abortion law was changed in the UK in the 60s by a Parliamentary vote, than because of a changing interpretation of a 200 year old constitution.
In the present example I cannot agree.
... ...
It might have been preferable for Parliament to have prevented the prorogation by replacing the PM, but the Courts must be able to protect Parliament when a majority of MPs are not willing to take that action.
I am not trying to defend what Boris did. I criticised it from the moment it was announced. But I respectfully disagree with your last sentence. The point of having a Supreme Parliament is that it regulates itself according to the membership at the time. The only restriction is the laws already passed and not repealed so, for example, if a majority decided to sit on for 10 years without an election the courts could uphold the laws that Parliament has passed and require an election. The courts are not there to act as nannies for incompetent MPs would couldn't organise themselves out of the proverbial paper bag.
I'm almost convinced - but since prorogation is a prerogative power, ie the legal fiction is that it is the Monarch instructing Parliamentarians to shut up shop and go away for a bit, then it isn't quite a matter of Parliament regulating itself.
It's more the Judiciary intervening between the Monarch and the Legislature, although by the means of reviewing the advice to the Monarch, rather than the actions of the Monarch.
After all, Parliament cannot regulate itself if it isn't allowed to sit.
Which, of course, was one of the points made explicitly in the judgment.
yet weirdly not the worlds ywo largest polluters China and USA who account for nearly 50% of CO2 output.
There's no point going after China or a Trump lead USA. You might as well stick to countries where the government is willing to listen and act.
or maybe she could go to school and do maths. That way she might grasp that suing a country which annually produces as much Co2 as China does in a week or the US in a fortnight is ignoring where the problem lies.
Greta Grump is suing France for not taking climate change seriously
but not China or the USA.
France is one of the greenest developed nations in the world, 4.57 metric tonnes of CO2 per person - their love of nuclear power practically guarantees a decent CO2 footprint.
73% nuclear, 18% renewables !
well maybe but La Thunberg is taking a number of countries to court
Just watched Geoffrey Cox speech from earlier. Can see why it's getting so much praise. Rousing stuff and best parliament has heard in a long time I reckon. That'll be all over the news and social media.
Is that the one in which he said this Parliament was dead. It was only elected 2 years ago.
Such is the nature of no party winning a majority.
What a great advert these past months have been for PR. Not.
More countries in this world have PR than FPTP. They survive and thrive.
yet weirdly not the worlds ywo largest polluters China and USA who account for nearly 50% of CO2 output.
There's no point going after China or a Trump lead USA. You might as well stick to countries where the government is willing to listen and act.
or maybe she could go to school and do maths. That way she might grasp that suing a country which annually produces as much Co2 as China does in a week or the US in a fortnight is ignoring where the problem lies.
That's a poor argument, the only way to solve the problem is to get all countries to act. Ideally the worst offenders would be taking action, but that doesn't mean we should ignore the likes of France or ourselves just because there are bigger CO2 emitters.
Just watched Geoffrey Cox speech from earlier. Can see why it's getting so much praise. Rousing stuff and best parliament has heard in a long time I reckon. That'll be all over the news and social media.
Is that the one in which he said this Parliament was dead. It was only elected 2 years ago.
Such is the nature of no party winning a majority.
What a great advert these past months have been for PR. Not.
What a great advert Boris is for FPTP...
He will be - when he gets his stonking majority.....
I've backed all the possible horses in this race* so it's not my pocket talking but if Trump manages to convince the Democrat base to elect Warren over Biden then it's half the job done in terms of re-election.
yet weirdly not the worlds ywo largest polluters China and USA who account for nearly 50% of CO2 output.
There's no point going after China or a Trump lead USA. You might as well stick to countries where the government is willing to listen and act.
or maybe she could go to school and do maths. That way she might grasp that suing a country which annually produces as much Co2 as China does in a week or the US in a fortnight is ignoring where the problem lies.
That's a poor argument, the only way to solve the problem is to get all countries to act. Ideally the worst offenders would be taking action, but that doesn't mean we should ignore the likes of France or ourselves just because there are bigger CO2 emitters.
Going after France suggests nothing will ever be good enough for Thunberg. It's a model country wrt CO2 emissions.
Only the very dim think No Deal is a legitimate “course of action”.
Might you consider engaging in debate here without insulting people whose comments you disagree with?
The truth hurts sometimes.
To state you have to be very dim indeed to believe no-deal is a legitimate course of action is a very polite English understatement. Thick as pigshit would still be understating it.
I am asking myself why the fuck should I continue posting here when the likes of you inhabit this site. There are people of opposing views that you can have a reasoned debate with. Then there is the likes of you and your gratuitous insults. Christ knows this site is not the place it once was.
The worst of it is that dear Nigel Foremain thinks he is a model of restraint, and he constantly upbraids others for their abuse and hostility. Yet he is one of the most demented and vituperative commenters on the site.
Brexit: sending everyone mad since June 2016. Thanks Dave,
Amen to that last line.
Speaking personally I'll forgive more or less any viewpoint and quite a lot of personal abuse so long as it is interesting or amusing. Repetitive monomaniacs are bad news even when I agree with them.
There is, apparently, a chance it will be killed before it makes the manifesto. I suspect they will do that... but with Corbyn's Labour, who knows.
Even if they do kill it, much of the damage will have been done, as knowledge of this ripples out from Twitter into Facebook and the papers. Labour Want An Open Border.
This week has told us very clearly is that Labour does not believe it can win the next election. It has been all about keeping the base on board with the Corbyn project after the inevitable defeat.
That is certainly one rational explanation. The others are even scarier.
What about the rational explanation, that all the serious labour members at conference left yesterday because of the change in schedule caused by the SC. The fact that it was approved at conference, does not mean that it will be a policy in the GE manifesto.
I seem to remember Mr Blair being instrumental in breaking the hard connection between conference and Labour Party policy.
yet weirdly not the worlds ywo largest polluters China and USA who account for nearly 50% of CO2 output.
There's no point going after China or a Trump lead USA. You might as well stick to countries where the government is willing to listen and act.
or maybe she could go to school and do maths. That way she might grasp that suing a country which annually produces as much Co2 as China does in a week or the US in a fortnight is ignoring where the problem lies.
That's a poor argument, the only way to solve the problem is to get all countries to act. Ideally the worst offenders would be taking action, but that doesn't mean we should ignore the likes of France or ourselves just because there are bigger CO2 emitters.
Going after France suggests nothing will ever be good enough for Thunberg. It's a model country wrt CO2 emissions.
No country is yet a model country. Nobody is cutting emissions sufficiently to keep us below a 2 degrees temperature rise.
yet weirdly not the worlds ywo largest polluters China and USA who account for nearly 50% of CO2 output.
There's no point going after China or a Trump lead USA. You might as well stick to countries where the government is willing to listen and act.
or maybe she could go to school and do maths. That way she might grasp that suing a country which annually produces as much Co2 as China does in a week or the US in a fortnight is ignoring where the problem lies.
That's a poor argument, the only way to solve the problem is to get all countries to act. Ideally the worst offenders would be taking action, but that doesn't mean we should ignore the likes of France or ourselves just because there are bigger CO2 emitters.
yes and I want to lose weight quickly, so Ive cut out lettuce but I still drink 15 pints each night. I have to start somewhere.
Oppose the current Tory immigration legislation and any curbing of rights. Campaign for free movement, equality and rights for migrants. Reject any immigration system based on incomes, migrants’ utility to business, and number caps/targets. Close all detention centres. Ensure unconditional right to family reunion. Maintain and extend free movement rights. End “no recourse to public funds” policies. Scrap all Hostile Environment measures, use of landlords and public service providers as border guards, and restrictions on migrants’ NHS access. Actively challenge anti-immigrant narratives. Extend equal rights to vote to all UK residents
Good luck.
I don't think of myself as a "Marxist" or especially left wing, but I don't really see anything on that list that I disagree with outright. Some of it I would qualify or limit. But most of it is quite sensible in my opinion. I don't pretend that this will be a majority opinion on here or in the country, of course - putting this in the manifesto would be what Sir Humphrey would call "brave".
"Ensure unconditional right to family reunion."
So no conditions (qualifications or limits) on what family means, I could say the whole world is my family and therefore they have the right to come here.
Conditions have to be set. Yes if you qualify and limit their intentions you can get to a sensible policy, which is what governments try and do. The exact limits, conditions and qualifications are what need to be debated.
Using the world unconditional abandons that structure. It is folly.
And here's ANOTHER delightful idea from Labour's migration virtuefest
"Reject any immigration system based on incomes, migrants’ utility to business, and number caps/targets"
You said before it would be "an open invitation to everyone in the EU, and most people outside it, to come straight to the UK."
Now you're complaining about the criteria?
Maybe it would be better if people read about it for themselves rather than relying on your hysterical propaganda.
Labour is not going to have any criteria. That's the point. They are abandoning any pretence of having a migration policy. The idea is, pretty much, Open Borders.
Let's try to be factually accurate. This is what they voted for: "Reject any immigration system based on incomes, migrants’ utility to business, and number caps/targets."
It doesn't surprise me in the least that Labour's opponents are saying they are not going to have an immigration system at all, or that everyone who wants to come to the UK is going to be let in. That's the nature of political propaganda.
But there's very little point trying to deceive people here with propaganda. I don't think the readership is large enough for it to be worthwhile.
Just watched Geoffrey Cox speech from earlier. Can see why it's getting so much praise. Rousing stuff and best parliament has heard in a long time I reckon. That'll be all over the news and social media.
The Ludicrous Cox once enjoyed a brief period as the chosen one in pb.com tories' potential leader speed dating.
Their legendary modesty forbids them from mentioning they backed the field and laid the winner
In July 1911 Asquith was shouted down by Tory MPs to the extent that he was unable to proceed. The Speaker suspended the Sitting. Perhaps the time has arrived for Opposition MPs to return that favour to a Tory PM - who far more deserves such treatment than Asquith ever did.
yet weirdly not the worlds ywo largest polluters China and USA who account for nearly 50% of CO2 output.
There's no point going after China or a Trump lead USA. You might as well stick to countries where the government is willing to listen and act.
or maybe she could go to school and do maths. That way she might grasp that suing a country which annually produces as much Co2 as China does in a week or the US in a fortnight is ignoring where the problem lies.
That's a poor argument, the only way to solve the problem is to get all countries to act. Ideally the worst offenders would be taking action, but that doesn't mean we should ignore the likes of France or ourselves just because there are bigger CO2 emitters.
Going after France suggests nothing will ever be good enough for Thunberg. It's a model country wrt CO2 emissions.
No country is yet a model country. Nobody is cutting emissions sufficiently to keep us below a 2 degrees temperature rise.
What metric tonnage of CO2 per person per year do we need to aim for ?
And here's ANOTHER delightful idea from Labour's migration virtuefest
"Reject any immigration system based on incomes, migrants’ utility to business, and number caps/targets"
Maybe it would be better if people read about it for themselves rather than relying on your hysterical propaganda.
Labour is not going to have any criteria. That's the point. They are abandoning any pretence of having a migration policy. The idea is, pretty much, Open Borders.
Let's try to be factually accurate. This is what they voted for: "Reject any immigration system based on incomes, migrants’ utility to business, and number caps/targets."
It doesn't surprise me in the least that Labour's opponents are saying they are not going to have an immigration system at all, or that everyone who wants to come to the UK is going to be let in. That's the nature of political propaganda.
But there's very little point trying to deceive people here with propaganda. I don't think the readership is large enough for it to be worthwhile.
Well if we dispense with income/assets considerations and ability to work / education or usefulness to the domestic economy what other criteria do you suggest? Aside from refugees/asylum seekers which we're not talking about here.
Willingness to vote for Labour perhaps? Swearing an oath to Dear Leader?
Here's a thing. Why don't Labour kite-fly this policy if you're so assured of its inherent virtue. Put up say twenty or thirty billboards in and around Stoke. "Labour promise to give benefits to EVERY immigrant". Or put it on the side of a bus perhaps and drive it through Sunderland. See what happens.
I'm not assured of anything. I'm not advocating the policy. I'm just cautioning people against swallowing the wilder misrepresentations by Labour's opponents.
It is a ridiculous policy and should be called out and never heard of again. Just because the people shouting the loudest about it are wrong on other matters doesnt mean they are not right here.
I wonder if Labour are too emotionally invested in this new policy, to go back now. Twitter lefties are absolutely exulting in it. It will be very difficult to row back.
And this is an absolutely impossible policy to sell on the doorstep. Labour have surrendered their last slender chance of winning the election.
Their chance of winning the next election outright is the same as it has always been. Close to 0 under Corbyn, very likely under most moderate alternatives.
In July 1911 Asquith was shouted down by Tory MPs to the extent that he was unable to proceed. The Speaker suspended the Sitting. Perhaps the time has arrived for Opposition MPs to return that favour to a Tory PM - who far more deserves such treatment than Asquith ever did.
China has more of a pass on CO2 than the USA, unless you think 5 chinese people only deserve the same amount of energy budget as one American. But its coal output is horrific still, so it doesn't deserve the pass it might otherwise get due to its huge population.
Interestingly the one (Now two ?) child policy has done the world a massive favour in terms of CO2 emissions.
yet weirdly not the worlds ywo largest polluters China and USA who account for nearly 50% of CO2 output.
There's no point going after China or a Trump lead USA. You might as well stick to countries where the government is willing to listen and act.
or maybe she could go to school and do maths. That way she might grasp that suing a country which annually produces as much Co2 as China does in a week or the US in a fortnight is ignoring where the problem lies.
That's a poor argument, the only way to solve the problem is to get all countries to act. Ideally the worst offenders would be taking action, but that doesn't mean we should ignore the likes of France or ourselves just because there are bigger CO2 emitters.
Going after France suggests nothing will ever be good enough for Thunberg. It's a model country wrt CO2 emissions.
It emits more than zero, so, yes, it's not good enough.
And here's ANOTHER delightful idea from Labour's migration virtuefest
"Reject any immigration system based on incomes, migrants’ utility to business, and number caps/targets"
You said before it would be "an open invitation to everyone in the EU, and most people outside it, to come straight to the UK."
Now you're complaining about the criteria?
Maybe it would be better if people read about it for themselves rather than relying on your hysterical propaganda.
Labour is not going to have any criteria. That's the point. They are abandoning any pretence of having a migration policy. The idea is, pretty much, Open Borders.
Let's try to be factually accurate. This is what they voted for: "Reject any immigration system based on incomes, migrants’ utility to business, and number caps/targets."
But there's very little point trying to deceive people here with propaganda. I don't think the readership is large enough for it to be worthwhile.
Well if we dispense with income/assets considerations and ability to work / education or usefulness to the domestic economy what other criteria do you suggest? Aside from refugees/asylum seekers which we're not talking about here.
Willingness to vote for Labour perhaps? Swearing an oath to Dear Leader?
Here's a thing. Why don't Labour kite-fly this policy if you're so assured of its inherent virtue. Put up say twenty or thirty billboards in and around Stoke. "Labour promise to give benefits to EVERY immigrant". Or put it on the side of a bus perhaps and drive it through Sunderland. See what happens.
I'm not assured of anything. I'm not advocating the policy. I'm just cautioning people against swallowing the wilder misrepresentations by Labour's opponents.
It is a ridiculous policy and should be called out and never heard of again. Just because the people shouting the loudest about it are wrong on other matters doesnt mean they are not right here.
I wonder if Labour are too emotionally invested in this new policy, to go back now. Twitter lefties are absolutely exulting in it. It will be very difficult to row back.
And this is an absolutely impossible policy to sell on the doorstep. Labour have surrendered their last slender chance of winning the election.
Combined with rerunning the referendum, it will be tought in their traditional working class areas.
Oppose the current Tory immigration legislation and any curbing of rights. Campaign for free movement, equality and rights for migrants. Reject any immigration system based on incomes, migrants’ utility to business, and number caps/targets. Close all detention centres. Ensure unconditional right to family reunion. Maintain and extend free movement rights. End “no recourse to public funds” policies. Scrap all Hostile Environment measures, use of landlords and public service providers as border guards, and restrictions on migrants’ NHS access. Actively challenge anti-immigrant narratives. Extend equal rights to vote to all UK residents
Good luck.
I don't think of myself as a "Marxist" or especially left wing, but I don't really see anything on that list that I disagree with outright. Some of it I would qualify or limit. But most of it is quite sensible in my opinion. I don't pretend that this will be a majority opinion on here or in the country, of course - putting this in the manifesto would be what Sir Humphrey would call "brave".
"Ensure unconditional right to family reunion."
So no conditions (qualifications or limits) on what family means, I could say the whole world is my family and therefore they have the right to come here.
Conditions have to be set. Yes if you qualify and limit their intentions you can get to a sensible policy, which is what governments try and do. The exact limits, conditions and qualifications are what need to be debated.
Using the world unconditional abandons that structure. It is folly.
I think that's a weird interpretation of what Labour are proposing. What I took it to mean is that families, defined as immediate family relations, should have an unconditional right to be united, rather than making it dependent on income thresholds as it is now. I believe in the family as the basic building block of society so I support that. Kids shouldn't grow up only knowing their mother or father via Skype.
And here's ANOTHER delightful idea from Labour's migration virtuefest
"Reject any immigration system based on incomes, migrants’ utility to business, and number caps/targets"
Maybe it would be better if people read about it for themselves rather than relying on your hysterical propaganda.
Labour is not going to have any criteria. That's the point. They are abandoning any pretence of having a migration policy. The idea is, pretty much, Open Borders.
Let's try to be factually accurate. This is what they voted for: "Reject any immigration system based on incomes, migrants’ utility to business, and number caps/targets."
It doesn't surprise me in the least that Labour's opponents are saying they are not going to have an immigration system at all, or that everyone who wants to come to the UK is going to be let in. That's the nature of political propaganda.
But there's very little point trying to deceive people here with propaganda. I don't think the readership is large enough for it to be worthwhile.
Well if we dispense with income/assets considerations and ability to work / education or usefulness to the domestic economy what other criteria do you suggest? Aside from refugees/asylum seekers which we're not talking about here.
Willingness to vote for Labour perhaps? Swearing an oath to Dear Leader?
Here's a thing. Why don't Labour kite-fly th See what happens.
I'm not assured of anything. I'm not advocating the policy. I'm just cautioning people against swallowing the wilder misrepresentations by Labour's opponents.
It is a ridiculous policy and should be called out and never heard of again. Just because the people shouting the loudest about it are wrong on other matters doesnt mean they are not right here.
I wonder if Labour are too emotionally invested in this new policy, to go back now. Twitter lefties are absolutely exulting in it. It will be very difficult to row back.
And this is an absolutely impossible policy to sell on the doorstep. Labour have surrendered their last slender chance of winning the election.
Their chance of winning the next election outrigrate alternatives.
well so you say
but Corbyn is simply avoiding Brexit and fighting on Bread and Butter issues. It may be contrarian but houses and jobs matter more to voters than arcane club rules. He may yet bypass the "sensible" politicans.
yet weirdly not the worlds ywo largest polluters China and USA who account for nearly 50% of CO2 output.
There's no point going after China or a Trump lead USA. You might as well stick to countries where the government is willing to listen and act.
or maybe she could go to school and do maths. That way she might grasp that suing a country which annually produces as much Co2 as China does in a week or the US in a fortnight is ignoring where the problem lies.
That's a poor argument, the only way to solve the problem is to get all countries to act. Ideally the worst offenders would be taking action, but that doesn't mean we should ignore the likes of France or ourselves just because there are bigger CO2 emitters.
Going after France suggests nothing will ever be good enough for Thunberg. It's a model country wrt CO2 emissions.
It emits more than zero, so, yes, it's not good enough.
Aren't Somalia, Burundi, Uganda, Rwanda, Niger, Mali, Malawi, Madagascar, Ethipoia, Congo, Chad, Central African Republic the only countries at net zero ?
yet weirdly not the worlds ywo largest polluters China and USA who account for nearly 50% of CO2 output.
There's no point going after China or a Trump lead USA. You might as well stick to countries where the government is willing to listen and act.
or maybe she could go to school and do maths. That way she might grasp that suing a country which annually produces as much Co2 as China does in a week or the US in a fortnight is ignoring where the problem lies.
That's a poor argument, the only way to solve the problem is to get all countries to act. Ideally the worst offenders would be taking action, but that doesn't mean we should ignore the likes of France or ourselves just because there are bigger CO2 emitters.
This isn't about who's included. It's about who's excluded.
yet weirdly not the worlds ywo largest polluters China and USA who account for nearly 50% of CO2 output.
There's no point going after China or a Trump lead USA. You might as well stick to countries where the government is willing to listen and act.
or maybe she could go to school and do maths. That way she might grasp that suing a country which annually produces as much Co2 as China does in a week or the US in a fortnight is ignoring where the problem lies.
That's a poor argument, the only way to solve the problem is to get all countries to act. Ideally the worst offenders would be taking action, but that doesn't mean we should ignore the likes of France or ourselves just because there are bigger CO2 emitters.
yes and I want to lose weight quickly, so Ive cut out lettuce but I still drink 15 pints each night. I have to start somewhere.
You can lose weight and still eat. We cannot restrict temperature rise if we continue to emit CO2 - so there's an important difference between the two scenarios.
I wonder if anyone can cite an example of a successful "tactical resignation" by any previous government?
Tactical desperation seems a more appropriate description.
It did not work out well for Arthur J Balfour in December 1905 when his Tory Government resigned. The Liberals won a landslide at the January 1906 election.
Comments
It is just insane and will lose them millions of votes.
https://twitter.com/labfreemvmt/status/1176809015893995520/photo/1
Come up with a new PM - or off to the races we go.
Even if they do kill it, much of the damage will have been done, as knowledge of this ripples out from Twitter into Facebook and the papers. Labour Want An Open Border.
Pillock.
"Reject any immigration system based on incomes, migrants’ utility to business, and number caps/targets."
It doesn't surprise me in the least that Labour's opponents are saying they are not going to have an immigration system at all, or that everyone who wants to come to the UK is going to be let in. That's the nature of political propaganda.
But there's very little point trying to deceive people here with propaganda. I don't think the readership is large enough for it to be worthwhile.
Johnson resigning the government and handing over responsibility for requesting A50 extension to Corbyn would be an absolute hammer blow to Labour.
Not that they will need finishing off by the look of their latest policies.
In its next manifesto, Labour will commit to:
Oppose the current Tory immigration legislation and any curbing of rights.
Campaign for free movement, equality and rights for migrants.
Reject any immigration system based on incomes, migrants’ utility to business, and number caps/targets.
Close all detention centres.
Ensure unconditional right to family reunion.
Maintain and extend free movement rights.
End “no recourse to public funds” policies.
Scrap all Hostile Environment measures, use of landlords and public service providers as border guards, and restrictions on migrants’ NHS access.
Actively challenge anti-immigrant narratives.
Extend equal rights to vote to all UK residents
Good luck.
The real meat is the whistle-blower complaint.
Also Guiliani seem to be admitting to crimes all over the shop.
Brexit is not a ridiculous policy, it is not optimal but has some merits as well as downsides. We voted for it so I support leaving with a deal.
No deal is the ridiculous policy and it got 1.8% of the electoral support at the last GE.
Willingness to vote for Labour perhaps? Swearing an oath to Dear Leader?
Here's a thing. Why don't Labour kite-fly this policy if you're so assured of its inherent virtue. Put up say twenty or thirty billboards in and around Stoke. "Labour promise to give benefits to EVERY immigrant". Or put it on the side of a bus perhaps and drive it through Sunderland. See what happens.
The prorogation exercise has prevented Labour from cancelling it. Job done.
Greta Grump is suing France for not taking climate change seriously
but not China or the USA.
https://twitter.com/georgegalloway/status/1176859214091882496
[Edit: It's probably worth pointing out that you've just introduced several more misrepresentations, with your insertion of references to "assets," "ability to work" and "education." Thanks for underlining my note of caution not to believe what people here say.]
73% nuclear, 18% renewables !
I can understand Macron hitting the roof at this one.
http://madame.lefigaro.fr/societe/iris-duquesne-la-bordelaise-de-16-ans-qui-porte-plainte-contre-la-france-avec-greta-thunberg-250919-167191
yet weirdly not the worlds two largest polluters China and USA who account for nearly 50% of CO2 output.
Is that illegal now ?
And this is an absolutely impossible policy to sell on the doorstep. Labour have surrendered their last slender chance of winning the election.
That embraces the world - none of the others matter
Absolute state of that speech yesterday. Dear God. It's spawned many comic moments on twitter so it was good for something. Action has to be taken and it has been taken and is being taken but this is a form of extremism in climate terms. Labour talking of adopting zero emissions by 2030. How. Its nigh on impossible.
It's more the Judiciary intervening between the Monarch and the Legislature, although by the means of reviewing the advice to the Monarch, rather than the actions of the Monarch.
After all, Parliament cannot regulate itself if it isn't allowed to sit.
Burley: Why don't you vote to have a General Election?
Sheerman: Turkeys don't vote for Christmas
I had to rewind it lol.
*Some more than others
Speaking personally I'll forgive more or less any viewpoint and quite a lot of personal abuse so long as it is interesting or amusing. Repetitive monomaniacs are bad news even when I agree with them.
https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1176868324732481536
I seem to remember Mr Blair being instrumental in breaking the hard connection between conference and Labour Party policy.
So no conditions (qualifications or limits) on what family means, I could say the whole world is my family and therefore they have the right to come here.
Conditions have to be set. Yes if you qualify and limit their intentions you can get to a sensible policy, which is what governments try and do. The exact limits, conditions and qualifications are what need to be debated.
Using the world unconditional abandons that structure. It is folly.
Perhaps the time has arrived for Opposition MPs to return that favour to a Tory PM - who far more deserves such treatment than Asquith ever did.
Interestingly the one (Now two ?) child policy has done the world a massive favour in terms of CO2 emissions.
“why won’t Boris agree a deal with the EU? He promised us this would happen by October 31 and now he wants to have a general election instead.”
but Corbyn is simply avoiding Brexit and fighting on Bread and Butter issues. It may be contrarian but houses and jobs matter more to voters than arcane club rules. He may yet bypass the "sensible" politicans.