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.
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.
Indeed. It's more a case of: "What a great advert these past months have been for our existing parties. Not."
There is a point that FPTP creates our existing parties and a necessarily adversarial system, but that is too nuanced for many. Especially for anyone who gains from the current system and is just looking for a plausible rationalisation.
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 ?
I don't know, but possible. This might be why people concerned about this issue are really concerned and believe that we need to deal with it with more urgency.
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.
I fully support this and hope it takes prime spot on the 6pm news.
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.
The way to cut Chinas emissions is to stop buying stuff from China its the only direct way westerners can influence it.
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.
Seems like a sensible diet - where did you find it? The Labour manifesto?
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.
There is surely a sensible middle ground between kicking out parents raising kids in the UK (Tory policy) and not having restrictions on arranged tribal marriages of middle aged men to teenage brides to get them in the country (Labour policy).
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.
Oh , Mr Byronic thinks I believe myself to be a model of restraint. Where the fuck did he get that idea from? Anyway, he calls me "dear" which is jolly nice of him. I certainly have not upbraided anyone to my recollection, (except HYUFD, the exception to the exception)
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.
Again, this is why Cummings HAD to ensure that the Labour Conference went ahead. He almost certianly knew that prorogation would be challenged by Gina Miller et al. He almost certainly expected the Supreme Court to reject it. The only surprise he will have got recently is the Queen's Bench supporting it. Probably a wry smile at that - it allows the "even the judges can't agree amongst themselves" line to be run - a bonus.
But the shit Boris is enduring now was deemed essential to prevent Labour cottoning on to the idea that they could get on their high horse and cancel their conference - "because the Brexit crisis demands we sit". And what we have seen from Labour this week isn't just gold - it is diamond-set platinum for the inevitable upcoming election.
You people aren't remotely cynical enough about how this all works.
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.
You are clearly a massive racist...will be the claim if you object to this 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.
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 ?
I don't know, but possible. This might be why people concerned about this issue are really concerned and believe that we need to deal with it with more urgency.
CO2 emissions currently seem highly, highly correlated with living standards. The USA is an obvious high side outlier and France likely a low side outlier.
What can we actually do that won't cripple our living standards beyond moving to a pretty much total renewable economy (France) and electric cars ?
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.
Should that also apply to siblings? Grand parents? Cousins? Uncles & Aunts? Second Cousins? Should someone with six wives be able to bring them all to the UK? What about step brothers? Half sisters? Foster parents?
At some point a condition needs to be set. They may be difficult and uncomfortable decisions to have to make. Grown up politics is discussing what the limits should be, not calling for unconditional migration or no migration.
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.
MPs do shout down the Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition regularly at PMQs and other heated occasions. The difference now is there are microphones so we at home can hear, even if those sitting a few feet away cannot, and need to rely on the speakers built into the furniture. It often catches out new ministers who resort to shouting, as Jacob Rees-Mogg did the other week, which sounds terrible on television.
It is the pre-microphone days (well, centuries) that led to conventions like waving order papers rather than clapping, cheering or jeering.
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.
If its a crisis you start with what has the biggest impact China = circa 30% of world US = circa 14%.
UK at 1% and France at 1% is ineffective. Youre not going to reduce CO2 output by half in 10 years.
so either were just dicking about to annoy small producers or were picking on easy places to push around and it isnt really a crisis.
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.
Seems like a sensible diet - where did you find it? The Labour manifesto?
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.
The way to cut Chinas emissions is to stop buying stuff from China its the only direct way westerners can influence it.
Mr Thicky will be all in favour of increasing our imports of medical products from there. They have absolutely no regard or understanding of patent infringement either
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 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.
If its a crisis you start with what has the biggest impact China = circa 30% of world US = circa 14%.
UK at 1% and France at 1% is ineffective. Youre not going to reduce CO2 output by half in 10 years.
so either were just dicking about to annoy small producers or were picking on easy places to push around and it isnt really a crisis.
If the whole of the developed world had aped France's energy policies for the last 70 years we wouldn't be in such a climate pickle.
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.
I fully support this and hope it takes prime spot on the 6pm news.
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.
The way to cut Chinas emissions is to stop buying stuff from China its the only direct way westerners can influence it.
Mr Thicky will be all in favour of increasing our imports of medical products from there. They have absolutely no regard or understanding of patent infringement either
Is that the Mr Thicky who is outwitting all the folk from Oxford with pointy heads and earnest thoughts ?
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.
You are clearly a massive racist...will be the claim if you object to this policy.
Agreed that's how it will be portrayed..
Well I grew up in a gritty working class part of Yorkshire and let me tell you this policy will ensure they bleed support in their Yorkshire heartlands.. Won't be direct to the tories probably to Brexit or the Yorkshire Party but that doesn't matter its the lost votes which will
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.
Again, this is why Cummings HAD to ensure that the Labour Conference went ahead. He almost certianly knew that prorogation would be challenged by Gina Miller et al. He almost certainly expected the Supreme Court to reject it. The only surprise he will have got recently is the Queen's Bench supporting it. Probably a wry smile at that - it allows the "even the judges can't agree amongst themselves" line to be run - a bonus.
But the shit Boris is enduring now was deemed essential to prevent Labour cottoning on to the idea that they could get on their high horse and cancel their conference - "because the Brexit crisis demands we sit". And what we have seen from Labour this week isn't just gold - it is diamond-set platinum for the inevitable upcoming election.
You people aren't remotely cynical enough about how this all works.
Are you attempting an ironic impression of HYUFD, or are you trying to knock him off his perch as PB's own Comical Ali?
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.....
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.
All the modern left has is shouting, so why not?
Shouting down opponents at PMQs was a Conservative innovation.
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.
Again, this is why Cummings HAD to ensure that the Labour Conference went ahead. He almost certianly knew that prorogation would be challenged by Gina Miller et al. He almost certainly expected the Supreme Court to reject it. The only surprise he will have got recently is the Queen's Bench supporting it. Probably a wry smile at that - it allows the "even the judges can't agree amongst themselves" line to be run - a bonus.
But the shit Boris is enduring now was deemed essential to prevent Labour cottoning on to the idea that they could get on their high horse and cancel their conference - "because the Brexit crisis demands we sit". And what we have seen from Labour this week isn't just gold - it is diamond-set platinum for the inevitable upcoming election.
You people aren't remotely cynical enough about how this all works.
Are you attempting an ironic impression of HYUFD, or are you trying to knock him off his perch as PB's own Comical Ali?
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 ?
I don't know, but possible. This might be why people concerned about this issue are really concerned and believe that we need to deal with it with more urgency.
CO2 emissions currently seem highly, highly correlated with living standards. The USA is an obvious high side outlier and France likely a low side outlier.
What can we actually do that won't cripple our living standards beyond moving to a pretty much total renewable economy (France) and electric cars ?
plant loads of trees, more renewable energy, insulate lots and improve machinery efficiency. All of which will cost money
Or we can tax existence, go vegan and just make life a misery for all.
Should that also apply to siblings? Grand parents? Cousins? Uncles & Aunts? Second Cousins? Should someone with six wives be able to bring them all to the UK? What about step brothers? Half sisters? Foster parents?
At some point a condition needs to be set. They may be difficult and uncomfortable decisions to have to make. Grown up politics is discussing what the limits should be, not calling for unconditional migration or no migration.
You will note that in my comments above I said that I would "qualify or limit" some of it. The examples you cite illustrate that setting those limits will be important. Generally I would limit it to parents, spouses and children. But I would allow flexibility and sensitivity, eg if your niece were orphaned she could join you in the UK so you could bring her up, subject to verification that it isn't a scam. My starting point is that the family is the building block of society and immigration policy should allow people to enjoy stable and happy family life, something it clearly fails to do now.
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 ?
I don't know, but possible. This might be why people concerned about this issue are really concerned and believe that we need to deal with it with more urgency.
CO2 emissions currently seem highly, highly correlated with living standards. The USA is an obvious high side outlier and France likely a low side outlier.
What can we actually do that won't cripple our living standards beyond moving to a pretty much total renewable economy (France) and electric cars ?
We have to look at every source of emissions and work it out. Electricity is relatively simple compared to some of the other sectors. There are lots of ideas out there, but there's not room here to go into detail on what to do about space heating, or ocean cargo transport.
A blanket carbon tax (and dividend) would have been a really good policy a few decades ago, as it would have provided a market incentive to speed up technological change without causing an economic shock. It's still not a bad idea now, but we probably need more direct government intervention to speed things along.
If we don't do anything about this now then living standards in the future will be crippled when the sea levels rise and crops fail. You might say that it is "do or die".
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.
If its a crisis you start with what has the biggest impact China = circa 30% of world US = circa 14%.
UK at 1% and France at 1% is ineffective. Youre not going to reduce CO2 output by half in 10 years.
so either were just dicking about to annoy small producers or were picking on easy places to push around and it isnt really a crisis.
But the UK can do very little about emissions in the US and China - so perhaps we should concentrate on putting our own house in order?
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.
The way to cut Chinas emissions is to stop buying stuff from China its the only direct way westerners can influence it.
Mr Thicky will be all in favour of increasing our imports of medical products from there. They have absolutely no regard or understanding of patent infringement either
Is that the Mr Thicky who is outwitting all the folk from Oxford with pointy heads and earnest thoughts ?
Only by default because they are so awful. I am not sure he is actually outwitting them. I suspect he can't believe his luck that he has people to oppose who believe in a policy that is even more stupid and destructive than anything his very small brain could think up.
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".
"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.
There is surely a sensible middle ground between kicking out parents raising kids in the UK (Tory policy) and not having restrictions on arranged tribal marriages of middle aged men to teenage brides to get them in the country (Labour policy).
I absolutely share your dislike of abusive or forced marriages. Unfortunately the current policy doesn't prevent that but does act as a block on normal family life for many. I suspect that immigration policy it too blunt a tool to address the issue you raise.
As it all kicks off in the US, it’s worth remembering that another big part of the Johnson Brexit strategy is that Trump wins a second term as President.
But the UK can do very little about emissions in the US and China - so perhaps we should concentrate on putting our own house in order?
The good thing is that all political parties, bar perhaps BP and UKIP*, are committed to taking action, and despite the pessimism we see, the UK is doing a good job of adopting renewable energy.
* I don't know this is the case, I'm assuming these two hold some stupid views about climate change.
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.
LOL exactly. Giving up government in favour of the opposition is somehow a strategic masterstroke.
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
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.
All the modern left has is shouting, so why not?
Shouting down opponents at PMQs was a Conservative innovation.
I always suspected that the Tories were innovative
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.
If its a crisis you start with what has the biggest impact China = circa 30% of world US = circa 14%.
UK at 1% and France at 1% is ineffective. Youre not going to reduce CO2 output by half in 10 years.
so either were just dicking about to annoy small producers or were picking on easy places to push around and it isnt really a crisis.
But the UK can do very little about emissions in the US and China - so perhaps we should concentrate on putting our own house in order?
certainly but since we are a large importer of stuff we can also cut carbon emissions by buying less from high polluting countries. Lets start with crap made from plastics.
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.
LOL exactly. Giving up government in favour of the opposition is somehow a strategic masterstroke.
..but, but, isn't it all part of Dominic Cummybiscuit's master plan?
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
Should that also apply to siblings? Grand parents? Cousins? Uncles & Aunts? Second Cousins? Should someone with six wives be able to bring them all to the UK? What about step brothers? Half sisters? Foster parents?
At some point a condition needs to be set. They may be difficult and uncomfortable decisions to have to make. Grown up politics is discussing what the limits should be, not calling for unconditional migration or no migration.
You will note that in my comments above I said that I would "qualify or limit" some of it. The examples you cite illustrate that setting those limits will be important. Generally I would limit it to parents, spouses and children. But I would allow flexibility and sensitivity, eg if your niece were orphaned she could join you in the UK so you could bring her up, subject to verification that it isn't a scam. My starting point is that the family is the building block of society and immigration policy should allow people to enjoy stable and happy family life, something it clearly fails to do now.
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
which simply shows the stupidity of vacuous virtue signalling
Yet she has done more than anyone else to raise this issue in the public mind around the world, so she must be doing something right.
I agree with this she has captured the Zeitgeist. Whether people will be as willing to go along with it when they are restricted from driving/flying/heating their homes as they do currently we shall see.
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.
If its a crisis you start with what has the biggest impact China = circa 30% of world US = circa 14%.
UK at 1% and France at 1% is ineffective. Youre not going to reduce CO2 output by half in 10 years.
so either were just dicking about to annoy small producers or were picking on easy places to push around and it isnt really a crisis.
But the UK can do very little about emissions in the US and China - so perhaps we should concentrate on putting our own house in order?
certainly but since we are a large importer of stuff we can also cut carbon emissions by buying less from high polluting countries. Lets start with crap made from plastics.
It’s obvious the future is fusion. Why not a fully coordinated global push to get it done. Pool all resources and knowledge in a scientific endeavour for all mankind.
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
Should that also apply to siblings? Grand parents? Cousins? Uncles & Aunts? Second Cousins? Should someone with six wives be able to bring them all to the UK? What about step brothers? Half sisters? Foster parents?
At some point a condition needs to be set. They may be difficult and uncomfortable decisions to have to make. Grown up politics is discussing what the limits should be, not calling for unconditional migration or no migration.
You will note that in my comments above I said that I would "qualify or limit" some of it. The examples you cite illustrate that setting those limits will be important. Generally I would limit it to parents, spouses and children. But I would allow flexibility and sensitivity, eg if your niece were orphaned she could join you in the UK so you could bring her up, subject to verification that it isn't a scam. My starting point is that the family is the building block of society and immigration policy should allow people to enjoy stable and happy family life, something it clearly fails to do now.
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.
If its a crisis you start with what has the biggest impact China = circa 30% of world US = circa 14%.
UK at 1% and France at 1% is ineffective. Youre not going to reduce CO2 output by half in 10 years.
so either were just dicking about to annoy small producers or were picking on easy places to push around and it isnt really a crisis.
But the UK can do very little about emissions in the US and China - so perhaps we should concentrate on putting our own house in order?
certainly but since we are a large importer of stuff we can also cut carbon emissions by buying less from high polluting countries. Lets start with crap made from plastics.
Well, yes, I'm in favour of that, but if we do more we can limit temperatures to a lower level and avoid some of the damaging changes to the climate that we will otherwise experience.
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.
If its a crisis you start with what has the biggest impact China = circa 30% of world US = circa 14%.
UK at 1% and France at 1% is ineffective. Youre not going to reduce CO2 output by half in 10 years.
so either were just dicking about to annoy small producers or were picking on easy places to push around and it isnt really a crisis.
But the UK can do very little about emissions in the US and China - so perhaps we should concentrate on putting our own house in order?
certainly but since we are a large importer of stuff we can also cut carbon emissions by buying less from high polluting countries. Lets start with crap made from plastics.
It’s obvious the future is fusion. Why not a fully coordinated global push to get it done. Pool all resources and knowledge in a scientific endeavour for all mankind.
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.
If its a crisis you start with what has the biggest impact China = circa 30% of world US = circa 14%.
UK at 1% and France at 1% is ineffective. Youre not going to reduce CO2 output by half in 10 years.
so either were just dicking about to annoy small producers or were picking on easy places to push around and it isnt really a crisis.
But the UK can do very little about emissions in the US and China - so perhaps we should concentrate on putting our own house in order?
certainly but since we are a large importer of stuff we can also cut carbon emissions by buying less from high polluting countries. Lets start with crap made from plastics.
It’s obvious the future is fusion. Why not a fully coordinated global push to get it done. Pool all resources and knowledge in a scientific endeavour for all mankind.
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
which simply shows the stupidity of vacuous virtue signalling
Yet she has done more than anyone else to raise this issue in the public mind around the world, so she must be doing something right.
I agree with this she has captured the Zeitgeist. Whether people will be as willing to go along with it when they are restricted from driving/flying/heating their homes as they do currently we shall see.
Maybe she could start with getting her kids to tidy up their own mess after demos. Small steps etc.
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.
If its a crisis you start with what has the biggest impact China = circa 30% of world US = circa 14%.
UK at 1% and France at 1% is ineffective. Youre not going to reduce CO2 output by half in 10 years.
so either were just dicking about to annoy small producers or were picking on easy places to push around and it isnt really a crisis.
But the UK can do very little about emissions in the US and China - so perhaps we should concentrate on putting our own house in order?
certainly but since we are a large importer of stuff we can also cut carbon emissions by buying less from high polluting countries. Lets start with crap made from plastics.
It’s obvious the future is fusion. Why not a fully coordinated global push to get it done. Pool all resources and knowledge in a scientific endeavour for all mankind.
Near term for us it's massively expanding our wind sufficiently so we have enough on windy days to... export ! to France and buying nuclear off them (Our costs are horrendous so its a non starter or should be) during winter high pressure periods.
Long term I'd love to see an O'Neill colony. Probably not in our lifetime though.
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.
If its a crisis you start with what has the biggest impact China = circa 30% of world US = circa 14%.
UK at 1% and France at 1% is ineffective. Youre not going to reduce CO2 output by half in 10 years.
so either were just dicking about to annoy small producers or were picking on easy places to push around and it isnt really a crisis.
But the UK can do very little about emissions in the US and China - so perhaps we should concentrate on putting our own house in order?
certainly but since we are a large importer of stuff we can also cut carbon emissions by buying less from high polluting countries. Lets start with crap made from plastics.
It’s obvious the future is fusion. Why not a fully coordinated global push to get it done. Pool all resources and knowledge in a scientific endeavour for all mankind.
The future will always be fusion. Right now we could do with using the technology we have to do what we can.
Fusion is also not going to help cut the emissions made during cement production, or dairy farming, or a number of other sectors of the economy.
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.
If its a crisis you start with what has the biggest impact China = circa 30% of world US = circa 14%.
UK at 1% and France at 1% is ineffective. Youre not going to reduce CO2 output by half in 10 years.
so either were just dicking about to annoy small producers or were picking on easy places to push around and it isnt really a crisis.
But the UK can do very little about emissions in the US and China - so perhaps we should concentrate on putting our own house in order?
certainly but since we are a large importer of stuff we can also cut carbon emissions by buying less from high polluting countries. Lets start with crap made from plastics.
It’s obvious the future is fusion. Why not a fully coordinated global push to get it done. Pool all resources and knowledge in a scientific endeavour for all mankind.
Near term for us it's massively expanding our wind sufficiently so we have enough on windy days to... export ! to France and buying nuclear off them (Our costs are horrendous so its a non starter or should be) during winter high pressure periods.
And tidal
Mays refusal to advance the technology was immensely short sighted
Should that also apply to siblings? Grand parents? Cousins? Uncles & Aunts? Second Cousins? Should someone with six wives be able to bring them all to the UK? What about step brothers? Half sisters? Foster parents?
At some point a condition needs to be set. They may be difficult and uncomfortable decisions to have to make. Grown up politics is discussing what the limits should be, not calling for unconditional migration or no migration.
You will note that in my comments above I said that I would "qualify or limit" some of it. The examples you cite illustrate that setting those limits will be important. Generally I would limit it to parents, spouses and children. But I would allow flexibility and sensitivity, eg if your niece were orphaned she could join you in the UK so you could bring her up, subject to verification that it isn't a scam. My starting point is that the family is the building block of society and immigration policy should allow people to enjoy stable and happy family life, something it clearly fails to do now.
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
which simply shows the stupidity of vacuous virtue signalling
Yet she has done more than anyone else to raise this issue in the public mind around the world, so she must be doing something right.
Really? It's not as though the environmental movement has been silent over the last two decades.
I fear she may crash and burn very badly, and those people using her behind the scenes will just walk away. I hope other people are there for her if that does happen.
Being young does not mean she is immune from criticism - especially when what she wants us to do will affect all of us. That does not mean we have to be mean or rude to her, but her words should be put under the spotlight just as much as a politicians'.
MPs rushing back to gaze at their navel. "What an impressive navel you are."
It's making Cox's job easy. "Put your money where your mouth is."
"No, we just want to sit and let the weeks go by. Oh, look, there goes some tumbleweed."
It is quite amusing watching some real venom from the opposition benches - Sheerman being just the latest - in recent weeks when their very parties refuse to trigger a general election.
You’ve refused a 2nd referendum. What’s your point?
'I' have done nothing.
The people made their decision, in 2016. It is not their fault politicians cannot.
The people made their decision, in 2017. It is not their fault politicians cannot.
Which is why there needs to be a GE to break the deadlock!
Which is why there needs to be a 2nd referendum against a specific Brexit settlement to break the deadlock!
The result would only be implemented if we voted to Remain
You could get around that by passing the relevant legislation to implement the withdrawal agreement with a clause stipulating that it would come into effect following confirmation in a referendum.
Then Parliament would not have to take any further action following the confirmatory referendum to implement the result.
I don't think this is a compromise that will fly, because I would expect Leavers like Farage to call for a boycott of such a referendum, and so the result would lack legitimacy.
Unless Farage gets his no-deal all outcomes will lead to him moaning. And when no-deal does actually turn out to be a mess - well that will be someone else's fault too. So Farage moaning and agitating is pretty much the only certain outcome.
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.
If its a crisis you start with what has the biggest impact China = circa 30% of world US = circa 14%.
UK at 1% and France at 1% is ineffective. Youre not going to reduce CO2 output by half in 10 years.
so either were just dicking about to annoy small producers or were picking on easy places to push around and it isnt really a crisis.
But the UK can do very little about emissions in the US and China - so perhaps we should concentrate on putting our own house in order?
certainly but since we are a large importer of stuff we can also cut carbon emissions by buying less from high polluting countries. Lets start with crap made from plastics.
It’s obvious the future is fusion. Why not a fully coordinated global push to get it done. Pool all resources and knowledge in a scientific endeavour for all mankind.
Near term for us it's massively expanding our wind sufficiently so we have enough on windy days to... export ! to France and buying nuclear off them (Our costs are horrendous so its a non starter or should be) during winter high pressure periods.
And tidal
Mays refusal to advance the technology was immensely short sighted
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.....
on 35% of the vote
35:20:20 will deliver that.
Simply proving that our antiquated electoral system is no longer fit for purpose.
A stonking majority based on only 35% of the votes is not a real majority, it is a fake one bestowed by an electoral system that fails to reflect the way people have voted.
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.
If its a crisis you start with what has the biggest impact China = circa 30% of world US = circa 14%.
UK at 1% and France at 1% is ineffective. Youre not going to reduce CO2 output by half in 10 years.
so either were just dicking about to annoy small producers or were picking on easy places to push around and it isnt really a crisis.
But the UK can do very little about emissions in the US and China - so perhaps we should concentrate on putting our own house in order?
certainly but since we are a large importer of stuff we can also cut carbon emissions by buying less from high polluting countries. Lets start with crap made from plastics.
Well, yes, I'm in favour of that, but if we do more we can limit temperatures to a lower level and avoid some of the damaging changes to the climate that we will otherwise experience.
Nothing the UK does will significantly impact. The problem lies elsewhere. And while yes we should be good citizens, beating ourselves up to no avail is simply a means of pissing people off.
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.
If its a crisis you start with what has the biggest impact China = circa 30% of world US = circa 14%.
UK at 1% and France at 1% is ineffective. Youre not going to reduce CO2 output by half in 10 years.
so either were just dicking about to annoy small producers or were picking on easy places to push around and it isnt really a crisis.
But the UK can do very little about emissions in the US and China - so perhaps we should concentrate on putting our own house in order?
certainly but since we are a large importer of stuff we can also cut carbon emissions by buying less from high polluting countries. Lets start with crap made from plastics.
It’s obvious the future is fusion. Why not a fully coordinated global push to get it done. Pool all resources and knowledge in a scientific endeavour for all mankind.
Near term for us it's massively expanding our wind sufficiently so we have enough on windy days to... export ! to France and buying nuclear off them (Our costs are horrendous so its a non starter or should be) during winter high pressure periods.
And tidal
Mays refusal to advance the technology was immensely short sighted
MPs rushing back to gaze at their navel. "What an impressive navel you are."
It's making Cox's job easy. "Put your money where your mouth is."
"No, we just want to sit and let the weeks go by. Oh, look, there goes some tumbleweed."
It is quite amusing watching some real venom from the opposition benches - Sheerman being just the latest - in recent weeks when their very parties refuse to trigger a general election.
You’ve refused a 2nd referendum. What’s your point?
'I' have done nothing.
The people made their decision, in 2016. It is not their fault politicians cannot.
The people made their decision, in 2017. It is not their fault politicians cannot.
Which is why there needs to be a GE to break the deadlock!
Which is why there needs to be a 2nd referendum against a specific Brexit settlement to break the deadlock!
The result would only be implemented if we voted to Remain
You could get around that by passing the relevant legislation to implement the withdrawal agreement with a clause stipulating that it would come into effect following confirmation in a referendum.
Then Parliament would not have to take any further action following the confirmatory referendum to implement the result.
I don't think this is a compromise that will fly, because I would expect Leavers like Farage to call for a boycott of such a referendum, and so the result would lack legitimacy.
Unless Farage gets his no-deal all outcomes will lead to him moaning. And when no-deal does actually turn out to be a mess - well that will be someone else's fault too. So Farage moaning and agitating is pretty much the only certain outcome.
This is certainly true but, for good or ill, politicians such as Farage and Tory members of the ERG have a following in this country, and so if a second referendum is won by 15 million votes to 10 million, because of a boycott by Leavers, rather than, say, 19 million to 14 million, because of a genuine change of view by a large slice of the electorate, then it will lack legitimacy and therefore do little to fix the mess we are in.
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.
Again, this is why Cummings HAD to ensure that the Labour Conference went ahead. He almost certianly knew that prorogation would be challenged by Gina Miller et al. He almost certainly expected the Supreme Court to reject it. The only surprise he will have got recently is the Queen's Bench supporting it. Probably a wry smile at that - it allows the "even the judges can't agree amongst themselves" line to be run - a bonus.
But the shit Boris is enduring now was deemed essential to prevent Labour cottoning on to the idea that they could get on their high horse and cancel their conference - "because the Brexit crisis demands we sit". And what we have seen from Labour this week isn't just gold - it is diamond-set platinum for the inevitable upcoming election.
You people aren't remotely cynical enough about how this all works.
So you are saying that Cummings was able to contrive to get the verdict delivered bang on the time he wanted it?
1 If the Govt resigns, there is a more than decent chance that the Remain Alliance *does* get it shit together, that it extends, and indeed that it concludes a deal.
However, I can’t see Boris concluding a Deal, and I can’t see him extending either per the Benn Act.
Therefore I think he *will* resign, at the last possible minute, resulting in a GONU.
2 Corbyn wants an election post October 31 with a humiliated Boris.
Ideally, he wants Boris to be the one extending, but this looks unlikely (see 1). Next best option is for someone - but perhaps not Corbyn - to extend, hence Corbyn should be increasingly open to a GONU.
Probably, he would prefer Clarke to Beckett to avoid the bizarre but not impossible idea that a Beckett premiership leads to split in the Labour Party.
Once extension is effected, I am torn as to whether Corbyn would prefer the GONU to negotiate a deal or not. I *think* Corbyn’s odds of electoral success go up post any deal, but not entirely sure. I also think they could get a deal passed, subject to a referendum.
Throughout, Corbyn’s support for a GONU would depend on Labour’s expected electoral fortune against the Tories (who can be expected to be rubbishing and voting against any Deal).
3 The Lib Dems sniff a chance at overtaking Labour. They too would want a GONU, but it may be that their odds of overtaking Labour fall the longer a GONU continues and they are tarnished with its inevitable mis-steps.
Conclusion:
A GONU looks decently likely, although the stability of that arrangement will depend on when Corbyn and Swinson respectively think the best opportunity for an election is: before a Deal; after a Deal but before a referendum; or after both?
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.
If its a crisis you start with what has the biggest impact China = circa 30% of world US = circa 14%.
UK at 1% and France at 1% is ineffective. Youre not going to reduce CO2 output by half in 10 years.
so either were just dicking about to annoy small producers or were picking on easy places to push around and it isnt really a crisis.
But the UK can do very little about emissions in the US and China - so perhaps we should concentrate on putting our own house in order?
certainly but since we are a large importer of stuff we can also cut carbon emissions by buying less from high polluting countries. Lets start with crap made from plastics.
Well, yes, I'm in favour of that, but if we do more we can limit temperatures to a lower level and avoid some of the damaging changes to the climate that we will otherwise experience.
Nothing the UK does will significantly impact. The problem lies elsewhere. And while yes we should be good citizens, beating ourselves up to no avail is simply a means of pissing people off.
Everyone has to act. Refusing to act because others have not already done so is an abdication of responsibility.
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
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.
Again, this is why Cummings HAD to ensure that the Labour Conference went ahead. He almost certianly knew that prorogation would be challenged by Gina Miller et al. He almost certainly expected the Supreme Court to reject it. The only surprise he will have got recently is the Queen's Bench supporting it. Probably a wry smile at that - it allows the "even the judges can't agree amongst themselves" line to be run - a bonus.
But the shit Boris is enduring now was deemed essential to prevent Labour cottoning on to the idea that they could get on their high horse and cancel their conference - "because the Brexit crisis demands we sit". And what we have seen from Labour this week isn't just gold - it is diamond-set platinum for the inevitable upcoming election.
You people aren't remotely cynical enough about how this all works.
So you are saying that Cummings was able to contrive to get the verdict delivered bang on the time he wanted it?
He would have entirely expected it. The timeline you could pretty much pencil in on his grid....
What I don't get about the Hinkley C news is the excuse of "challenging ground conditions".
I can understand this on a project dispersed over a large area - say a road or railway - but this is a small area - right next door to where there is already 2 power stations. The ground conditions should have been blooming well known before they began.
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
Should that also apply to siblings? Grand parents? Cousins? Uncles & Aunts? Second Cousins? Should someone with six wives be able to bring them all to the UK? What about step brothers? Half sisters? Foster parents?
At some point a condition needs to be set. They may be difficult and uncomfortable decisions to have to make. Grown up politics is discussing what the limits should be, not calling for unconditional migration or no migration.
You will note that in my comments above I said that I would "qualify or limit" some of it. The examples you cite illustrate that setting those limits will be important. Generally I would limit it to parents, spouses and children. But I would allow flexibility and sensitivity, eg if your niece were orphaned she could join you in the UK so you could bring her up, subject to verification that it isn't a scam. My starting point is that the family is the building block of society and immigration policy should allow people to enjoy stable and happy family life, something it clearly fails to do now.
I would agree with your desired outcomes. I do not think it is consistent with the Labour proposal, which I expect wont make their manifesto in anything like its current format.
The policy proposal is at best very poorly worded and therefore open to spin against it, I think in reality it is just poorly thought out, lazy and would be open to extreme abuse if ever implemented.
What I don't get about the Hinkley C news is the excuse of "challenging ground conditions".
I can understand this on a project dispersed over a large area - say a road or railway - but this is a small area - right next door to where there is already 2 power stations. The ground conditions should have been blooming well known before they began.
I just don't believe it as an excuse.
Sounds very much out of the playbook of a dodgy builder doing an extension.
Going to cost an extra £5k, tile prices you know, went up crazy amount last week.
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.
If its a crisis you start with what has the biggest impact China = circa 30% of world US = circa 14%.
UK at 1% and France at 1% is ineffective. Youre not going to reduce CO2 output by half in 10 years.
so either were just dicking about to ann in order?
certainly but since we are a large importer of stuff we can also cut carbon emissions by buying less from high polluting countries. Lets start with crap made from plastics.
Well, yes, I'm in favour of that, but if we do more we can limit temperatures to a lower level and avoid some of the damaging changes to the climate that we will otherwise experience.
Nothing the UK does will significantly impact. The problem lies elsewhere. And while yes we should be good citizens, beating ourselves up to no avail is simply a means of pissing people off.
Everyone has to act. Refusing to act because others have not already done so is an abdication of responsibility.
We are responsible for our part of the mess.
you only hav so much time in a day and have to pick your priorities. Environmentally we should do more on plastics.
For those wanting a break from Brexit and following the US, looks like Warren is becoming the front runner. She led the impeachment push, has overtaken Biden nationally, and is now ahead in California (which screws Harris).
MPs rushing back to gaze at their navel. "What an impressive navel you are."
It's making Cox's job easy. "Put your money where your mouth is."
"No, we just want to sit and let the weeks go by. Oh, look, there goes some tumbleweed."
It is quite amusing watching some real venom from the opposition benches - Sheerman being just the latest - in recent weeks when their very parties refuse to trigger a general election.
You’ve refused a 2nd referendum. What’s your point?
'I' have done nothing.
The people made their decision, in 2016. It is not their fault politicians cannot.
The people made their decision, in 2017. It is not their fault politicians cannot.
Which is why there needs to be a GE to break the deadlock!
Which is why there needs to be a 2nd referendum against a specific Brexit settlement to break the deadlock!
The result would only be implemented if we voted to Remain
You could get around that by passing the relevant legislation to implement the withdrawal agreement with a clause stipulating that it would come into effect following confirmation in a referendum.
Then Parliament would not have to take any further action following the confirmatory referendum to implement the result.
I don't think this is a compromise that will fly, because I would expect Leavers like Farage to call for a boycott of such a referendum, and so the result would lack legitimacy.
Unless Farage gets his no-deal all outcomes will lead to him moaning. And when no-deal does actually turn out to be a mess - well that will be someone else's fault too. So Farage moaning and agitating is pretty much the only certain outcome.
This is certainly true but, for good or ill, politicians such as Farage and Tory members of the ERG have a following in this country, and so if a second referendum is won by 15 million votes to 10 million, because of a boycott by Leavers, rather than, say, 19 million to 14 million, because of a genuine change of view by a large slice of the electorate, then it will lack legitimacy and therefore do little to fix the mess we are in.
At least we will have a functioning economy which will go someway to trying to sort the mess out!
1 If the Govt resigns, there is a more than decent chance that the Remain Alliance *does* get it shit together, that it extends, and indeed that it concludes a deal.
However, I can’t see Boris concluding a Deal, and I can’t see him extending either per the Benn Act.
Therefore I think he *will* resign, at the last possible minute, resulting in a GONU.
2 Corbyn wants an election post October 31 with a humiliated Boris.
Ideally, he wants Boris to be the one extending, but this looks unlikely (see 1). Next best option is for someone - but perhaps not Corbyn - to extend, hence Corbyn should be increasingly open to a GONU.
Probably, he would prefer Clarke to Beckett to avoid the bizarre but not impossible idea that a Beckett premiership leads to split in the Labour Party.
Once extension is effected, I am torn as to whether Corbyn would prefer the GONU to negotiate a deal or not. I *think* Corbyn’s odds of electoral success go up post any deal, but not entirely sure. I also think they could get a deal passed, subject to a referendum.
Throughout, Corbyn’s support for a GONU would depend on Labour’s expected electoral fortune against the Tories (who can be expected to be rubbishing and voting against any Deal).
3 The Lib Dems sniff a chance at overtaking Labour. They too would want a GONU, but it may be that their odds of overtaking Labour fall the longer a GONU continues and they are tarnished with its inevitable mis-steps.
Conclusion:
A GONU looks decently likely, although the stability of that arrangement will depend on when Corbyn and Swinson respectively think the best opportunity for an election is: before a Deal; after a Deal but before a referendum; or after both?
If you are right that Corbyn prefers a Tory, perhaps it wont be Clarke as he is not pro a 2nd referendum. The most senior Tories who voted for a 2nd ref at the indicative votes were Justine Greening and Jo Johnson.
If the Remain alliance could organise a GoNU they would have done so.
They can’t .
They haven't needed to. They've got everything they want so far and skewered Johnson to boot. I think a GONU would emerge if the threat of no deal seems imminent, but this now seems much less likely than it was a month ago.
For those wanting a break from Brexit and following the US, looks like Warren is becoming the front runner. She led the impeachment push, has overtaken Biden nationally, and is now ahead in California (which screws Harris).
My tips for vice-president:
- Pete Buttigieg - Cory Booker - Andrew Gillum
Ah, now the whole Biden angle is starting to make sense.
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
which simply shows the stupidity of vacuous virtue signalling
Yet she has done more than anyone else to raise this issue in the public mind around the world, so she must be doing something right.
This is all new to you ?
No. But she has certainly done a lot to raise the salience of the issue with the public, and especially the young (I am not including myself in this latter category, obvs).
1 If the Govt resigns, there is a more than decent chance that the Remain Alliance *does* get it shit together, that it extends, and indeed that it concludes a deal.
However, I can’t see Boris concluding a Deal, and I can’t see him extending either per the Benn Act.
Therefore I think he *will* resign, at the last possible minute, resulting in a GONU.
2 Corbyn wants an election post October 31 with a humiliated Boris.
Ideally, he wants Boris to be the one extending, but this looks unlikely (see 1). Next best option is for someone - but perhaps not Corbyn - to extend, hence Corbyn should be increasingly open to a GONU.
Probably, he would prefer Clarke to Beckett to avoid the bizarre but not impossible idea that a Beckett premiership leads to split in the Labour Party.
Once extension is effected, I am torn as to whether Corbyn would prefer the GONU to negotiate a deal or not. I *think* Corbyn’s odds of electoral success go up post any deal, but not entirely sure. I also think they could get a deal passed, subject to a referendum.
Throughout, Corbyn’s support for a GONU would depend on Labour’s expected electoral fortune against the Tories (who can be expected to be rubbishing and voting against any Deal).
3 The Lib Dems sniff a chance at overtaking Labour. They too would want a GONU, but it may be that their odds of overtaking Labour fall the longer a GONU continues and they are tarnished with its inevitable mis-steps.
Conclusion:
A GONU looks decently likely, although the stability of that arrangement will depend on when Corbyn and Swinson respectively think the best opportunity for an election is: before a Deal; after a Deal but before a referendum; or after both?
I think that's a fair enough possibility.
But the pattern so far is that Rebel Alliance co-operation has been strictly limited to the steps needed to deal with today's crisis.
So: faced with Boris heading over the cliff, they may well agree on a GONU*, but my guess is that its mandate will be:
- negotiate an X month extension (where X probably equals 3 as that's what they agreed on for Benn, though I wouldn't rule out 6 or 9 if everyone realises they need time to work on it). - pass the motion for a GE.
I don't think there's enough Brexit policy in common (especially since the LD/Lab conferences) to go any further than that.
(* I use the name for convenience, but I have some sympathy with the argument it would be seen as anything but)
Should that also apply to siblings? Grand parents? Cousins? Uncles & Aunts? Second Cousins? Should someone with six wives be able to bring them all to the UK? What about step brothers? Half sisters? Foster parents?
At some point a condition needs to be set. They may be difficult and uncomfortable decisions to have to make. Grown up politics is discussing what the limits should be, not calling for unconditional migration or no migration.
You will note that in my comments above I said that I would "qualify or limit" some of it. The examples you cite illustrate that setting those limits will be important. Generally I would limit it to parents, spouses and children. But I would allow flexibility and sensitivity, eg if your niece were orphaned she could join you in the UK so you could bring her up, subject to verification that it isn't a scam. My starting point is that the family is the building block of society and immigration policy should allow people to enjoy stable and happy family life, something it clearly fails to do now.
I would agree with your desired outcomes. I do not think it is consistent with the Labour proposal, which I expect wont make their manifesto in anything like its current format.
The policy proposal is at best very poorly worded and therefore open to spin against it, I think in reality it is just poorly thought out, lazy and would be open to extreme abuse if ever implemented.
I agree, I would be surprised if it made the manifesto without serious qualification. It's important to remember that these are grassroots proposals, not polished policies created by a party machine. I don't agree with them if taken to an extreme. But I welcome the fact that Labour is discussing immigration in a humane and rational way and not just cowering in fear of the Tabloid press. I think the basic thrust of the proposals is the correct one, and in politics I think you should be in the business of fighting for what you believe in rather than living in constant fear of how your enemies will spin it.
For those wanting a break from Brexit and following the US, looks like Warren is becoming the front runner. She led the impeachment push, has overtaken Biden nationally, and is now ahead in California (which screws Harris).
My tips for vice-president:
- Pete Buttigieg - Cory Booker - Andrew Gillum
Ah, now the whole Biden angle is starting to make sense.
Smart move from Warren lol
I'm sure this point has been made before but I think Warren is very well placed in a three way contest with Biden and Sanders as I imagine she would pick up the majority of support if either of the other two candidates were to withdraw.
Comments
"What a great advert these past months have been for our existing parties. Not."
There is a point that FPTP creates our existing parties and a necessarily adversarial system, but that is too nuanced for many. Especially for anyone who gains from the current system and is just looking for a plausible rationalisation.
Signed
A. Tory
But the shit Boris is enduring now was deemed essential to prevent Labour cottoning on to the idea that they could get on their high horse and cancel their conference - "because the Brexit crisis demands we sit". And what we have seen from Labour this week isn't just gold - it is diamond-set platinum for the inevitable upcoming election.
You people aren't remotely cynical enough about how this all works.
What can we actually do that won't cripple our living standards beyond moving to a pretty much total renewable economy (France) and electric cars ?
There is no verbatim record of the call.
At some point a condition needs to be set. They may be difficult and uncomfortable decisions to have to make. Grown up politics is discussing what the limits should be, not calling for unconditional migration or no migration.
It is the pre-microphone days (well, centuries) that led to conventions like waving order papers rather than clapping, cheering or jeering.
UK at 1% and France at 1% is ineffective. Youre not going to reduce CO2 output by half in 10 years.
so either were just dicking about to annoy small producers or were picking on easy places to push around and it isnt really a crisis.
https://twitter.com/GretaThunberg/status/1176525238206640136?s=19
Well I grew up in a gritty working class part of Yorkshire and let me tell you this policy will ensure they bleed support in their Yorkshire heartlands.. Won't be direct to the tories probably to Brexit or the Yorkshire Party but that doesn't matter its the lost votes which will
It'd require Republican senators to go along with it, no?
Or we can tax existence, go vegan and just make life a misery for all.
A blanket carbon tax (and dividend) would have been a really good policy a few decades ago, as it would have provided a market incentive to speed up technological change without causing an economic shock. It's still not a bad idea now, but we probably need more direct government intervention to speed things along.
If we don't do anything about this now then living standards in the future will be crippled when the sea levels rise and crops fail. You might say that it is "do or die".
* I don't know this is the case, I'm assuming these two hold some stupid views about climate change.
Long term I'd love to see an O'Neill colony. Probably not in our lifetime though.
Fusion is also not going to help cut the emissions made during cement production, or dairy farming, or a number of other sectors of the economy.
Mays refusal to advance the technology was immensely short sighted
I fear she may crash and burn very badly, and those people using her behind the scenes will just walk away. I hope other people are there for her if that does happen.
Being young does not mean she is immune from criticism - especially when what she wants us to do will affect all of us. That does not mean we have to be mean or rude to her, but her words should be put under the spotlight just as much as a politicians'.
A stonking majority based on only 35% of the votes is not a real majority, it is a fake one bestowed by an electoral system that fails to reflect the way people have voted.
The new design looks rather interesting. Although it'll probably all change before its unveiled.
If the Govt resigns, there is a more than decent chance that the Remain Alliance *does* get it shit together, that it extends, and indeed that it concludes a deal.
However, I can’t see Boris concluding a Deal, and I can’t see him extending either per the Benn Act.
Therefore I think he *will* resign, at the last possible minute, resulting in a GONU.
2
Corbyn wants an election post October 31 with a humiliated Boris.
Ideally, he wants Boris to be the one extending, but this looks unlikely (see 1). Next best option is for someone - but perhaps not Corbyn - to extend, hence Corbyn should be increasingly open to a GONU.
Probably, he would prefer Clarke to Beckett to avoid the bizarre but not impossible idea that a Beckett premiership leads to split in the Labour Party.
Once extension is effected, I am torn as to whether Corbyn would prefer the GONU to negotiate a deal or not. I *think* Corbyn’s odds of electoral success go up post any deal, but not entirely sure. I also think they could get a deal passed, subject to a referendum.
Throughout, Corbyn’s support for a GONU would depend on Labour’s expected electoral fortune against the Tories (who can be expected to be rubbishing and voting against any Deal).
3
The Lib Dems sniff a chance at overtaking Labour.
They too would want a GONU, but it may be that their odds of overtaking Labour fall the longer a GONU continues and they are tarnished with its inevitable mis-steps.
Conclusion:
A GONU looks decently likely, although the stability of that arrangement will depend on when Corbyn and Swinson respectively think the best opportunity for an election is: before a Deal; after a Deal but before a referendum; or after both?
We are responsible for our part of the mess.
They can’t .
https://twitter.com/chrislhayes/status/1176687204694941696?s=20
If we cannot do everything, let's do nothing.
I can understand this on a project dispersed over a large area - say a road or railway - but this is a small area - right next door to where there is already 2 power stations. The ground conditions should have been blooming well known before they began.
I just don't believe it as an excuse.
https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1176872497901445121?ref_src=twsrc^tfw|twcamp^tweetembed|twterm^1176872497901445121&ref_url=https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2019/sep/25/boris-johnson-flies-to-uk-as-parliament-returns-after-court-ruling-politics-live
The policy proposal is at best very poorly worded and therefore open to spin against it, I think in reality it is just poorly thought out, lazy and would be open to extreme abuse if ever implemented.
Going to cost an extra £5k, tile prices you know, went up crazy amount last week.
My tips for vice-president:
- Pete Buttigieg
- Cory Booker
- Andrew Gillum
Jo Johnson would be a spectacular choice!
Smart move from Warren lol
Joris Bonson has a fan in Stoke
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPqHH6LDpuM&feature=share&fbclid=IwAR3FMNcEg2JwtLglpMiQSdJWdazLENwwZbGdKGarbSZMquetQ4pMNdEoslA
But the pattern so far is that Rebel Alliance co-operation has been strictly limited to the steps needed to deal with today's crisis.
So: faced with Boris heading over the cliff, they may well agree on a GONU*, but my guess is that its mandate will be:
- negotiate an X month extension (where X probably equals 3 as that's what they agreed on for Benn, though I wouldn't rule out 6 or 9 if everyone realises they need time to work on it).
- pass the motion for a GE.
I don't think there's enough Brexit policy in common (especially since the LD/Lab conferences) to go any further than that.
(* I use the name for convenience, but I have some sympathy with the argument it would be seen as anything but)