politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » It’s looking like a no-deal brexit or else an Article 50 exten

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » It’s looking like a no-deal brexit or else an Article 50 extension

If the front pages have this right then the chances of Johnson getting his deal through look very thin indeed and so the only options remaining are a no-deal Brexit or else it’s an Article 50 extension.

Read the full story here

SandyRentool

First from Edinburgh Waverley station. I'm on the overnight train to Aberdeen.

Last northbound run with the old stock before the new Mark 5s take over.

Yellow_Submarine

Will Trump Ever Leave the White House? https://nyti.ms/2pdm54l

SandyRentool

On topic - for several months I've had an expectation that we won't be leaving. That's still my position.

Yellow_Submarine

All quite carefully choreographed. First anonymous briefing the night before the Merkel call. The second twelve hours later to confirm it was strategy not a misfire. No coincidence they picked Merkel thus invoking WW2 mythology and Germanophobia. Leaking details of the call - breaching social norms - is the Cummings playbook 101. No denial or clean up so Cummings is operating with sanction. There was no need to coordinate with Leave EU as everyone knows where such obvious Germanophobia would lead.

I'm pleased they picked the Germans. As external ' others ' to whip up Xenophobia against for the coming battle at least they are big, rich, powerful and able to look after themselves. It also makes the choice the country faces all the more stark. Are we really going to regress as a nation back into faux WW2 jingoism imagined by those born decades after the war ended ? If they'd picked Muslims or Romanians the choice would have been more opaque and the victims more vulnerable.

Be in no doubt a No Deal exit explicitly blamed on the Irish and Germans will reshape British society for decades and eventually end the Union. We just have to hope the Commons stays strong and the inevitable General Election sees through Johnson in the way May was seen through.

RobD

Yellow_Submarine said:

All quite csrefully choreographed. First anonymous briefing the night before the Merkel call. The second twelve hours later to confirm it was strategy not a misfire. No coincidence they picked Merkel thus invoking WW2 mythology and Germanophobia. Leaking details of the call - breaching social norms - is the Cummings playbook 101. No denial or clean up so Cummings is operating with sanction. There was no need to coordinate with Leave EU as everyone knows where such obvious Germanophobia would lead.

I'm pleased they picked the Germans. As external ' others ' to whip up Xenophobia against for the coming battle at least they are big, rich, powerful and able to look after themselves. It also makes the choice the country faces all the more stark. Are we really going to regress as a nation back into faux WW2 jingoism imagined by those born decades after the war ended ? If they'd picked Muslims or Romanians the choice would have been more opaque and the victims more vulnerable.

Be in no doubt a No Deal exit explicitly blamed on the Irish and Germans will reshape British society for decades and eventually end the Union. We just have to hope the Commons stays strong and the inevitable General Election sees through Johnson in the way May was seen through.

I thought leaking the details of private conversations was taken straight out of the EU's book?

Yellow_Submarine

Interesting front pages from the Daily Mail and the Sun. The two print editions that still matter. The Mail front page ignores the Cummings move entirely. The Sun almost entirely. We saw the same last week over Boris'' conference speech. Have Rothermere and Murdoch decided to distance themselves from the impending catastrophe ?

Foxy

RobD said:

Yellow_Submarine said:

All quite csrefully choreographed. First anonymous briefing the night before the Merkel call. The second twelve hours later to confirm it was strategy not a misfire. No coincidence they picked Merkel thus invoking WW2 mythology and Germanophobia. Leaking details of the call - breaching social norms - is the Cummings playbook 101. No denial or clean up so Cummings is operating with sanction. There was no need to coordinate with Leave EU as everyone knows where such obvious Germanophobia would lead.

I'm pleased they picked the Germans. As external ' others ' to whip up Xenophobia against for the coming battle at least they are big, rich, powerful and able to look after themselves. It also makes the choice the country faces all the more stark. Are we really going to regress as a nation back into faux WW2 jingoism imagined by those born decades after the war ended ? If they'd picked Muslims or Romanians the choice would have been more opaque and the victims more vulnerable.

Be in no doubt a No Deal exit explicitly blamed on the Irish and Germans will reshape British society for decades and eventually end the Union. We just have to hope the Commons stays strong and the inevitable General Election sees through Johnson in the way May was seen through.

I thought leaking the details of private conversations was taken straight out of the EU's book?

Considering that Cummings promised iron discipline for leaking, there seem to be a lot of leaks. I wonder why he is so tolerant of them.

On topic. It was a condition of the extension that there would be no re-opening of the WA negotiations. It should be little surprise that BoZo is in the mess that he is.

philiph

Foxy said:

RobD said:

Yellow_Submarine said:

All quite csrefully choreographed. First anonymous briefing the night before the Merkel call. The second twelve hours later to confirm it was strategy not a misfire. No coincidence they picked Merkel thus invoking WW2 mythology and Germanophobia. Leaking details of the call - breaching social norms - is the Cummings playbook 101. No denial or clean up so Cummings is operating with sanction. There was no need to coordinate with Leave EU as everyone knows where such obvious Germanophobia would lead.

I'm pleased they picked the Germans. As external ' others ' to whip up Xenophobia against for the coming battle at least they are big, rich, powerful and able to look after themselves. It also makes the choice the country faces all the more stark. Are we really going to regress as a nation back into faux WW2 jingoism imagined by those born decades after the war ended ? If they'd picked Muslims or Romanians the choice would have been more opaque and the victims more vulnerable.

Be in no doubt a No Deal exit explicitly blamed on the Irish and Germans will reshape British society for decades and eventually end the Union. We just have to hope the Commons stays strong and the inevitable General Election sees through Johnson in the way May was seen through.

I thought leaking the details of private conversations was taken straight out of the EU's book?

Considering that Cummings promised iron discipline for leaking, there seem to be a lot of leaks. I wonder why he is so tolerant of them.

On topic. It was a condition of the extension that there would be no re-opening of the WA negotiations. It should be little surprise that BoZo is in the mess that he is.

That really sums the whole thing up. What was the point of the extension if the WA was verboten?

I know the EU would say for us to sort ourselves out. Both tory and Labour wanted to renegotiate. The extension started with irreconcilable objectives.

Pointless displacement activity.

Foxy

philiph said:

Foxy said:

RobD said:

Yellow_Submarine said:

All quite csrefully choreographed. First anonymous briefing the night before the Merkel call. The second twelve hours later to confirm it was strategy not a misfire. No coincidence they picked Merkel thus invoking WW2 mythology and Germanophobia. Leaking details of the call - breaching social norms - is the Cummings playbook 101. No denial or clean up so Cummings is operating with sanction. There was no need to coordinate with Leave EU as everyone knows where such obvious Germanophobia would lead.

I'm pleased they picked the Germans. As external ' others ' to whip up Xenophobia against for the coming battle at least they are big, rich, powerful and able to look after themselves. It also makes the choice the country faces all the more stark. Are we really going to regress as a nation back into faux WW2 jingoism imagined by those born decades after the war ended ? If they'd picked Muslims or Romanians the choice would have been more opaque and the victims more vulnerable.

Be in no doubt a No Deal exit explicitly blamed on the Irish and Germans will reshape British society for decades and eventually end the Union. We just have to hope the Commons stays strong and the inevitable General Election sees through Johnson in the way May was seen through.

I thought leaking the details of private conversations was taken straight out of the EU's book?

Considering that Cummings promised iron discipline for leaking, there seem to be a lot of leaks. I wonder why he is so tolerant of them.

On topic. It was a condition of the extension that there would be no re-opening of the WA negotiations. It should be little surprise that BoZo is in the mess that he is.

That really sums the whole thing up. What was the point of the extension if the WA was verboten?

I know the EU would say for us to sort ourselves out. Both tory and Labour wanted to renegotiate. The extension started with irreconcilable objectives.

Pointless displacement activity.

The point of the extension was to give more time to pass the WA, perhaps via a rewritten Political Declaration that answered some of Labour's concerns. There were even several weeks of discussions on these. Neither May nor Corbyn were capable of agreeing of course.

Nigelb

A truly shocking report on the melting of the Siberian permafrost:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/national/climate-environment/climate-change-siberia/

It ought to be impossible to read this and still claim climate change is not happening.

Nigelb

Ireland budgeting €1bn for no deal contingency planning:
https://www.politico.eu/article/ireland-to-spend-more-than-e1b-on-no-deal-brexit-planning/

Nigelb

philiph said:

Foxy said:

RobD said:

Yellow_Submarine said:

All quite csrefully choreographed. First anonymous briefing the night before the Merkel call. The second twelve hours later to confirm it was strategy not a misfire. No coincidence they picked Merkel thus invoking WW2 mythology and Germanophobia. Leaking details of the call - breaching social norms - is the Cummings playbook 101. No denial or clean up so Cummings is operating with sanction. There was no need to coordinate with Leave EU as everyone knows where such obvious Germanophobia would lead.

I'm pleased they picked the Germans. As external ' others ' to whip up Xenophobia against for the coming battle at least they are big, rich, powerful and able to look after themselves. It also makes the choice the country faces all the more stark. Are we really going to regress as a nation back into faux WW2 jingoism imagined by those born decades after the war ended ? If they'd picked Muslims or Romanians the choice would have been more opaque and the victims more vulnerable.

Be in no doubt a No Deal exit explicitly blamed on the Irish and Germans will reshape British society for decades and eventually end the Union. We just have to hope the Commons stays strong and the inevitable General Election sees through Johnson in the way May was seen through.

I thought leaking the details of private conversations was taken straight out of the EU's book?

Considering that Cummings promised iron discipline for leaking, there seem to be a lot of leaks. I wonder why he is so tolerant of them.

On topic. It was a condition of the extension that there would be no re-opening of the WA negotiations. It should be little surprise that BoZo is in the mess that he is.

That really sums the whole thing up. What was the point of the extension if the WA was verboten?

I know the EU would say for us to sort ourselves out. Both tory and Labour wanted to renegotiate. The extension started with irreconcilable objectives.

Pointless displacement activity.

For us to get our shit together.

Europe were very clear that they were entirely willing to look at a rewriting of the political declaration.

For the reasons Mike points out in the header Theresa May’s deal with the Irish backstop was an elegant solution and was actually a huge compromise by the EU27 something that has not been fully appreciated in the UK.... and considering the length of time it took to negotiate, the EU were understandably unwilling to reopen it.

AlastairMeeks

Here’s a question. Imagine Britain does not leave the EU on 31 October. Imagine further that you are Jeremy Corbyn. Do you want to have an election immediately and if so do you want a short or long campaign?

AlastairMeeks

Apparently Number 10’s masterplan is to send two letters to the EU - a Benn Act letter and a “we’ve been kidnapped” letter. Pretty desperate stuff.

Still, I’m sure yesterday’s antics will have made the EU more well-disposed to Boris Johnson’s requests.

Foxy

Good article by Ian Dunt:

"Cummings is making the same mistake on organisational cooperation. That’s partly why he and his allies have been so startled by Ireland’s prominence during negotiations. Their entire working assumption about world politics was that international cooperation sucked power from the nation state"

https://twitter.com/IanDunt/status/1181607560832602112?s=19

Yellow_Submarine

AlastairMeeks said:

Here’s a question. Imagine Britain does not leave the EU on 31 October. Imagine further that you are Jeremy Corbyn. Do you want to have an election immediately and if so do you want a short or long campaign?

Not immediately and a long campaign.

AlastairMeeks

Yellow_Submarine said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Here’s a question. Imagine Britain does not leave the EU on 31 October. Imagine further that you are Jeremy Corbyn. Do you want to have an election immediately and if so do you want a short or long campaign?

Not immediately and a long campaign.

My view too. Which means that a 2019 election is far too short-priced.

Sandpit

Yellow_Submarine said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Here’s a question. Imagine Britain does not leave the EU on 31 October. Imagine further that you are Jeremy Corbyn. Do you want to have an election immediately and if so do you want a short or long campaign?

Not immediately and a long campaign.

So lay a 2019 election?

(Or does the election date depend more on the extension date? A Jan 31st extension is going to require an early December election).

felix

Yellow_Submarine said:

All quite carefully choreographed. First anonymous briefing the night before the Merkel call. The second twelve hours later to confirm it was strategy not a misfire. No coincidence they picked Merkel thus invoking WW2 mythology and Germanophobia. Leaking details of the call - breaching social norms - is the Cummings playbook 101. No denial or clean up so Cummings is operating with sanction. There was no need to coordinate with Leave EU as everyone knows where such obvious Germanophobia would lead.

I'm pleased they picked the Germans. As external ' others ' to whip up Xenophobia against for the coming battle at least they are big, rich, powerful and able to look after themselves. It also makes the choice the country faces all the more stark. Are we really going to regress as a nation back into faux WW2 jingoism imagined by those born decades after the war ended ? If they'd picked Muslims or Romanians the choice would have been more opaque and the victims more vulnerable.

Be in no doubt a No Deal exit explicitly blamed on the Irish and Germans will reshape British society for decades and eventually end the Union. We just have to hope the Commons stays strong and the inevitable General Election sees through Johnson in the way May was seen through.

Presumably if the quote is inaccurate the Germans could easily clear it up. Are you also pretending in this fantasy that the EU never has leaked throughout the process?
I've little time for Boris or Cummings but all the players in the Brexit games have mud and wrse on their hands - otherwise the polls in the UK would be very different.

Streeter

Foxy said:

Good article by Ian Dunt:

"Cummings is making the same mistake on organisational cooperation. That’s partly why he and his allies have been so startled by Ireland’s prominence during negotiations. Their entire working assumption about world politics was that international cooperation sucked power from the nation state"

https://twitter.com/IanDunt/status/1181607560832602112?s=19

“It is like a man trying to play chess with the sea.”

Very good.

felix

Nigelb said:

philiph said:

Foxy said:

RobD said:

Yellow_Submarine said:

All quite csrefully choreographed. First anonymous briefing the night before the Merkel call. The second twelve hours later to confirm it was strategy not a misfire. No coincidence they picked Merkel thus invoking WW2 mythology and Germanophobia. Leaking details of the call - breaching social norms - is the Cummings playbook 101. No denial or clean up so Cummings is operating with sanction. There was no need to coordinate with Leave EU as everyone knows where such obvious Germanophobia would lead.

I'm pleased they picked the Germans. As external ' others ' to whip up Xenophobia against for the coming battle at least they are big, rich, powerful and able to look after themselves. It also makes the choice the country faces all the more stark. Are we really going to regress as a nation back into faux WW2 jingoism imagined by those born decades after the war ended ? If they'd picked Muslims or Romanians the choice would have been more opaque and the victims more vulnerable.

Be in no doubt a No Deal exit explicitly blamed on the Irish and Germans will reshape British society for decades and eventually end the Union. We just have to hope the Commons stays strong and the inevitable General Election sees through Johnson in the way May was seen through.

I thought leaking the details of private conversations was taken straight out of the EU's book?

Considering that Cummings promised iron discipline for leaking, there seem to be a lot of leaks. I wonder why he is so tolerant of them.

On topic. It was a condition of the extension that there would be no re-opening of the WA negotiations. It should be little surprise that BoZo is in the mess that he is.

That really sums the whole thing up. What was the point of the extension if the WA was verboten?

I know the EU would say for us to sort ourselves out. Both tory and Labour wanted to renegotiate. The extension started with irreconcilable objectives.

Pointless displacement activity.

For us to get our shit together.

Europe were very clear that they were entirely willing to look at a rewriting of the political declaration.

For the reasons Mike points out in the header Theresa May’s deal with the Irish backstop was an elegant solution and was actually a huge compromise by the EU27 something that has not been fully appreciated in the UK.... and considering the length of time it took to negotiate, the EU were understandably unwilling to reopen it.

I agree. Shame on the British parliament for voting it down .

matthiasfromhamburg

Nigelb said:

A truly shocking report on the melting of the Siberian permafrost:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/national/climate-environment/climate-change-siberia/

It ought to be impossible to read this and still claim climate change is not happening.

Only a few climate change denialists still deny that climate change is happening.

Most have moved on to denying other things.

Some are accepting that climate change is happening, but are now denying that the changing climate is any detriment ("look, we can now grow wine in yorkshire, splendid").

Others are accepting that climate change is happening and that it is detrimental, but are now denying that it has anything to do with human activity, so that they can now deny the fact that a change in human activity could possibly emeliorate the detriments, or even reverse the trend ("look, CO2 is plant food, the more of it, the better").

And then there are those who accept that climate change is happening, that it is detrimental and that a change in human behaviour could possibly change something about it, but have moved on to denying that the detriments of climate change will present any economic challenge, so that they can argue from the premise that doing anything against climate change will be an additional, unbearable cost, compared to doing nothing ("look, we just can't afford it").

And then there are, of course, those who say that their own, tiny country is only contributing such a small amount of the climate changing emissions, that changing anything wouldn't make an impact anyway ("look, the Chinese are emitting so much more than us, because they have stolen all those wonderful jobs in industrial production").

These people then usually seize the opportunity to deny the fact that their own prosperous, developed countries owe the largest part of their prosperity and development to that human activity which has caused climate change in the first place and that we should therefor take the first step to do something against the consequences.

So many things to choose from, and we really seem to have a penchant for denial.

felix

matthiasfromhamburg said:

Nigelb said:

A truly shocking report on the melting of the Siberian permafrost:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/national/climate-environment/climate-change-siberia/

It ought to be impossible to read this and still claim climate change is not happening.

Only a few climate change denialists still deny that climate change is happening.

Most have moved on to denying other things.

Some are accepting that climate change is happening, but are now denying that the changing climate is any detriment ("look, we can now grow wine in yorkshire, splendid").

Others are accepting that climate change is happening and that it is detrimental, but are now denying that it has anything to do with human activity, so that they can now deny the fact that a change in human activity could possibly emeliorate the detriments, or even reverse the trend ("look, CO2 is plant food, the more of it, the better").

And then there are those who accept that climate change is happening, that it is detrimental and that a change in human behaviour could possibly change something about it, but have moved on to denying that the detriments of climate change will present any economic challenge, so that they can argue from the premise that doing anything against climate change will be an additional, unbearable cost, compared to doing nothing ("look, we just can't afford it").

And then there are, of course, those who say that their own, tiny country is only contributing such a small amount of the climate changing emissions, that changing anything wouldn't make an impact anyway ("look, the Chinese are emitting so much more than us, because they have stolen all those wonderful jobs in industrial production").

These people then usually seize the opportunity to deny the fact that their own prosperous, developed countries owe the largest part of their prosperity and development to that human activity which has caused climate change in the first place and that we should therefor take the first step to do something against the consequences.

So many things to choose from, and we really seem to have a penchant for denial.

Is it so surprising that most people are resisting 'solutions' that will see them facing potentially huge and detrimental lifestyle changes whilst a privileged few carry on as before.

Sandpit

felix said:

matthiasfromhamburg said:

Nigelb said:

A truly shocking report on the melting of the Siberian permafrost:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/national/climate-environment/climate-change-siberia/

It ought to be impossible to read this and still claim climate change is not happening.

Only a few climate change denialists still deny that climate change is happening.

Most have moved on to denying other things.

Some are accepting that climate change is happening, but are now denying that the changing climate is any detriment ("look, we can now grow wine in yorkshire, splendid").

Others are accepting that climate change is happening and that it is detrimental, but are now denying that it has anything to do with human activity, so that they can now deny the fact that a change in human activity could possibly emeliorate the detriments, or even reverse the trend ("look, CO2 is plant food, the more of it, the better").

And then there are those who accept that climate change is happening, that it is detrimental and that a change in human behaviour could possibly change something about it, but have moved on to denying that the detriments of climate change will present any economic challenge, so that they can argue from the premise that doing anything against climate change will be an additional, unbearable cost, compared to doing nothing ("look, we just can't afford it").

And then there are, of course, those who say that their own, tiny country is only contributing such a small amount of the climate changing emissions, that changing anything wouldn't make an impact anyway ("look, the Chinese are emitting so much more than us, because they have stolen all those wonderful jobs in industrial production").

These people then usually seize the opportunity to deny the fact that their own prosperous, developed countries owe the largest part of their prosperity and development to that human activity which has caused climate change in the first place and that we should therefor take the first step to do something against the consequences.

So many things to choose from, and we really seem to have a penchant for denial.

Is it so surprising that most people are resisting 'solutions' that will see them facing potentially huge and detrimental lifestyle changes whilst a privileged few carry on as before.

The correct way forward is investing in new technology, humans have always innovated their way into the future.

The problem is that most of the evangelical activists want us to take several steps backwards. But not them, obviously, they'll still fly around the world in private jets preaching - or taking a boat that requires six other people flying to make the trip happen.

Foxy

Sandpit said:

felix said:

matthiasfromhamburg said:

Nigelb said:

A truly shocking report on the melting of the Siberian permafrost:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/national/climate-environment/climate-change-siberia/

It ought to be impossible to read this and still claim climate change is not happening.

Only a few climate change denialists still deny that climate change is happening.

Most have moved on to denying other things.

Some are accepting that climate change is happening, but are now denying that the changing climate is any detriment ("look, we can now grow wine in yorkshire, splendid").

Others are accepting that climate change is happening and that it is detrimental, but are now denying that it has anything to do with human activity, so that they can now deny the fact that a change in human activity could possibly emeliorate the detriments, or even reverse the trend ("look, CO2 is plant food, the more of it, the better").

And then there are those who accept that climate change is happening, that it is detrimental and that a change in human behaviour could possibly change something about it, but have moved on to denying that the detriments of climate change will present any economic challenge, so that they can argue from the premise that doing anything against climate change will be an additional, unbearable cost, compared to doing nothing ("look, we just can't afford it").

And then there are, of course, those who say that their own, tiny country is only contributing such a small amount of the climate changing emissions, that changing anything wouldn't make an impact anyway ("look, the Chinese are emitting so much more than us, because they have stolen all those wonderful jobs in industrial production").

These people then usually seize the opportunity to deny the fact that their own prosperous, developed countries owe the largest part of their prosperity and development to that human activity which has caused climate change in the first place and that we should therefor take the first step to do something against the consequences.

So many things to choose from, and we really seem to have a penchant for denial.

Is it so surprising that most people are resisting 'solutions' that will see them facing potentially huge and detrimental lifestyle changes whilst a privileged few carry on as before.

The correct way forward is investing in new technology, humans have always innovated their way into the future.

The problem is that most of the evangelical activists want us to take several steps backwards. But not them, obviously, they'll still fly around the world in private jets preaching - or taking a boat that requires six other people flying to make the trip happen.

Ah, the blame the messenger stage of denial...

Ishmael_Z

matthiasfromhamburg said:

Nigelb said:

A truly shocking report on the melting of the Siberian permafrost:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/national/climate-environment/climate-change-siberia/

It ought to be impossible to read this and still claim climate change is not happening.

Only a few climate change denialists still deny that climate change is happening.

Most have moved on to denying other things.

Some are accepting that climate change is happening, but are now denying that the changing climate is any detriment ("look, we can now grow wine in yorkshire, splendid").

Others are accepting that climate change is happening and that it is detrimental, but are now denying that it has anything to do with human activity, so that they can now deny the fact that a change in human activity could possibly emeliorate the detriments, or even reverse the trend ("look, CO2 is plant food, the more of it, the better").

And then there are those who accept that climate change is happening, that it is detrimental and that a change in human behaviour could possibly change something about it, but have moved on to denying that the detriments of climate change will present any economic challenge, so that they can argue from the premise that doing anything against climate change will be an additional, unbearable cost, compared to doing nothing ("look, we just can't afford it").

And then there are, of course, those who say that their own, tiny country is only contributing such a small amount of the climate changing emissions, that changing anything wouldn't make an impact anyway ("look, the Chinese are emitting so much more than us, because they have stolen all those wonderful jobs in industrial production").

These people then usually seize the opportunity to deny the fact that their own prosperous, developed countries owe the largest part of their prosperity and development to that human activity which has caused climate change in the first place and that we should therefor take the first step to do something against the consequences.

So many things to choose from, and we really seem to have a penchant for denial.

Well, yes, any statement is a denial, because "not X" is a denial of X and "X" is a denial of "not X", so what you have been sold is a handy little kit which enables you to label any statement you think you disagree with as denial. Well done. And you have been sold it so well that, although I am sure you would agree with the general propositions that the world is not fully understood and the future is unknowable, you believe that an exception applies in this case because ....because what, I have no idea.

felix

Sandpit said:

felix said:

matthiasfromhamburg said:

Nigelb said:

A truly shocking report on the melting of the Siberian permafrost:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/national/climate-environment/climate-change-siberia/

It ought to be impossible to read this and still claim climate change is not happening.

Only a few climate change denialists still deny that climate change is happening.

Most have moved on to denying other things.

Some are accepting that climate change is happening, but are now denying that the changing climate is any detriment ("look, we can now grow wine in yorkshire, splendid").

And then there are those who accept that climate change is happening, that it is detrimental and that a change in human behaviour could possibly change something about it, but have moved on to denying that the detriments of climate change will present any economic challenge, so that they can argue from the premise that doing anything against climate change will be an additional, unbearable cost, compared to doing nothing ("look, we just can't afford it").

And then there are, of course, those who say that their own, tiny country is only contributing such a small amount of the climate changing emissions, that changing anything wouldn't make an impact anyway ("look, the Chinese are emitting so much more than us, because they have stolen all those wonderful jobs in industrial production").

These people then usually seize the opportunity to deny the fact that their own prosperous, developed countries owe the largest part of their prosperity and development to that human activity which has caused climate change in the first place and that we should therefor take the first step to do something against the consequences.

So many things to choose from, and we really seem to have a penchant for denial.

Is it so surprising that most people are resisting 'solutions' that will see them facing potentially huge and detrimental lifestyle changes whilst a privileged few carry on as before.

The correct way forward is investing in new technology, humans have always innovated their way into the future.

The problem is that most of the evangelical activists want us to take several steps backwards. But not them, obviously, they'll still fly around the world in private jets preaching - or taking a boat that requires six other people flying to make the trip happen.

Exactly - regressive, backwards looking conservatives with a small c - and utterly clueless in their desire to signal virtue for all to see - when it suits them.

felix

Foxy said:

Sandpit said:

felix said:

matthiasfromhamburg said:

Nigelb said:

A truly shocking report on the melting of the Siberian permafrost:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/national/climate-environment/climate-change-siberia/

It ought to be impossible to read this and still claim climate change is not happening.

Only a few climate change denialists still deny that climate change is happening.

Most have moved on to denying other things.

Some are accepting that climate change is happening, but are now denying that the changing climate is any detriment ("look, we can now grow wine in yorkshire, splendid").

And then there are those who accept that climate change is happening, that it is detrimental and that a change in human behaviour could possibly change something about it, but have moved on to denying that the detriments of climate change will present any economic challenge, so that they can argue from the premise that doing anything against climate change will be an additional, unbearable cost, compared to doing nothing ("look, we just can't afford it").

And then there are, of course, those who say that their own, tiny country is only contributing such a small amount of the climate changing emissions, that changing anything wouldn't make an impact anyway ("look, the Chinese are emitting so much more than us, because they have stolen all those wonderful jobs in industrial production").

These people then usually seize the opportunity to deny the fact that their own prosperous, developed countries owe the largest part of their prosperity and development to that human activity which has caused climate change in the first place and that we should therefor take the first step to do something against the consequences.

So many things to choose from, and we really seem to have a penchant for denial.

Is it so surprising that most people are resisting 'solutions' that will see them facing potentially huge and detrimental lifestyle changes whilst a privileged few carry on as before.

The correct way forward is investing in new technology, humans have always innovated their way into the future.

The problem is that most of the evangelical activists want us to take several steps backwards. But not them, obviously, they'll still fly around the world in private jets preaching - or taking a boat that requires six other people flying to make the trip happen.

Ah, the blame the messenger stage of denial...

Did you not notice the first sentence?

Casino_Royale

Nigelb said:

A truly shocking report on the melting of the Siberian permafrost:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/national/climate-environment/climate-change-siberia/

It ought to be impossible to read this and still claim climate change is not happening.

People on the right can sometimes deny climate change because people on the Left are far too nakedly transparent in exploiting it to gain political capital.

To stick, it needs to be depoliticised and made just about the science and technological solutions. Just as it was for CFCs in the late 80s.

ydoethur

matthiasfromhamburg said:

Others are accepting that climate change is happening and that it is detrimental, but are now denying that it has anything to do with human activity, so that they can now deny the fact that a change in human activity could possibly emeliorate the detriments, or even reverse the trend ("look, CO2 is plant food, the more of it, the better").

There's clearly something strange and extremely dangerous happening to Britain's plant life. They have taken over both government and opposition. They need to be stopped before it goes any further.

Sandpit

Foxy said:

Sandpit said:

felix said:

matthiasfromhamburg said:

Nigelb said:

..

.

Is it so surprising that most people are resisting 'solutions' that will see them facing potentially huge and detrimental lifestyle changes whilst a privileged few carry on as before.

The correct way forward is investing in new technology, humans have always innovated their way into the future.

The problem is that most of the evangelical activists want us to take several steps backwards. But not them, obviously, they'll still fly around the world in private jets preaching - or taking a boat that requires six other people flying to make the trip happen.

Ah, the blame the messenger stage of denial...

Not at all, but I'll believe that people are serious about actually changing behaviours when one of these climate "conferences" is done by video link. That would send a message that it's not all about rich people wanting only the rest of us to change.

What governments need to do is to nurture the new technologies. Massive strides have been taken in the technology associated with solar, wind, batteries and nuclear in recent years, even more efficient gas power stations replacing old coal-fired equipment. Incentives have been provided to buy electric cars and insulate homes. Technology even appears in unusual places, modern F1 car engines for example are massively fuel-efficient, and that technology is fast moving down to regular road cars which consume a lot less fuel than they did only three or four years ago.

The two biggest challenges for the UK government are how the power grid will cope with widespread electric car use, and how to replace the 5% of total government income that comes from fuel duty and VED when we all drive electric cars.

Foxy

felix said:

Foxy said:

Sandpit said:

felix said:

matthiasfromhamburg said:

Nigelb said:

A truly shocking report on the melting of the Siberian permafrost:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/national/climate-environment/climate-change-siberia/

It ought to be impossible to read this and still claim climate change is not happening.

Only a few climate change denialists still deny that climate change is happening.

Most have moved on to denying other things.

Some are accepting that climate change is happening, but are now denying that the changing climate is any detriment ("look, we can now grow wine in yorkshire, splendid").

And then there are those who accept that climate change is happening, that it is detrimental and that a change in human behaviour could possibly change something about it, but have moved on to denying that the detriments of climate change will present any economic challenge, so that they can argue from the premise that doing anything against climate change will be an additional, unbearable cost, compared to doing nothing ("look, we just can't afford it").
So many things to choose from, and we really seem to have a penchant for denial.

Is it so surprising that most people are resisting 'solutions' that will see them facing potentially huge and detrimental lifestyle changes whilst a privileged few carry on as before.

The correct way forward is investing in new technology, humans have always innovated their way into the future.

The problem is that most of the evangelical activists want us to take several steps backwards. But not them, obviously, they'll still fly around the world in private jets preaching - or taking a boat that requires six other people flying to make the trip happen.

Ah, the blame the messenger stage of denial...

Did you not notice the first sentence?

It would have a little more credibility if it didn't come from an aviation specialist, formula 1 fan working in a Petro-state.

Sure, science and reforestation are parts of the answer to climate change, but they are also excuses to do nothing used by people who want nothing to be done.

Casino_Royale

AlastairMeeks said:

Yellow_Submarine said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Here’s a question. Imagine Britain does not leave the EU on 31 October. Imagine further that you are Jeremy Corbyn. Do you want to have an election immediately and if so do you want a short or long campaign?

Not immediately and a long campaign.

My view too. Which means that a 2019 election is far too short-priced.

It is. Unfortunately, I’ve been forced to sell a bit of my position as my daughter starts nursery this month and I couldn’t afford to keep all the cash in float.

Sandpit

Foxy said:

felix said:

Foxy said:

Sandpit said:

felix said:

matthiasfromhamburg said:

Nigelb said:

A truly shocking report on the melting of the Siberian permafrost:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/national/climate-environment/climate-change-siberia/

It ought to be impossible to read this and still claim climate change is not happening.

Only a few climate change denialists still deny that climate change is happening.

Most have moved on to denying other things.

Some are accepting that climate change is happening, but are now denying that the changing climate is any detriment ("look, we can now grow wine in yorkshire, splendid").

And then there are those who accept that climate change is happening, that it is detrimental and that a change in human behaviour could possibly change something about it, but have moved on to denying that the detriments of climate change will present any economic challenge, so that they can argue from the premise that doing anything against climate change will be an additional, unbearable cost, compared to doing nothing ("look, we just can't afford it").
So many things to choose from, and we really seem to have a penchant for denial.

Is it so surprising that most people are resisting 'solutions' that will see them facing potentially huge and detrimental lifestyle changes whilst a privileged few carry on as before.

The correct way forward is investing in new technology, humans have always innovated their way into the future.

The problem is that most of the evangelical activists want us to take several steps backwards. But not them, obviously, they'll still fly around the world in private jets preaching - or taking a boat that requires six other people flying to make the trip happen.

Ah, the blame the messenger stage of denial...

Did you not notice the first sentence?

It would have a little more credibility if it didn't come from an aviation specialist, formula 1 fan working in a Petro-state.

Sure, science and reforestation are parts of the answer to climate change, but they are also excuses to do nothing used by people who want nothing to be done.

What did you say earlier about playing the man not the ball?

Aviation and motorsport are hotbeds of engineering excellence, constantly innovating to find efficiencies and improvements. They also provide hundreds of thousands of well-paying jobs in the UK, and billions in tax revenues to the Exchequer.

Oh, and the two largest solar energy arrays in the world have opened this year - in Dubai and Abu Dhabi.

AlastairMeeks

ydoethur said:

matthiasfromhamburg said:

Others are accepting that climate change is happening and that it is detrimental, but are now denying that it has anything to do with human activity, so that they can now deny the fact that a change in human activity could possibly emeliorate the detriments, or even reverse the trend ("look, CO2 is plant food, the more of it, the better").

There's clearly something strange and extremely dangerous happening to Britain's plant life. They have taken over both government and opposition. They need to be stopped before it goes any further.

Parliament of the Triffids.

Ishmael_Z

Foxy said:

felix said:

Foxy said:

Sandpit said:

felix said:

matthiasfromhamburg said:

Nigelb said:

A truly shocking report on the melting of the Siberian permafrost:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/national/climate-environment/climate-change-siberia/

It ought to be impossible to read this and still claim climate change is not happening.

Only a few climate change denialists still deny that climate change is happening.

Most have moved on to denying other things.

Some are accepting that climate change is happening, but are now denying that the changing climate is any detriment ("look, we can now grow wine in yorkshire, splendid").

And then there are those who accept that climate change is happening, that it is detrimental and that a change in human behaviour could possibly change something about it, but have moved on to denying that the detriments of climate change will present any economic challenge, so that they can argue from the premise that doing anything against climate change will be an additional, unbearable cost, compared to doing nothing ("look, we just can't afford it").
So many things to choose from, and we really seem to have a penchant for denial.

Is it so surprising that most people are resisting 'solutions' that will see them facing potentially huge and detrimental lifestyle changes whilst a privileged few carry on as before.

The correct way forward is investing in new technology, humans have always innovated their way into the future.

The problem is that most of the evangelical activists want us to take several steps backwards. But not them, obviously, they'll still fly around the world in private jets preaching - or taking a boat that requires six other people flying to make the trip happen.

Ah, the blame the messenger stage of denial...

Did you not notice the first sentence?

It would have a little more credibility if it didn't come from an aviation specialist, formula 1 fan working in a Petro-state.

Sure, science and reforestation are parts of the answer to climate change, but they are also excuses to do nothing used by people who want nothing to be done.

How do you get on with going everywhere by bicycle?

Casino_Royale

felix said:

matthiasfromhamburg said:

Nigelb said:

A truly shocking report on the melting of the Siberian permafrost:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/national/climate-environment/climate-change-siberia/

It ought to be impossible to read this and still claim climate change is not happening.

Only a few climate change denialists still deny that climate change is happening.

Most have moved on to denying other things.

Some are accepting that climate change is happening, but are now denying that the changing climate is any detriment ("look, we can now grow wine in yorkshire, splendid").

Others are accepting that climate change is happening and that it is detrimental, but are now denying that it has anything to do with human activity, so that they can now deny the fact that a change in human activity could possibly emeliorate the detriments, or even reverse the trend ("look, CO2 is plant food, the more of it, the better").

And then there are those who accept that climate change is happening, that it is detrimental and that a change in human behaviour could possibly change something about it, but have moved on to denying that the detriments of climate change will present any economic challenge, so that they can argue from the premise that doing anything against climate change will be an additional, unbearable cost, compared to doing nothing ("look, we just can't afford it").

And then there are, of course, those who say that their own, tiny country is only contributing such a small amount of the climate changing emissions, that changing anything wouldn't make an impact anyway ("look, the Chinese are emitting so much more than us, because they have stolen all those wonderful jobs in industrial production").

These people then usually seize the opportunity to deny the fact that their own prosperous, developed countries owe the largest part of their prosperity and development to that human activity which has caused climate change in the first place and that we should therefor take the first step to do something against the consequences.

So many things to choose from, and we really seem to have a penchant for denial.

Is it so surprising that most people are resisting 'solutions' that will see them facing potentially huge and detrimental lifestyle changes whilst a privileged few carry on as before.

Quite. At the moment several of the most high profile activists are catastrophising and saying to stop it we will no longer be able to eat meat, travel in our own vehicles or go on foreign holidays. Those are the mild ones. The more extreme ones think we shouldn’t have children anymore.

Why wouldn’t that fuel ferocious resistance?

matthiasfromhamburg

felix said:

matthiasfromhamburg said:

Nigelb said:

A truly shocking report on the melting of the Siberian permafrost:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/national/climate-environment/climate-change-siberia/

It ought to be impossible to read this and still claim climate change is not happening.

Only a few climate change denialists still deny that climate change is happening.

Most have moved on to denying other things.

Some are accepting that climate change is happening, but are now denying that the changing climate is any detriment ("look, we can now grow wine in yorkshire, splendid").

Others are accepting that climate change is happening and that it is detrimental, but are now denying that it has anything to do with human activity, so that they can now deny the fact that a change in human activity could possibly emeliorate the detriments, or even reverse the trend ("look, CO2 is plant food, the more of it, the better").

And then there are those who accept that climate change is happening, that it is detrimental and that a change in human behaviour could possibly change something about it, but have moved on to denying that the detriments of climate change will present any economic challenge, so that they can argue from the premise that doing anything against climate change will be an additional, unbearable cost, compared to doing nothing ("look, we just can't afford it").

And then there are, of course, those who say that their own, tiny country is only contributing such a small amount of the climate changing emissions, that changing anything wouldn't make an impact anyway ("look, the Chinese are emitting so much more than us, because they have stolen all those wonderful jobs in industrial production").

These people then usually seize the opportunity to deny the fact that their own prosperous, developed countries owe the largest part of their prosperity and development to that human activity which has caused climate change in the first place and that we should therefor take the first step to do something against the consequences.

So many things to choose from, and we really seem to have a penchant for denial.

Is it so surprising that most people are resisting 'solutions' that will see them facing potentially huge and detrimental lifestyle changes whilst a privileged few carry on as before.

When everything gets more expensive the poor will be hurt more than the rich.
That's why the costs of acting against climate change should, at least partly, be balanced by socially fair redistributive measures, I agree.

But how "huge" exactly are the lifestyle changes?
And who exactly are the "few who can carry on as before"?
And what exactly would be the alternative? Doing nothing?

Casino_Royale

matthiasfromhamburg said:

Nigelb said:

A truly shocking report on the melting of the Siberian permafrost:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/national/climate-environment/climate-change-siberia/

It ought to be impossible to read this and still claim climate change is not happening.

Only a few climate change denialists still deny that climate change is happening.

Most have moved on to denying other things.

Some are accepting that climate change is happening, but are now denying that the changing climate is any detriment ("look, we can now grow wine in yorkshire, splendid").

Others are accepting that climate change is happening and that it is detrimental, but are now denying that it has anything to do with human activity, so that they can now deny the fact that a change in human activity could possibly emeliorate the detriments, or even reverse the trend ("look, CO2 is plant food, the more of it, the better").

And then there are those who accept that climate change is happening, that it is detrimental and that a change in human behaviour could possibly change something about it, but have moved on to denying that the detriments of climate change will present any economic challenge, so that they can argue from the premise that doing anything against climate change will be an additional, unbearable cost, compared to doing nothing ("look, we just can't afford it").

And then there are, of course, those who say that their own, tiny country is only contributing such a small amount of the climate changing emissions, that changing anything wouldn't make an impact anyway ("look, the Chinese are emitting so much more than us, because they have stolen all those wonderful jobs in industrial production").

These people then usually seize the opportunity to deny the fact that their own prosperous, developed countries owe the largest part of their prosperity and development to that human activity which has caused climate change in the first place and that we should therefor take the first step to do something against the consequences.

So many things to choose from, and we really seem to have a penchant for denial.

The definition is applied fairly narrowly to those who deny the scientific facts that climate change is occurring in the first place.

The rest is policy.

Gallowgate

Nigelb said:

A truly shocking report on the melting of the Siberian permafrost:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/national/climate-environment/climate-change-siberia/

It ought to be impossible to read this and still claim climate change is not happening.

Its okay. Capitalism will save us.

OldKingCole

We're having a Queens Speech on Monday are we not? Which, if it isn't going to be a one-liner, has to contain some proposals, which may well, of course, be party hard tomorrow and pay for it some time in the distant future, but must, surely, contain some indication of what Boris and his 'team' want to do about relations with the EU.

kamski

Sandpit said:

felix said:

matthiasfromhamburg said:

Nigelb said:

.

Is it so surprising that most people are resisting 'solutions' that will see them facing potentially huge and detrimental lifestyle changes whilst a privileged few carry on as before.

The correct way forward is investing in new technology, humans have always innovated their way into the future.

The problem is that most of the evangelical activists want us to take several steps backwards. But not them, obviously, they'll still fly around the world in private jets preaching - or taking a boat that requires six other people flying to make the trip happen.

The problem is really not the evangelical activists. The problem is the failure of politicians to take the action needed to stop burning fossil fuels. We need to focus on putting pressure on the politicians (and others) to take action. At least vote for people who will make it a priority, write to your MP, become an activist if you can.

matthiasfromhamburg

Ishmael_Z said:

matthiasfromhamburg said:

Nigelb said:

A truly shocking report on the melting of the Siberian permafrost:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/national/climate-environment/climate-change-siberia/

It ought to be impossible to read this and still claim climate change is not happening.

Only a few climate change denialists still deny that climate change is happening.

Most have moved on to denying other things.

Some are accepting that climate change is happening, but are now denying that the changing climate is any detriment ("look, we can now grow wine in yorkshire, splendid").

Others are accepting that climate change is happening and that it is detrimental, but are now denying that it has anything to do with human activity, so that they can now deny the fact that a change in human activity could possibly emeliorate the detriments, or even reverse the trend ("look, CO2 is plant food, the more of it, the better").

And then there are those who accept that climate change is happening, that it is detrimental and that a change in human behaviour could possibly change something about it, but have moved on to denying that the detriments of climate change will present any economic challenge, so that they can argue from the premise that doing anything against climate change will be an additional, unbearable cost, compared to doing nothing ("look, we just can't afford it").

And then there are, of course, those who say that their own, tiny country is only contributing such a small amount of the climate changing emissions, that changing anything wouldn't make an impact anyway ("look, the Chinese are emitting so much more than us, because they have stolen all those wonderful jobs in industrial production").

These people then usually seize the opportunity to deny the fact that their own prosperous, developed countries owe the largest part of their prosperity and development to that human activity which has caused climate change in the first place and that we should therefor take the first step to do something against the consequences.

So many things to choose from, and we really seem to have a penchant for denial.

Well, yes, any statement is a denial, because "not X" is a denial of X and "X" is a denial of "not X", so what you have been sold is a handy little kit which enables you to label any statement you think you disagree with as denial. Well done. And you have been sold it so well that, although I am sure you would agree with the general propositions that the world is not fully understood and the future is unknowable, you believe that an exception applies in this case because ....because what, I have no idea.

The world as a whole is not fully understood, but many things are, eg. the heat retention properties of CO2.

SouthamObserver

Casino_Royale said:

Nigelb said:

A truly shocking report on the melting of the Siberian permafrost:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/national/climate-environment/climate-change-siberia/

It ought to be impossible to read this and still claim climate change is not happening.

People on the right can sometimes deny climate change because people on the Left are far too nakedly transparent in exploiting it to gain political capital.

To stick, it needs to be depoliticised and made just about the science and technological solutions. Just as it was for CFCs in the late 80s.

I largely agree with this. Technology is a huge part of the solution to the mess we have created. However, we also need to find ways of tackling egregious assalts on the environment, such as the burning of the Amazon and forests across Asia.

What won’t work is shouting in people’s faces.

rottenborough

Morning all

Pulpstar

One way to make people respond to climate change solutions is cold hard cash.
Anyway it was a big positive for me to buy a house with solar on the roof, and my better half's decision to use that solar to power 2 big fish tanks.
No air con at my work, and in terms of carbon my diesel is clean enough (Thanks El Gordo/Dave for the £30 a year VED).
All the pets with their footprint I'm blaming on my fiancee

I reckon on this board Morris Dancer and/or Sunil probably have the smallest carbon footprint.
But because they're Brexiteers and occasional Tories they don't pass the woke test meaning their 1.5 tonnes of carbon per year are clearly worse than Prince Harry's 100 tonnes or whatever it is he makes with his private jet trips.

Anyway thanks to Golden Brown I'll be getting a bit more cash by next week when I give another FIT reading.

On the holidays, we do UK 1 year then foreign the next - there's much to see on these isles.

AlastairMeeks

As usual, it’s and not or. Technology is going to play a big part of the response to the climate change crisis. And so is a big change of mindset about the externalities of our daily activities.

ydoethur

SouthamObserver said:

Casino_Royale said:

Nigelb said:

A truly shocking report on the melting of the Siberian permafrost:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/national/climate-environment/climate-change-siberia/

It ought to be impossible to read this and still claim climate change is not happening.

People on the right can sometimes deny climate change because people on the Left are far too nakedly transparent in exploiting it to gain political capital.

To stick, it needs to be depoliticised and made just about the science and technological solutions. Just as it was for CFCs in the late 80s.

I largely agree with this. Technology is a huge part of the solution to the mess we have created. However, we also need to find ways of tackling egregious assalts on the environment, such as the burning of the Amazon and forests across Asia.

What won’t work is shouting in people’s faces.

Depends what their goal is. If their goal is to look like dimwitted posturing hypocrites, it's working.

If they're in the pay of big oil, trying to make people hate climate change protestors, then it's also working.

If their goal is to get people talking, it's also working.

If it's actually to make changes happen, then it's the most disastrous failure since King Canute tampered with tidal power.

TOPPING

Foxy said:

felix said:

Foxy said:

Sandpit said:

felix said:

matthiasfromhamburg said:

Nigelb said:

A truly shocking report on the melting of the Siberian permafrost:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/national/climate-environment/climate-change-siberia/

It ought to be impossible to read this and still claim climate change is not happening.

Only a few climate change denialists still deny that climate change is happening.

Most have moved on to denying other things.

Some are accepting that climate change is happening, but are now denying that the changing climate is any detriment ("look, we can now grow wine in yorkshire, splendid").

And then there are those who accept that climate change is happening, that it is detrimental and that a change in human behaviour could possibly change something about it, but have moved on to denying that the detriments of climate change will present any economic challenge, so that they can argue from the premise that doing anything against climate change will be an additional, unbearable cost, compared to doing nothing ("look, we just can't afford it").
So many things to choose from, and we really seem to have a penchant for denial.

Is it so surprising that most people are resisting 'solutions' that will see them facing potentially huge and detrimental lifestyle changes whilst a privileged few carry on as before.

The correct way forward is investing in new technology, humans have always innovated their way into the future.

The problem is that most of the evangelical activists want us to take several steps backwards. But not them, obviously, they'll still fly around the world in private jets preaching - or taking a boat that requires six other people flying to make the trip happen.

Ah, the blame the messenger stage of denial...

Did you not notice the first sentence?

It would have a little more credibility if it didn't come from an aviation specialist, formula 1 fan working in a Petro-state.

Sure, science and reforestation are parts of the answer to climate change, but they are also excuses to do nothing used by people who want nothing to be done.

Who are these "people"?

You and me. How much are we changing? Really?

(Cue PBers explaining how they have only ever been to Skeggy on holiday and recently relagged their lofts.)

TGOHF2

Can Corbyn survive not calling a 2019 election - he will be ridiculed once more.

TGOHF2

Casino_Royale said:

Nigelb said:

A truly shocking report on the melting of the Siberian permafrost:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/national/climate-environment/climate-change-siberia/

It ought to be impossible to read this and still claim climate change is not happening.

People on the right can sometimes deny climate change because people on the Left are far too nakedly transparent in exploiting it to gain political capital.

To stick, it needs to be depoliticised and made just about the science and technological solutions. Just as it was for CFCs in the late 80s.

Religions don’t want solutions...

ydoethur

TGOHF2 said:

Can Corbyn survive not calling a 2019 election.

Yes.

Gallowgate

TGOHF2 said:

Can Corbyn survive not calling a 2019 election - he will be ridiculed once more.

Why would he care if he’s ridiculed by Boris? The public do not care.

Gardenwalker

SouthamObserver said:

Casino_Royale said:

Nigelb said:

A truly shocking report on the melting of the Siberian permafrost:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/national/climate-environment/climate-change-siberia/

It ought to be impossible to read this and still claim climate change is not happening.

People on the right can sometimes deny climate change because people on the Left are far too nakedly transparent in exploiting it to gain political capital.

To stick, it needs to be depoliticised and made just about the science and technological solutions. Just as it was for CFCs in the late 80s.

I largely agree with this. Technology is a huge part of the solution to the mess we have created. However, we also need to find ways of tackling egregious assalts on the environment, such as the burning of the Amazon and forests across Asia.

What won’t work is shouting in people’s faces.

Although, shouting in people’s faces has us talking about it more than ever.

SouthamObserver

AlastairMeeks said:

Here’s a question. Imagine Britain does not leave the EU on 31 October. Imagine further that you are Jeremy Corbyn. Do you want to have an election immediately and if so do you want a short or long campaign?

I think if you are Jeremy Corbyn you believe you are a brilliant campaigner who will close any gap with Boris Johnson during an election campaign and that the British people are crying out for socialism. You therefore want an election asap. If it were down to him, that is what would happen. But it isn’t. The more strategic minds of much smarter people, such as John McDonnell, may see things differently. Do not underestimate the importance of Karie Murphy’s humiliation yesterday. That was very clearly a McDonnell play.

Scrapheap_as_was

So leave EU have deleted that tweet....

matthiasfromhamburg

Casino_Royale said:

matthiasfromhamburg said:

Nigelb said:

A truly shocking report on the melting of the Siberian permafrost:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/national/climate-environment/climate-change-siberia/

It ought to be impossible to read this and still claim climate change is not happening.

Only a few climate change denialists still deny that climate change is happening.

Most have moved on to denying other things.

Some are accepting that climate change is happening, but are now denying that the changing climate is any detriment ("look, we can now grow wine in yorkshire, splendid").

Others are accepting that climate change is happening and that it is detrimental, but are now denying that it has anything to do with human activity, so that they can now deny the fact that a change in human activity could possibly emeliorate the detriments, or even reverse the trend ("look, CO2 is plant food, the more of it, the better").

And then there are those who accept that climate change is happening, that it is detrimental and that a change in human behaviour could possibly change something about it, but have moved on to denying that the detriments of climate change will present any economic challenge, so that they can argue from the premise that doing anything against climate change will be an additional, unbearable cost, compared to doing nothing ("look, we just can't afford it").

And then there are, of course, those who say that their own, tiny country is only contributing such a small amount of the climate changing emissions, that changing anything wouldn't make an impact anyway ("look, the Chinese are emitting so much more than us, because they have stolen all those wonderful jobs in industrial production").

These people then usually seize the opportunity to deny the fact that their own prosperous, developed countries owe the largest part of their prosperity and development to that human activity which has caused climate change in the first place and that we should therefor take the first step to do something against the consequences.

So many things to choose from, and we really seem to have a penchant for denial.

The definition is applied fairly narrowly to those who deny the scientific facts that climate change is occurring in the first place.

The rest is policy.

Agreed.

OnlyLivingBoy

Foxy said:

Good article by Ian Dunt:

"Cummings is making the same mistake on organisational cooperation. That’s partly why he and his allies have been so startled by Ireland’s prominence during negotiations. Their entire working assumption about world politics was that international cooperation sucked power from the nation state"

https://twitter.com/IanDunt/status/1181607560832602112?s=19

Lack of empathy is such a startling feature of those at the top of this government. I don't know whether it reflects the personality type that is drawn to Brexit and Conservative politics, or whether it is some systematic flaw in private school education. The good news for the rest of us is that it might be their undoing.

eek

Scrapheap_as_was said:

So leave EU have deleted that tweet....

It's job has been done now it's time to destroy the evidence.

Think Boris and his painting model buses hobby.

ydoethur

Gardenwalker said:

SouthamObserver said:

Casino_Royale said:

Nigelb said:

A truly shocking report on the melting of the Siberian permafrost:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/national/climate-environment/climate-change-siberia/

It ought to be impossible to read this and still claim climate change is not happening.

People on the right can sometimes deny climate change because people on the Left are far too nakedly transparent in exploiting it to gain political capital.

To stick, it needs to be depoliticised and made just about the science and technological solutions. Just as it was for CFCs in the late 80s.

I largely agree with this. Technology is a huge part of the solution to the mess we have created. However, we also need to find ways of tackling egregious assalts on the environment, such as the burning of the Amazon and forests across Asia.

What won’t work is shouting in people’s faces.

Although, shouting in people’s faces has us talking about it more than ever.

It has us talking about what we could do. But the conversation has to be moved on to what we need to do, and because they are personally loathsome that isn't happening.

It will happen eventually, but probably rather later than it needs to.

Pulpstar

I reckon Elon Musk has done the most for climate change. Catalysing the motor vehicle industry to move toward electric is absolutely seismic.

Andy_JS

I still think there's a chance the LDs can overtake Labour in the popular vote as far as the opinion polls are concerned, especially if we don't have an election this year.

TOPPING

Casino_Royale said:

matthiasfromhamburg said:

Nigelb said:

A truly shocking report on the melting of the Siberian permafrost:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/national/climate-environment/climate-change-siberia/

It ought to be impossible to read this and still claim climate change is not happening.

Only a few climate change denialists still deny that climate change is happening.

Most have moved on to denying other things.

Some are accepting that climate change is happening, but are now denying that the changing climate is any detriment ("look, we can now grow wine in yorkshire, splendid").

Others are accepting that climate change is happening and that it is detrimental, but are now denying that it has anything to do with human activity, so that they can now deny the fact that a change in human activity could possibly emeliorate the detriments, or even reverse the trend ("look, CO2 is plant food, the more of it, the better").

And then there are those who accept that climate change is happening, that it is detrimental and that a change in human behaviour could possibly change something about it, but have moved on to denying that the detriments of climate change will present any economic challenge, so that they can argue from the premise that doing anything against climate change will be an additional, unbearable cost, compared to doing nothing ("look, we just can't afford it").

And then there are, of course, those who say that their own, tiny country is only contributing such a small amount of the climate changing emissions, that changing anything wouldn't make an impact anyway ("look, the Chinese are emitting so much more than us, because they have stolen all those wonderful jobs in industrial production").

These people then usually seize the opportunity to deny the fact that their own prosperous, developed countries owe the largest part of their prosperity and development to that human activity which has caused climate change in the first place and that we should therefor take the first step to do something against the consequences.

So many things to choose from, and we really seem to have a penchant for denial.

The definition is applied fairly narrowly to those who deny the scientific facts that climate change is occurring in the first place.

The rest is policy.

Just started Sapiens which as a populist history book is fine.

Can't move in the first quarter of the book without him describing historic and pre historic climate change.

Do we know how much is us now and how much them?

Paristonda

I'm somewhat surprised at the outrage the Leave EU poster has generated. They veered off the deep end a long time ago, when I first saw it on twitter I of course thought it was pathetic and rude, but par for the course with them. It seems to have sparked such a huge backlash that even Arron Banks has tweeted (in a debate with piers Morgan on the issue) saying that it went too far and will be deleted.

Im not defending the poster but it seems to be the kind of thing you would expect to see as a Sun headline, similar to all the Cheese Eating Surrender Monkey references you used to see about the French after Iraq.

OnlyLivingBoy

Scrapheap_as_was said:

So leave EU have deleted that tweet....

Shame, it was Brexit in its essential form.

ydoethur

eek said:

Scrapheap_as_was said:

So leave EU have deleted that tweet....

It's job has been done now it's time to destroy the evidence.

Think Boris and his painting model buses hobby.

If they think they can delete a viral tweet, then they're even dafter than I thought.

Pulpstar

Scrapheap_as_was said:

So leave EU have deleted that tweet....

Sauerkraut

OblitusSumMe

The Conservatives long ago realised that if you do not give people social reform they will give you social revolution.

The same may well be true of both Brexit and the climate problem.

The only difference with Brexit is that the pressure for revolution is coming from the right of the political spectrum. Something for Remainers (like myself) and those sceptical of the urgency to act to forestall climate change to reflect on.

AlastairMeeks

SouthamObserver said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Here’s a question. Imagine Britain does not leave the EU on 31 October. Imagine further that you are Jeremy Corbyn. Do you want to have an election immediately and if so do you want a short or long campaign?

I think if you are Jeremy Corbyn you believe you are a brilliant campaigner who will close any gap with Boris Johnson during an election campaign and that the British people are crying out for socialism. You therefore want an election asap. If it were down to him, that is what would happen. But it isn’t. The more strategic minds of much smarter people, such as John McDonnell, may see things differently. Do not underestimate the importance of Karie Murphy’s humiliation yesterday. That was very clearly a McDonnell play.

That answers the first part of the question but not the second - a short or long campaign?

Sandpit

Scrapheap_as_was said:

So leave EU have deleted that tweet....

Good, at least someone had enough nous to realise this sort of stuff doesn't help their cause - in fact quite the opposite.

rottenborough

https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1181692299828482049

The Queen is about to be dragged into an unprecedented constitutional crisis.

This just gets worse and worse.

Pulpstar

Arron Banks apologising to Piers Morgan

https://twitter.com/Arron_banks/status/1181802838516801542

MaxPB

Gallowgate said:

Nigelb said:

A truly shocking report on the melting of the Siberian permafrost:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/national/climate-environment/climate-change-siberia/

It ought to be impossible to read this and still claim climate change is not happening.

Its okay. Capitalism will save us.

It's got a better chance than socialism.

TOPPING

SouthamObserver said:

Casino_Royale said:

Nigelb said:

A truly shocking report on the melting of the Siberian permafrost:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/national/climate-environment/climate-change-siberia/

It ought to be impossible to read this and still claim climate change is not happening.

People on the right can sometimes deny climate change because people on the Left are far too nakedly transparent in exploiting it to gain political capital.

To stick, it needs to be depoliticised and made just about the science and technological solutions. Just as it was for CFCs in the late 80s.

I largely agree with this. Technology is a huge part of the solution to the mess we have created. However, we also need to find ways of tackling egregious assalts on the environment, such as the burning of the Amazon and forests across Asia.

What won’t work is shouting in people’s faces.

Amazon burning this year only slightly unusual (More or Less, R4). Plus they are developing. Perhaps we should return the UK to a forested islands. Might solve the NI border issue.

Gallowgate

Pulpstar said:

I reckon Elon Musk has done the most for climate change. Catalysing the motor vehicle industry to move toward electric is absolutely seismic.

Agreed, although there is still many questions about the sustainability of the battery technology.

TheKitchenCabinet

ydoethur said:

TGOHF2 said:

Can Corbyn survive not calling a 2019 election.

Yes.

I'm not so sure it is that clear cut. If Labour starts to feel like its vote in Leave seats is starting to shift irrevocably as Leave voters blame it for ensuring the matter is not settled once and for all, they may take a view that it is better to agree to an election now, accept a loss of seats and then regroup for the future with the advantage he will be rid of a fair few of his critics and that the left can get their candidates into those seats the next time round.

ydoethur

Pulpstar said:

Arron Banks apologising to Piers Morgan

https://twitter.com/Arron_banks/status/1181802838516801542

Without wishing to defend Banks, Morgan really is an utter moron, isn't he? Apparently 1977 and 1992 were less than 23 years ago.

OblitusSumMe

SouthamObserver said:

Casino_Royale said:

Nigelb said:

A truly shocking report on the melting of the Siberian permafrost:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/national/climate-environment/climate-change-siberia/

It ought to be impossible to read this and still claim climate change is not happening.

People on the right can sometimes deny climate change because people on the Left are far too nakedly transparent in exploiting it to gain political capital.

To stick, it needs to be depoliticised and made just about the science and technological solutions. Just as it was for CFCs in the late 80s.

I largely agree with this. Technology is a huge part of the solution to the mess we have created. However, we also need to find ways of tackling egregious assalts on the environment, such as the burning of the Amazon and forests across Asia.

What won’t work is shouting in people’s faces.

I suggest actually going to one of these protests and talking to people there. Most people are mostly reasonable and you'll find more people willing to talk on these protests then wanting to shout.

Andy_JS

What are the Lascelles Principles?

Luckyguy1983

Fpt

matthiasfromhamburg said:

Luckyguy1983:

I haven't expressed my opinion on holding a referendum on this issue, but my question to you is, what would your plan be if the electorate of Northern Ireland rejected a customs union with the Republic? I suspect you don't have one, because you don't actually want the people to make the decision, you want the people to give democratic legitimacy to your preferred option. You regard the outcome as a foregone conclusion. That's the same deeply flawed thinking that lead Cameron to hold the EU ref in the first place (Thank the Lord).

Should the proposition of staying in the Customs Union be rejected, the result would be a hard border in Ireland, no way around that.
But they would have themselves decided so, that would still be more fair than anything else.

But a hard border in NI has been declared unacceptable because it is counter to the Good Friday/Belfast agreement. That agreement has many stakeholders, across communities and borders, and I think many would be extremely unhappy if it were to be (as they would see it) overturned by a simple majority poll of NI.

A more likely outcome of the poll not going your way would be that once again, the UK seeks painstakingly to avoid the infrastructure associated with a conventional border, to allow the people of North and South to visit, live, work, on both sides of a largely invisible border. If this would apparently be acceptable then, it should be so now.

logical_song

SouthamObserver said:

Casino_Royale said:

Nigelb said:

A truly shocking report on the melting of the Siberian permafrost:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/national/climate-environment/climate-change-siberia/

It ought to be impossible to read this and still claim climate change is not happening.

People on the right can sometimes deny climate change because people on the Left are far too nakedly transparent in exploiting it to gain political capital.

To stick, it needs to be depoliticised and made just about the science and technological solutions. Just as it was for CFCs in the late 80s.

I largely agree with this. Technology is a huge part of the solution to the mess we have created. However, we also need to find ways of tackling egregious assalts on the environment, such as the burning of the Amazon and forests across Asia.

What won’t work is shouting in people’s faces.

Action on climate Change should be depoliticised and we have the technology to fight against it right now.
If you don't want people to shout in your face then start doing something about it.
I know that the UK is not the worst country in the world and that we have been making some progress, but it's not enough. Allowing fracking, cutting the solar panel feed in tarriff and cancelling the tidal barrage are just three examples where we are going in the wrong direction.

AlastairMeeks

Pulpstar said:

Arron Banks apologising to Piers Morgan

https://twitter.com/Arron_banks/status/1181802838516801542

I think that means we doubly lose the Piers Morgan game.

SouthamObserver

TOPPING said:

SouthamObserver said:

Casino_Royale said:

Nigelb said:

A truly shocking report on the melting of the Siberian permafrost:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/national/climate-environment/climate-change-siberia/

It ought to be impossible to read this and still claim climate change is not happening.

People on the right can sometimes deny climate change because people on the Left are far too nakedly transparent in exploiting it to gain political capital.

To stick, it needs to be depoliticised and made just about the science and technological solutions. Just as it was for CFCs in the late 80s.

I largely agree with this. Technology is a huge part of the solution to the mess we have created. However, we also need to find ways of tackling egregious assalts on the environment, such as the burning of the Amazon and forests across Asia.

What won’t work is shouting in people’s faces.

Amazon burning this year only slightly unusual (More or Less, R4). Plus they are developing. Perhaps we should return the UK to a forested islands. Might solve the NI border issue.

There is more forest in the UK now than there has been for many centúries. It’s a similar story in many other parts of western Europe. We’re actually pretty good at this sort of thing. What we’re really bad at is water conservation and recycling. But that’s another story ...

Sandpit

Pulpstar said:

I reckon Elon Musk has done the most for climate change. Catalysing the motor vehicle industry to move toward electric is absolutely seismic.

Quite. He has his detractors for obvious reasons, but the world really needs more Elon Musks.

JackW

TOPPING said:

Cue PBers explaining how they have only ever been to Skeggy on holiday and recently relagged their lofts.

Just to be clear that Mike Smithson purchasing a new energy efficient toupee does not count as re-lagging his loft ....

OblitusSumMe

ydoethur said:

Gardenwalker said:

SouthamObserver said:

Casino_Royale said:

Nigelb said:

A truly shocking report on the melting of the Siberian permafrost:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/national/climate-environment/climate-change-siberia/

It ought to be impossible to read this and still claim climate change is not happening.

People on the right can sometimes deny climate change because people on the Left are far too nakedly transparent in exploiting it to gain political capital.

To stick, it needs to be depoliticised and made just about the science and technological solutions. Just as it was for CFCs in the late 80s.

I largely agree with this. Technology is a huge part of the solution to the mess we have created. However, we also need to find ways of tackling egregious assalts on the environment, such as the burning of the Amazon and forests across Asia.

What won’t work is shouting in people’s faces.

Although, shouting in people’s faces has us talking about it more than ever.

It has us talking about what we could do. But the conversation has to be moved on to what we need to do, and because they are personally loathsome that isn't happening.

It will happen eventually, but probably rather later than it needs to.

Yes. Obviously if the protests hadn't happened we would be acting more quickly on this issue. Don't you realise how absurd that sounds?

Paristonda

AlastairMeeks said:

SouthamObserver said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Here’s a question. Imagine Britain does not leave the EU on 31 October. Imagine further that you are Jeremy Corbyn. Do you want to have an election immediately and if so do you want a short or long campaign?

I think if you are Jeremy Corbyn you believe you are a brilliant campaigner who will close any gap with Boris Johnson during an election campaign and that the British people are crying out for socialism. You therefore want an election asap. If it were down to him, that is what would happen. But it isn’t. The more strategic minds of much smarter people, such as John McDonnell, may see things differently. Do not underestimate the importance of Karie Murphy’s humiliation yesterday. That was very clearly a McDonnell play.

That answers the first part of the question but not the second - a short or long campaign?

Probably a long one, the longer it is the more likely people get bored of Brexit and the campaign moves onto other issues, which will be where Corbyn prefers to campaign

SouthamObserver

AlastairMeeks said:

SouthamObserver said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Here’s a question. Imagine Britain does not leave the EU on 31 October. Imagine further that you are Jeremy Corbyn. Do you want to have an election immediately and if so do you want a short or long campaign?

I think if you are Jeremy Corbyn you believe you are a brilliant campaigner who will close any gap with Boris Johnson during an election campaign and that the British people are crying out for socialism. You therefore want an election asap. If it were down to him, that is what would happen. But it isn’t. The more strategic minds of much smarter people, such as John McDonnell, may see things differently. Do not underestimate the importance of Karie Murphy’s humiliation yesterday. That was very clearly a McDonnell play.

That answers the first part of the question but not the second - a short or long campaign?

My fall back position is that, in the end, a Labour party led by Jeremy Corbyn will usually do exactly what the Tories want. So if I were going to bet (and I’m not), I’d go for short.

Luckyguy1983

logical_song said:

SouthamObserver said:

Casino_Royale said:

Nigelb said:

A truly shocking report on the melting of the Siberian permafrost:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/national/climate-environment/climate-change-siberia/

It ought to be impossible to read this and still claim climate change is not happening.

People on the right can sometimes deny climate change because people on the Left are far too nakedly transparent in exploiting it to gain political capital.

To stick, it needs to be depoliticised and made just about the science and technological solutions. Just as it was for CFCs in the late 80s.

I largely agree with this. Technology is a huge part of the solution to the mess we have created. However, we also need to find ways of tackling egregious assalts on the environment, such as the burning of the Amazon and forests across Asia.

What won’t work is shouting in people’s faces.

Action on climate Change should be depoliticised and we have the technology to fight against it right now.
If you don't want people to shout in your face then start doing something about it.
I know that the UK is not the worst country in the world and that we have been making some progress, but it's not enough. Allowing fracking, cutting the solar panel feed in tarriff and cancelling the tidal barrage are just three examples where we are going in the wrong direction.

I completely agree on hour last point, but doesn't the UK produce 3% of carbon emissions?

ydoethur

TheKitchenCabinet said:

ydoethur said:

TGOHF2 said:

Can Corbyn survive not calling a 2019 election.

Yes.

I'm not so sure it is that clear cut. If Labour starts to feel like its vote in Leave seats is starting to shift irrevocably as Leave voters blame it for ensuring the matter is not settled once and for all, they may take a view that it is better to agree to an election now, accept a loss of seats and then regroup for the future with the advantage he will be rid of a fair few of his critics and that the left can get their candidates into those seats the next time round.

I'm not following your logic. How many Labour left wingers other than Corbyn and Macdonnell represent southern Remainer seats? I think you'll find it isn't many. Several of his crucial supporters - Pidcock, Long Bailey, Cat Smith, Trickett, Burgon and Lavery - are from the north, and with the possible exception of Burgon (where the vote will have been very close) represent Leave seats - Hemsworth by a two-thirds majority.

So it's supporters not his opponents who fear a Brexit election.

OblitusSumMe

TOPPING said:

Casino_Royale said:

matthiasfromhamburg said:

Nigelb said:

A truly shocking report on the melting of the Siberian permafrost:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/national/climate-environment/climate-change-siberia/

It ought to be impossible to read this and still claim climate change is not happening.

Only a few climate change denialists still deny that climate change is happening.

Most have moved on to denying other things.

Some are accepting that climate change is happening, but are now denying that the changing climate is any detriment ("look, we can now grow wine in yorkshire, splendid").

Others are accepting that climate change is happening and that it is detrimental, but are now denying that it has anything to do with human activity, so that they can now deny the fact that a change in human activity could possibly emeliorate the detriments, or even reverse the trend ("look, CO2 is plant food, the more of it, the better").

And then there are those who accept that climate change is happening, that it is detrimental and that a change in human behaviour could possibly change something about it, but have moved on to denying that the detriments of climate change will present any economic challenge, so that they can argue from the premise that doing anything against climate change will be an additional, unbearable cost, compared to doing nothing ("look, we just can't afford it").

And then there are, of course, those who say that their own, tiny country is only contributing such a small amount of the climate changing emissions, that changing anything wouldn't make an impact anyway ("look, the Chinese are emitting so much more than us, because they have stolen all those wonderful jobs in industrial production").

These people then usually seize the opportunity to deny the fact that their own prosperous, developed countries owe the largest part of their prosperity and development to that human activity which has caused climate change in the first place and that we should therefor take the first step to do something against the consequences.

So many things to choose from, and we really seem to have a penchant for denial.

The definition is applied fairly narrowly to those who deny the scientific facts that climate change is occurring in the first place.

The rest is policy.

Just started Sapiens which as a populist history book is fine.

Can't move in the first quarter of the book without him describing historic and pre historic climate change.

Do we know how much is us now and how much them?

We are pretty confident that without human activity the climate would be gradually cooling, based on changes in solar and volcanic activity.

SouthamObserver

Gardenwalker said:

SouthamObserver said:

Casino_Royale said:

Nigelb said:

A truly shocking report on the melting of the Siberian permafrost:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/national/climate-environment/climate-change-siberia/

It ought to be impossible to read this and still claim climate change is not happening.

People on the right can sometimes deny climate change because people on the Left are far too nakedly transparent in exploiting it to gain political capital.

To stick, it needs to be depoliticised and made just about the science and technological solutions. Just as it was for CFCs in the late 80s.

I largely agree with this. Technology is a huge part of the solution to the mess we have created. However, we also need to find ways of tackling egregious assalts on the environment, such as the burning of the Amazon and forests across Asia.

What won’t work is shouting in people’s faces.

Although, shouting in people’s faces has us talking about it more than ever.

That is a fair point!

rkrkrk

AlastairMeeks said:

SouthamObserver said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Here’s a question. Imagine Britain does not leave the EU on 31 October. Imagine further that you are Jeremy Corbyn. Do you want to have an election immediately and if so do you want a short or long campaign?

I think if you are Jeremy Corbyn you believe you are a brilliant campaigner who will close any gap with Boris Johnson during an election campaign and that the British people are crying out for socialism. You therefore want an election asap. If it were down to him, that is what would happen. But it isn’t. The more strategic minds of much smarter people, such as John McDonnell, may see things differently. Do not underestimate the importance of Karie Murphy’s humiliation yesterday. That was very clearly a McDonnell play.

That answers the first part of the question but not the second - a short or long campaign?

Long campaign I reckon. Last time Labour did steadily better as the campaign went on. Plus during the campaign period there are broadcast impartiality rules which means Labour gets more of a chance to make their case.

rottenborough

Andy_JS said:

What are the Lascelles Principles?

Based on a 1950 letter to the Times by then then secretary to Queen. Reasons why the monarch can refuse a dissolution.

Sun reporting this morning that Cummings thinks this is way to go.

AlastairMeeks

rkrkrk said:

AlastairMeeks said:

SouthamObserver said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Here’s a question. Imagine Britain does not leave the EU on 31 October. Imagine further that you are Jeremy Corbyn. Do you want to have an election immediately and if so do you want a short or long campaign?

I think if you are Jeremy Corbyn you believe you are a brilliant campaigner who will close any gap with Boris Johnson during an election campaign and that the British people are crying out for socialism. You therefore want an election asap. If it were down to him, that is what would happen. But it isn’t. The more strategic minds of much smarter people, such as John McDonnell, may see things differently. Do not underestimate the importance of Karie Murphy’s humiliation yesterday. That was very clearly a McDonnell play.

That answers the first part of the question but not the second - a short or long campaign?

Long campaign I reckon. Last time Labour did steadily better as the campaign went on. Plus during the campaign period there are broadcast impartiality rules which means Labour gets more of a chance to make their case.

I agree. So why is all the betting money on a short campaign?

ydoethur

OblitusSumMe said:

ydoethur said:

Gardenwalker said:

SouthamObserver said:

Casino_Royale said:

Nigelb said:

A truly shocking report on the melting of the Siberian permafrost:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/national/climate-environment/climate-change-siberia/

It ought to be impossible to read this and still claim climate change is not happening.

People on the right can sometimes deny climate change because people on the Left are far too nakedly transparent in exploiting it to gain political capital.

To stick, it needs to be depoliticised and made just about the science and technological solutions. Just as it was for CFCs in the late 80s.

I largely agree with this. Technology is a huge part of the solution to the mess we have created. However, we also need to find ways of tackling egregious assalts on the environment, such as the burning of the Amazon and forests across Asia.

What won’t work is shouting in people’s faces.

Although, shouting in people’s faces has us talking about it more than ever.

It has us talking about what we could do. But the conversation has to be moved on to what we need to do, and because they are personally loathsome that isn't happening.

It will happen eventually, but probably rather later than it needs to.

Yes. Obviously if the protests hadn't happened we would be acting more quickly on this issue. Don't you realise how absurd that sounds?

I'm saying because the protests are happening we might act more slowly on it out of spite. And there's ample historical precedent for that. The actions of the Suffragettes, for example, hardened government opinion against giving women the vote and it took a war and the inclusion of the main opposition parties in a coalition to change things.

AlastairMeeks

rottenborough said:

Andy_JS said:

What are the Lascelles Principles?

Based on a 1950 letter to the Times by then then secretary to Queen. Reasons why the monarch can refuse a dissolution.

Sun reporting this morning that Cummings thinks this is way to go.

A sign of just how desperate Downing Street has got.

RochdalePioneers

Nobody wants an election on 5th December. Nobody. Not even the remaining LOTO staffers think that a pre Christmas election is logistically a good idea. I really do think that once Brexit has been delayed (for longer than 31st January) we'll quickly see the stalemate deepen, where there is no majority to dissolve parliament, or install an alternative government, or put into practice any of the spend money we don't have schemes being dreamed up by Boris Gordon Brown in disguise Johnson.

ydoethur

rottenborough said:

Sun reporting this morning that Cummings thinks.

Now that really would be a scoop.

Morris_Dancer

Good morning, everyone.