Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

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

24567

Comments

  • twistedfirestopper3twistedfirestopper3 Posts: 2,386
    edited October 2019

    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.
    I'd agree with that. Even Emma Thompson jetting back from LA for the weekend for her photo-op on the XR boat served that purpose, as much of that sort of celebrity activism can.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 77,892

    rkrkrk 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?
    Same people doing their nuts on president Clinton.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,154
    Pulpstar said:

    rkrkrk 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?
    Same people doing their nuts on president Clinton.
    That I think could have been phrased better...
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 62,401
    edited October 2019

    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.
    It is beyond belief that the Cabinet hasn't demanded Cummings sacking by now.
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur 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.
    It's been more than thirty years since the Earth Summit in Rio. The promises to act made then have not been kept.

    These protests have already encouraged politicians to promise to do more, so I think the evidence is contrary to your assertion.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,154
    edited October 2019

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur 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.
    It's been more than thirty years since the Earth Summit in Rio. The promises to act made then have not been kept.

    These protests have already encouraged politicians to promise to do more, so I think the evidence is contrary to your assertion.
    They have already encouraged those politicians with no power to do anything to promise to do more.

    Name me one single actual physical change happening as a result of this that wouldn't have happened anyway.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 32,168

    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.
    Thanks.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 62,401
    LibDem MPs starting to push Swinson to accept Corbyn as interim PM?

    https://news.sky.com/story/sky-views-mps-must-stop-playing-politics-with-no-deal-11831103
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143
    I'm not sure that depoliticising climate change is the way forward. That way leads to political solutions being imposed without debate.

    What we need is a political debate about the best methods to use. I think this debate mostly divides on the question of to what extent the government should intervene directly by spending money on potential solutions as opposed to creating market incentives for people to find their own solutions (eg by taxing carbon).

    But maybe that's a debate we should have had 15 years ago. As I recall we instead wasted our time arguing over the latest bit of denialism.
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 4,502
    The mask completely fell off Laura Kuenssberg when she peddled more lines from Tory HQ.

    Allegedly as soon as the Benn Act was passed the EU negotiating position hardened .

    There were no negotiations at the time of that passing and its only when it did pass that Bozo even looked remotely bothered in getting a deal.

  • TGOHF2TGOHF2 Posts: 584

    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.
    It is beyond belief that the Cabinet hasn't demanded Cummings sacking by now.
    You forget the polls.

    Sack Cummings and you get the same dolts that led the Cons to 9% in the EU elections.

    He’s not here for a long time - he’s here for a good time.

    SNP + Cons have enough to pass a one line bill for a GE.
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur 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.
    It's been more than thirty years since the Earth Summit in Rio. The promises to act made then have not been kept.

    These protests have already encouraged politicians to promise to do more, so I think the evidence is contrary to your assertion.
    They have already encouraged those politicians with no power to do anything to promise to do more.

    Name me one single actual physical change happening as a result of this that wouldn't have happened anyway.
    I don't think this announcement would have happened had it not been for the climate strikes or the extinction rebellion protests.

    https://www.ft.com/content/26e8d1e0-dbb3-11e9-8f9b-77216ebe1f17
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,357

    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.
    And the hole in the ozone layer has now essentially closed as a result of that action.

  • Nigelb said:
    They will need a lot more than that in the event of what is likely to be a very acrimonious Brexit. They will be asking the EU to pay an awfully large amount and with the coming very big recession they will struggle to get it.

  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981


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

    And you think all the things in your list of non-deniables flow incontrovertibly from that, do you?

    Don't get me wrong, I installed solar panels in 2013 because I thought it was a good thing to do (and after a drop in subsidies which made it pretty cost-ineffective), so any attempt by you to outgroup me is going to be uphill work. I just get bored of twerps with so little understanding of how science works that they think that apparent consensus, and truth, are the same thing, and who think that there is some kind of epistemic equivalence between denying historical fact and questioning and testing scientific models.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 59,994

    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.

    We could pay for ecological preserves and reservations.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,314
    TGOHF2 said:
    That'll keep the writers of the New York late-night comedy shows busy today...
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 59,994
    TOPPING 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?
    Sapiens is ok. Homo Deus is just him banging on about animal rights for most of the book.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,154

    I don't think this announcement would have happened had it not been for the climate strikes or the extinction rebellion protests.

    https://www.ft.com/content/26e8d1e0-dbb3-11e9-8f9b-77216ebe1f17

    Since elements of that bill have been discussed as long ago as 1998, I cannot agree. Moreover, since Extinction Rebellion themselves have dismissed it, I don't think you can claim it as a win for them.

    Have a good morning.

    https://www.dw.com/en/german-government-accused-of-watering-down-climate-bill/a-50719441
  • 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.
    Unlike Hilary Benn claiming last month the Queen should issue a Royal Proclamation under the 1797 Meeting of Parliament Act to bring back Parliament?
  • TGOHF2 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.
    It is beyond belief that the Cabinet hasn't demanded Cummings sacking by now.
    You forget the polls.

    Sack Cummings and you get the same dolts that led the Cons to 9% in the EU elections.

    He’s not here for a long time - he’s here for a good time.

    SNP + Cons have enough to pass a one line bill for a GE.
    The current prorogation resets the clock on the Lords delaying powers and the SNP has no peers.
  • TOPPING said:

    Foxy said:

    felix said:

    Foxy said:

    Sandpit said:

    felix 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").

    l.
    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.)
    There's not a great deal we can do. Being really green costs money. Veganism is costing me a fortune! I don't have the space to grow my own fruit and veg. The waiting list for an allotment is longer than the list for one of Charles' clubs, so I have to buy it all in. We go for organic but that's hit and miss in the supermarkets. Packaging is a nightmare, with so much single use plastic, and even when something comes in a paper bag they stick a "helpful" single use plastic window in it!
    I can neither fit nor afford a heat source pump, can't afford solar, can no longer cycle to work, can't afford an electric vehicle and there ain't any public transport at the time I head off, so my old diesel van is the only option........but we haven't used an aeroplane for 3 years if that counts?
  • TGOHF2TGOHF2 Posts: 584

    TGOHF2 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.
    It is beyond belief that the Cabinet hasn't demanded Cummings sacking by now.
    You forget the polls.

    Sack Cummings and you get the same dolts that led the Cons to 9% in the EU elections.

    He’s not here for a long time - he’s here for a good time.

    SNP + Cons have enough to pass a one line bill for a GE.
    The current prorogation resets the clock on the Lords delaying powers and the SNP has no peers.
    I doubt the Lords would vote down a one line bill from the Commons for an election.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 59,994

    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.

    People don’t want a meaningful deterioration in their quality of life.

    Electric power, smart tech grids and electric cars will get us a long way. Then we have the challenge of renewable central heating, producing beef (by far the worst) without emissions, using AI for more efficient recycling, and renewable fuels for aviation.

    So yes, I do see it as largely technological but also feasible. The really hard bits are carbon capture and nuclear fusion.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 15,687

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

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

    This just gets worse and worse.

    So we are basing our constitutional principles on a 1950s letter to the Times. And we wonder why we look like a joke to the world.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340

    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.
    Unlike Hilary Benn claiming last month the Queen should issue a Royal Proclamation under the 1797 Meeting of Parliament Act to bring back Parliament?
    Well that was fairly wild too. The difference is that one is a backbench MP and the other is formulating a Government position.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,357
    ydoethur said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Arron Banks apologising to Piers Morgan :D

    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.
    And isn't Dad's Army STILL on our TVs? They recently reshot some lost episodes. (I have no idea whether 'Allo 'Allo is still on some crap station somewhere. Most everything else is....)
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340

    TOPPING 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?
    Sapiens is ok. Homo Deus is just him banging on about animal rights for most of the book.
    Sapiens is by far the best of his books.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,357

    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.
    Unlike Hilary Benn claiming last month the Queen should issue a Royal Proclamation under the 1797 Meeting of Parliament Act to bring back Parliament?
    Well that was fairly wild too. The difference is that one is a backbench MP and the other is formulating a Government position.
    Anybody think Benn isn't formulating the Opposition position?
  • nico67 said:

    The mask completely fell off Laura Kuenssberg when she peddled more lines from Tory HQ.

    Allegedly as soon as the Benn Act was passed the EU negotiating position hardened .

    There were no negotiations at the time of that passing and its only when it did pass that Bozo even looked remotely bothered in getting a deal.

    You're telling a total lie.

    Boris spoke to Berlin and Paris and had the famous "30 days to get a deal" press conference BEFORE the Benn Act was passed.

    Had Parliament waited 30 days before acting then they could have been justifiable. They didn't.
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    The closer we get to the 31st October, the greater the hyperbole.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    Unsurprising, but it doesn't seem to have been war-gamed by the geniuses in Number 10:

    https://twitter.com/SebastianEPayne/status/1181825475716337664
  • Can we assume that PBers will be minimising their flying and cruises from now on ?

    Likewise with purchasing of imported fresh food.

    Perhaps we should all pledge never again to buy imported lettuce
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 59,994

    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.
    And the hole in the ozone layer has now essentially closed as a result of that action.

    It will be by 2070. It’s been a great success.
  • DruttDrutt Posts: 1,121

    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.
    And the hole in the ozone layer has now essentially closed as a result of that action.

    XR's position would have been 'end refrigeration or we'll all die', rather than 'develop and switch to less oxidising coolants'.
  • Unsurprising, but it doesn't seem to have been war-gamed by the geniuses in Number 10:

    https://twitter.com/SebastianEPayne/status/1181825475716337664

    Boris doesn't want a No Deal Brexit.
  • Yellow_SubmarineYellow_Submarine Posts: 647
    edited October 2019
    Duplicate post deleted.
  • The problem is the GE date ( subject to the 25 working days rule ) is set by the PM via prerogative power. So if Corbyn wants a long campaign his options are ( a ) finding a legal route to bind the PM after granting a FTPA motion disolution. ( B ) Supporting a FTPA Bill that also sets the GE date in statute. ( C ) Announcing that Labour will support a FTPA motion in January and demand broadcasters act as if the campaign restrictions are in force already. He could challenge Johnson to debates before Christmas for instance to set the mood. Of course there is ( D ) become PM and set the date himself but do long campaigns suit governments ?
  • twistedfirestopper3twistedfirestopper3 Posts: 2,386
    edited October 2019

    ydoethur said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Arron Banks apologising to Piers Morgan :D

    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.
    And isn't Dad's Army STILL on our TVs? They recently reshot some lost episodes. (I have no idea whether 'Allo 'Allo is still on some crap station somewhere. Most everything else is....)
    There is a channel on Sky called Forces TV. Late at night, when we've finished a box set, and just flicking through the channels before heading to bed it has programmes such as Shelly, Bless This House and Space 1999 on, all in 4.3 aspect ratio. I caught a minute of Bless This house a few nights ago- in black and white, with that weird sort of shadow outline you used to get. Aside from it being crap, it was virtually unwatchable on a 4K telly. No wonder we all had to wear glasses as kids.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 59,994

    TOPPING said:

    Foxy said:

    felix said:

    Foxy said:

    Sandpit said:

    felix 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 .

    l.
    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.

    ne.
    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.)
    There's not a great deal we can do. Being really green costs money. Veganism is costing me a fortune! I don't have the space to grow my own fruit and veg. The waiting list for an allotment is longer than the list for one of Charles' clubs, so I have to buy it all in. We go for organic but that's hit and miss in the supermarkets. Packaging is a nightmare, with so much single use plastic, and even when something comes in a paper bag they stick a "helpful" single use plastic window in it!
    I can neither fit nor afford a heat source pump, can't afford solar, can no longer cycle to work, can't afford an electric vehicle and there ain't any public transport at the time I head off, so my old diesel van is the only option........but we haven't used an aeroplane for 3 years if that counts?
    Veganism is an ideology.

    You can switch your gas/electricity supplier to someone like Pure Planet, who use 100% renewable electricity and offset 100% of all their gas and happen to be quite affordable too.

    Packaging is starting to change I think and low-cost electric vehicles are about 5-10 years away from being on the market.
  • TGOHF2TGOHF2 Posts: 584

    Can we assume that PBers will be minimising their flying and cruises from now on ?

    Likewise with purchasing of imported fresh food.

    Perhaps we should all pledge never again to buy imported lettuce

    I might avoid lettuce but no chance on forgoing flying - ferk that.

  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 59,994
    TGOHF2 said:

    If you go to those countries the amount of litter and the state of their beaches, kerbsides and streetscapes are absolutely shocking.

    Gives you a newfound respect for planning laws and Keep Britain Tidy.
  • ydoethur said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Arron Banks apologising to Piers Morgan :D

    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.
    And isn't Dad's Army STILL on our TVs? They recently reshot some lost episodes. (I have no idea whether 'Allo 'Allo is still on some crap station somewhere. Most everything else is....)
    The Goodies and Robin of Sherwood are two programs which have very rarely, if ever, been repeated.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340

    The problem is the GE date ( subject to the 25 working days rule ) is set by the PM via prerogative power. So if Corbyn wants a long campaign his options are ( a ) finding a legal route to bind the PM after granting a FTPA motion disolution. ( B ) Supporting a FTPA Bill that also sets the GE date in statute. ( C ) Announcing that Labour will support a FTPA motion in January and demand broadcasters act as if the campaign restrictions are in force already. He could challenge Johnson to debates before Christmas for instance to set the mood. Of course there is ( D ) become PM and set the date himself but do long campaigns suit governments ?

    That's easy. To get only 25 working days, Boris Johnson needs to get a two-thirds majority in the House of Commons on a vote for an early election. Jeremy Corbyn can lengthen that by a fortnight just by ousting him via a vote of no confidence. Now, if the vote takes place on, say, 1 November, that means that the 14 days run out on 15 November. 25 working days then take us to 20 December. Is the government really going to insist on holding an election on the Friday before Christmas? To make absolutely sure of a still longer campaign, Jeremy Corbyn can schedule his vote of no confidence for, say, 6 November, thus making the seven week period expire on 28 December. Boris Johnson would be morally forced to defer the election until at least 4 January and in all probability he would choose 11 January, so that those away on holiday over Christmas would all vote.
  • Unsurprising, but it doesn't seem to have been war-gamed by the geniuses in Number 10:

    https://twitter.com/SebastianEPayne/status/1181825475716337664

    If it's almost 50 now then it would have been between 70 to 80 and year ago. A third of the recalcitrants have already been eased out so it seems like it has been war gamed.
  • StockyStocky Posts: 10,113
    Alastair says: "I agree. So why is all the betting money on a short campaign?"

    Question: if Corbyn tables a VONC and the government loses and a GE is the end result, who decides the actual date of the GE i.e. who determines whether it will be a long or short campaign? Boris, Corbyn, the speaker??
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,123
    edited October 2019
    TOPPING 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.
    Interesting, I suspected that might be the case. And this is part of the problem. It only generated media attention because the media doesn’t like Brazil’s president.

    An old colleague of mine said that part of the problem with Global Warming is the name, as demonstrated by that piece on the permafrost. Human activity might be contributing to the change there, but there’s clearly something specific to that area that’s causing the temperature rise to be particularly large. Perhaps as the ice melts, there’s a positive feedback loop that sees less sunlight reflected back from where it came.

  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 5,060

    ydoethur said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Arron Banks apologising to Piers Morgan :D

    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.
    And isn't Dad's Army STILL on our TVs? They recently reshot some lost episodes. (I have no idea whether 'Allo 'Allo is still on some crap station somewhere. Most everything else is....)
    The Goodies and Robin of Sherwood are two programs which have very rarely, if ever, been repeated.
    The Goodies was heavily repeated in Australia in prime time slots. When moved out there I was surprised how many could quote lines from the Goodies, as easily as Brits of my generation can quote Monty Python
  • TGOHF2 said:

    TGOHF2 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.
    It is beyond belief that the Cabinet hasn't demanded Cummings sacking by now.
    You forget the polls.

    Sack Cummings and you get the same dolts that led the Cons to 9% in the EU elections.

    He’s not here for a long time - he’s here for a good time.

    SNP + Cons have enough to pass a one line bill for a GE.
    The current prorogation resets the clock on the Lords delaying powers and the SNP has no peers.
    I doubt the Lords would vote down a one line bill from the Commons for an election.
    No I don't either. But if Labour and/or Lib Dems oppose it they could slow it down considerably. In this case defeating its purpose. They could also treat it as a Christmas Tree Bill. What would the SNP in the Commons do if it came back with votes at 16 attached ? Or putting people with Settled Status on the same footing as qualifying Commonwealth citizens ? Etc etc.
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,483

    The problem is the GE date ( subject to the 25 working days rule ) is set by the PM via prerogative power. So if Corbyn wants a long campaign his options are ( a ) finding a legal route to bind the PM after granting a FTPA motion disolution. ( B ) Supporting a FTPA Bill that also sets the GE date in statute. ( C ) Announcing that Labour will support a FTPA motion in January and demand broadcasters act as if the campaign restrictions are in force already. He could challenge Johnson to debates before Christmas for instance to set the mood. Of course there is ( D ) become PM and set the date himself but do long campaigns suit governments ?

    That's easy. To get only 25 working days, Boris Johnson needs to get a two-thirds majority in the House of Commons on a vote for an early election. Jeremy Corbyn can lengthen that by a fortnight just by ousting him via a vote of no confidence. Now, if the vote takes place on, say, 1 November, that means that the 14 days run out on 15 November. 25 working days then take us to 20 December. Is the government really going to insist on holding an election on the Friday before Christmas? To make absolutely sure of a still longer campaign, Jeremy Corbyn can schedule his vote of no confidence for, say, 6 November, thus making the seven week period expire on 28 December. Boris Johnson would be morally forced to defer the election until at least 4 January and in all probability he would choose 11 January, so that those away on holiday over Christmas would all vote.
    That’s going to make some family Christmas dinners fun!
  • Stocky said:

    Alastair says: "I agree. So why is all the betting money on a short campaign?"

    Question: if Corbyn tables a VONC and the government loses and a GE is the end result, who decides the actual date of the GE i.e. who determines whether it will be a long or short campaign? Boris, Corbyn, the speaker??

    The PM.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    Stocky said:

    Alastair says: "I agree. So why is all the betting money on a short campaign?"

    Question: if Corbyn tables a VONC and the government loses and a GE is the end result, who decides the actual date of the GE i.e. who determines whether it will be a long or short campaign? Boris, Corbyn, the speaker??

    There must be 25 working days in a general election campaign as a matter of statute. The actual date after that is a matter of royal prerogative (ie Boris Johnson), as @Yellow_Submarine notes.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981

    TGOHF2 said:

    If you go to those countries the amount of litter and the state of their beaches, kerbsides and streetscapes are absolutely shocking.

    Gives you a newfound respect for planning laws and Keep Britain Tidy.
    https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2018/oct/05/huge-rise-us-plastic-waste-shipments-to-poor-countries-china-ban-thailand-malaysia-vietnam

    before we get too smug about it. ("Let's not start sucking each other's d*cks just yet" - Winston Wolfe).
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 6,364
    If you were the EU, would you negotiate a new deal?

    Everything is going to plan. A No-deal has been made illegal so that only leaves the EU/May deal on offer and that's the worst case scenario.

    With the MPs on-side, an extension can only produce a new referendum or a revocation. And more time for the electorate to get fed up with the whole thing.

    MPs will only honour referenda results they agree with.
  • The problem is the GE date ( subject to the 25 working days rule ) is set by the PM via prerogative power. So if Corbyn wants a long campaign his options are ( a ) finding a legal route to bind the PM after granting a FTPA motion disolution. ( B ) Supporting a FTPA Bill that also sets the GE date in statute. ( C ) Announcing that Labour will support a FTPA motion in January and demand broadcasters act as if the campaign restrictions are in force already. He could challenge Johnson to debates before Christmas for instance to set the mood. Of course there is ( D ) become PM and set the date himself but do long campaigns suit governments ?

    That's easy. To get only 25 working days, Boris Johnson needs to get a two-thirds majority in the House of Commons on a vote for an early election. Jeremy Corbyn can lengthen that by a fortnight just by ousting him via a vote of no confidence. Now, if the vote takes place on, say, 1 November, that means that the 14 days run out on 15 November. 25 working days then take us to 20 December. Is the government really going to insist on holding an election on the Friday before Christmas? To make absolutely sure of a still longer campaign, Jeremy Corbyn can schedule his vote of no confidence for, say, 6 November, thus making the seven week period expire on 28 December. Boris Johnson would be morally forced to defer the election until at least 4 January and in all probability he would choose 11 January, so that those away on holiday over Christmas would all vote.
    4 and 11 January are Saturdays.

    2 January and 9 January would be Thursdays.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,700
    F1: hmm. Whilst the odds are longer for the lower half of the field than the top to 'win' first practice those dastardly Ladbrokes types have noticed there's a typhoon in the weather forecast, so the odds are significantly shorter than usual.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,314
    tlg86 said:

    TOPPING 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.
    Interesting, I suspected that might be the case. And this is part of the problem. It only generated media attention because the media doesn’t like Brazil’s president.

    An old colleague of mine said that part of the problem with Global Warming is the name, as demonstrated by that piece on the permafrost. Human activity might be contributing to the change there, but there’s clearly something specific to that area that’s causing the temperature rise to be particularly large. Perhaps as the ice melts, there’s a positive feedback loop that sees less sunlight reflected back from where it came.

    Yep, no-one was talking about the simultaneous African wildfires, because there wasn't a disliked (to American liberals) politician to go after.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-49471644
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340

    The problem is the GE date ( subject to the 25 working days rule ) is set by the PM via prerogative power. So if Corbyn wants a long campaign his options are ( a ) finding a legal route to bind the PM after granting a FTPA motion disolution. ( B ) Supporting a FTPA Bill that also sets the GE date in statute. ( C ) Announcing that Labour will support a FTPA motion in January and demand broadcasters act as if the campaign restrictions are in force already. He could challenge Johnson to debates before Christmas for instance to set the mood. Of course there is ( D ) become PM and set the date himself but do long campaigns suit governments ?

    That's easy. To get only 25 working days, Boris Johnson needs to get a two-thirds majority in the House of Commons on a vote for an early election. Jeremy Corbyn can lengthen that by a fortnight just by ousting him via a vote of no confidence. Now, if the vote takes place on, say, 1 November, that means that the 14 days run out on 15 November. 25 working days then take us to 20 December. Is the government really going to insist on holding an election on the Friday before Christmas? To make absolutely sure of a still longer campaign, Jeremy Corbyn can schedule his vote of no confidence for, say, 6 November, thus making the seven week period expire on 28 December. Boris Johnson would be morally forced to defer the election until at least 4 January and in all probability he would choose 11 January, so that those away on holiday over Christmas would all vote.
    4 and 11 January are Saturdays.

    2 January and 9 January would be Thursdays.
    Thanks - that will teach me to look at the calendar too quickly. So, yes, I think Jeremy Corbyn can effectively get himself a 9 week campaign if he is so inclined.
  • StockyStocky Posts: 10,113
    Yes the PM will control the date of the election if gov loses a VONC. This is one reason why I don`t think that Corbyn will table a VONC this year - and possiby never (and is why I`ve backed GE for 2022 at long odds).

    Yellow Submarines Option D (8:18am) "become PM and set the date himself" is a key reason why Corbyn will not agree to anyone but himself heading a GNU. I think it still possible that a GNU with Corbyn as PM is a possibility only because he can then determine the GE date.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 13,677
    Sandpit said:

    modern F1 car engines for example are massively fuel-efficient,

    They really aren't - they do about 40-50l/100km which is risible. They exist in their current form only to give hybrid technology a veneer of motosports credibility for the manufacturers.

    If F1 were really interested in efficiency they would have a completely different set of aero regulations, tyres and less focus on mechanical grip.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,480

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur 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.
    It's been more than

    These protests have already encouraged politicians to promise to do more, so I think the evidence is contrary to your assertion.
    They have already encouraged those politicians with no power to do anything to promise to do more.

    Name me one single actual physical change happening as a result of this that wouldn't have happened anyway.
    I don't think this announcement would have happened had it not been for the climate strikes or the extinction rebellion protests.

    https://www.ft.com/content/26e8d1e0-dbb3-11e9-8f9b-77216ebe1f17
    Not just a rich country issue either...

    https://twitter.com/chilledasad100/status/1180747159886585857?s=19
  • Fpt.
    viewcode said:

    somebody said:

    Sounds like 20 years after making a fantasy with a subversive edge, Verhoeven has decided it was a satire.

    THINGS I HATE ABOUT THE 21ST CENTURY, PART 761
    =================================
    * People who don't realise that Tim Burton's "Sleepy Hollow" is a love-letter to Hammer films[1]
    * People who don't get that "Starship Troopers" is a obvious Nazi allegory, despite the fact that Verhoeven said so at the time, dressed Doogie Howser in a black leather cap and overcoat, ripped off Leni Riefenstahl, and considered getting the actors to make Nazi salutes.


    [1] Seriously. There's a whole Nostalgia Critic video where he's honestly surprised.

    I'm not for a moment denying that Starship Troopers is consciously infused with Nazi imagery, just suggesting that Verhoeven was getting off on it. Nazism didn't get where it is today without people getting off on torch lit parades, black leather and sharp uniforms*. Reframing it currently as a dreadful warning from past or future history is a tad dishonest.

    *If anyone feels the need to plop out the thousand-time-made revelation that Hugo Boss made many of the Hitlerite uniforms, please desist because otherwise I would have to have you taken out and given a punishment beating.
  • CD13 said:

    If you were the EU, would you negotiate a new deal?

    Everything is going to plan. A No-deal has been made illegal so that only leaves the EU/May deal on offer and that's the worst case scenario.

    With the MPs on-side, an extension can only produce a new referendum or a revocation. And more time for the electorate to get fed up with the whole thing.

    MPs will only honour referenda results they agree with.

    No-deal does not "honour" the referendum; it is Leave in extremis, and does not reflect the very marginal nature of the result. "Honouring" the result would have been to agree TMay's deal. The ERG and the DUP ensured that did not happen.
  • tlg86 said:

    TOPPING 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.
    Interesting, I suspected that might be the case. And this is part of the problem. It only generated media attention because the media doesn’t like Brazil’s president.

    An old colleague of mine said that part of the problem with Global Warming is the name, as demonstrated by that piece on the permafrost. Human activity might be contributing to the change there, but there’s clearly something specific to that area that’s causing the temperature rise to be particularly large. Perhaps as the ice melts, there’s a positive feedback loop that sees less sunlight reflected back from where it came.

    Graphs on fires in Brazil:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-49515462

    The second is revealing - the area of Brazilian Amazon burnt in 2019 looks like it could be less than it was in 2017 or 2015 and less than half of what was burnt in 2004, 2005 and 2007.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,273
    Theresa May's Deal will not get through as the ERG will oppose the GB backstop and the DUP will oppose the Northern Ireland backstop and barely any Labour no opposition MPs will vote for it either. The proposed Boris plan has more chance of getting through the current Commons as the ERG and DUP will vote for it, the only problem being the EU will not accept it.

    Only 280 MPs voted for EUref2 in the indicative votes too
  • eekeek Posts: 28,077
    Well this screws up my Silver Wedding Anniversary Party

    https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1181830124985081862
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,273
    Stocky said:

    Yes the PM will control the date of the election if gov loses a VONC. This is one reason why I don`t think that Corbyn will table a VONC this year - and possiby never (and is why I`ve backed GE for 2022 at long odds).

    Yellow Submarines Option D (8:18am) "become PM and set the date himself" is a key reason why Corbyn will not agree to anyone but himself heading a GNU. I think it still possible that a GNU with Corbyn as PM is a possibility only because he can then determine the GE date.

    The LDs and Tory rebels will never back Corbyn as PM
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,314
    nichomar said:

    The problem is the GE date ( subject to the 25 working days rule ) is set by the PM via prerogative power. So if Corbyn wants a long campaign his options are ( a ) finding a legal route to bind the PM after granting a FTPA motion disolution. ( B ) Supporting a FTPA Bill that also sets the GE date in statute. ( C ) Announcing that Labour will support a FTPA motion in January and demand broadcasters act as if the campaign restrictions are in force already. He could challenge Johnson to debates before Christmas for instance to set the mood. Of course there is ( D ) become PM and set the date himself but do long campaigns suit governments ?

    That's easy. To get only 25 working days, Boris Johnson needs to get a two-thirds majority in the House of Commons on a vote for an early election. Jeremy Corbyn can lengthen that by a fortnight just by ousting him via a vote of no confidence. Now, if the vote takes place on, say, 1 November, that means that the 14 days run out on 15 November. 25 working days then take us to 20 December. Is the government really going to insist on holding an election on the Friday before Christmas? To make absolutely sure of a still longer campaign, Jeremy Corbyn can schedule his vote of no confidence for, say, 6 November, thus making the seven week period expire on 28 December. Boris Johnson would be morally forced to defer the election until at least 4 January and in all probability he would choose 11 January, so that those away on holiday over Christmas would all vote.
    That’s going to make some family Christmas dinners fun!
    I know that we all think very little of our politicians, but does anyone seriously think that an election campaign running over Christmas is going to somehow endear them to us any more?

    If not a 5th December election, it's going to be a campaign starting early Jan, for an election on 13th or 20th Feb.

    If the EU deadline extension is until 31st Jan, then it's going to have to be 5th Dec for the election, called no later than 31st October.
  • Unsurprising, but it doesn't seem to have been war-gamed by the geniuses in Number 10:

    https://twitter.com/SebastianEPayne/status/1181825475716337664

    Boris doesn't want a No Deal Brexit.
    Boris would settle for absolutely anything that massaged his ego or sucked his cock.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,273

    Unsurprising, but it doesn't seem to have been war-gamed by the geniuses in Number 10:

    https://twitter.com/SebastianEPayne/status/1181825475716337664

    It has been, any Tory MP who refuses to back the manifesto commitment to Brexit Deal or No Deal will be deselected and replaced by a candidate who will
  • eekeek Posts: 28,077

    Unsurprising, but it doesn't seem to have been war-gamed by the geniuses in Number 10:

    https://twitter.com/SebastianEPayne/status/1181825475716337664

    Boris doesn't want a No Deal Brexit.
    Boris would settle for absolutely anything that massaged his ego or sucked his cock.
    or just kept him in No 10.
  • Sandpit said:

    tlg86 said:

    TOPPING 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.
    Interesting, I suspected that might be the case. And this is part of the problem. It only generated media attention because the media doesn’t like Brazil’s president.

    An old colleague of mine said that part of the problem with Global Warming is the name, as demonstrated by that piece on the permafrost. Human activity might be contributing to the change there, but there’s clearly something specific to that area that’s causing the temperature rise to be particularly large. Perhaps as the ice melts, there’s a positive feedback loop that sees less sunlight reflected back from where it came.

    Yep, no-one was talking about the simultaneous African wildfires, because there wasn't a disliked (to American liberals) politician to go after.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-49471644
    Over a period of two days last week Angola had roughly three times more fires than Brazil, according to data Bloomberg news agency obtained from Weather Source.

    The data said there were 6,902 fires in Angola and 3,395 fires in neighbouring Democratic Republic of Congo, compared with just 2,127 fires in Brazil.
  • eek said:

    Unsurprising, but it doesn't seem to have been war-gamed by the geniuses in Number 10:

    https://twitter.com/SebastianEPayne/status/1181825475716337664

    Boris doesn't want a No Deal Brexit.
    Boris would settle for absolutely anything that massaged his ego or sucked his cock.
    or just kept him in No 10.
    Ideally while simultaneously achieving the other two items.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    Sandpit said:

    nichomar said:

    The problem is the GE date ( subject to the 25 working days rule ) is set by the PM via prerogative power. So if Corbyn wants a long campaign his options are ( a ) finding a legal route to bind the PM after granting a FTPA motion disolution. ( B ) Supporting a FTPA Bill that also sets the GE date in statute. ( C ) Announcing that Labour will support a FTPA motion in January and demand broadcasters act as if the campaign restrictions are in force already. He could challenge Johnson to debates before Christmas for instance to set the mood. Of course there is ( D ) become PM and set the date himself but do long campaigns suit governments ?

    That's easy. To get only 25 working days, Boris Johnson needs to get a two-thirds majority in the House of Commons on a vote for an early election. Jeremy Corbyn can lengthen that by a fortnight just by ousting him via a vote of no confidence. Now, if the vote takes place on, say, 1 November, that means that the 14 days run out on 15 November. 25 working days then take us to 20 December. Is the government really going to insist on holding an election on the Friday before Christmas? To make absolutely sure of a still longer campaign, Jeremy Corbyn can schedule his vote of no confidence for, say, 6 November, thus making the seven week period expire on 28 December. Boris Johnson would be morally forced to defer the election until at least 4 January and in all probability he would choose 11 January, so that those away on holiday over Christmas would all vote.
    That’s going to make some family Christmas dinners fun!
    I know that we all think very little of our politicians, but does anyone seriously think that an election campaign running over Christmas is going to somehow endear them to us any more?

    If not a 5th December election, it's going to be a campaign starting early Jan, for an election on 13th or 20th Feb.

    If the EU deadline extension is until 31st Jan, then it's going to have to be 5th Dec for the election, called no later than 31st October.
    Do you think that the EU is going to be particularly inclined to set timetables that suit Boris Johnson?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 95,872

    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.
    It is beyond belief that the Cabinet hasn't demanded Cummings sacking by now.
    Cummings operates with Boris' blessing. Getting angry at him is as much displacement activity as anything parliament has done to avoid making a decision.
  • HYUFD said:

    Unsurprising, but it doesn't seem to have been war-gamed by the geniuses in Number 10:

    https://twitter.com/SebastianEPayne/status/1181825475716337664

    It has been, any Tory MP who refuses to back the manifesto commitment to Brexit Deal or No Deal will be deselected and replaced by a candidate who will
    You would like that wouldn't you? Fascist, small tent ideology coming to a political party near you!
  • kle4 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.
    It is beyond belief that the Cabinet hasn't demanded Cummings sacking by now.
    Cummings operates with Boris' blessing. Getting angry at him is as much displacement activity as anything parliament has done to avoid making a decision.
    I thought Boris operates with Dom's blessing?
  • HYUFD said:

    Stocky said:

    Yes the PM will control the date of the election if gov loses a VONC. This is one reason why I don`t think that Corbyn will table a VONC this year - and possiby never (and is why I`ve backed GE for 2022 at long odds).

    Yellow Submarines Option D (8:18am) "become PM and set the date himself" is a key reason why Corbyn will not agree to anyone but himself heading a GNU. I think it still possible that a GNU with Corbyn as PM is a possibility only because he can then determine the GE date.

    The LDs and Tory rebels will never back Corbyn as PM
    Agreed. Why would Ms. Swinson, seeing they have a unique opportunity to replace Labour, do that? As for the Conservative rebels, Labour would not give them a free run in a GE. We have to remember that their careers trump all.

  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,314
    edited October 2019
    Dura_Ace said:

    Sandpit said:

    modern F1 car engines for example are massively fuel-efficient,

    They really aren't - they do about 40-50l/100km which is risible. They exist in their current form only to give hybrid technology a veneer of motosports credibility for the manufacturers.

    If F1 were really interested in efficiency they would have a completely different set of aero regulations, tyres and less focus on mechanical grip.
    The F1 Mercedes is now more than 50% efficient at turning fuel into power. The previous generation of F1 cars were somewhere around 30% and road cars are considerably less efficient.
    Current F1 cars use 105kg of fuel (about 130l) for a c.300km race. Around 7mpg which is context is quite amazing.
    https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/131772/mercedes-engine-hits-remarkable-dyno-target

    F1's problem is that they're not shouting about this from the rooftops, it's an astonishing leap forward in engine technology.

    It's filtering down into road cars, such that the new AMG-A35 has a 300bhp, 2 litre petrol engine yet does 38.7mpg.
    https://www.pistonheads.com/news/ph-features/bmw-m135i-vs--mercedes-amg-a35/41069
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 6,364
    Mr Foremain,

    "... does not reflect the very marginal nature of the result."

    Illogical.

    The winner of a general election is the one with a majority. If Jezza wins, he won't include some of the Tory or LD manifesto to reach out to the losing side.

    The referendum is designed to produce a yes/no verdict. If you want to be sympathetic to the losers, you could suggest a run-off between two sorts of Leave. Not as will happen, a run-off between two sorts of Remain.
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,483
    Parliament to sit on Saturday according to sky news is it possible when prorogued?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 95,872

    Unsurprising, but it doesn't seem to have been war-gamed by the geniuses in Number 10:

    https://twitter.com/SebastianEPayne/status/1181825475716337664

    I don't believe them. Put 'we want a deal but if not then no deal's and they'll pretend a deal has a chance and it's ok to not rebel.
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143

    Can we assume that PBers will be minimising their flying and cruises from now on ?

    Likewise with purchasing of imported fresh food.

    Perhaps we should all pledge never again to buy imported lettuce

    Your lettuce example is one reason why I think there should be a carbon tax to produce a price signal.

    It seems obvious that not importing lettuce by driving it a couple of thousand miles on a diesel truck would be helpful, but as a consumer I will not know when the distributor has switched to an electric truck, charged with solar power. If I do not know the growing season for lettuces I do not know whether a British lettuce has been grown in a gas-heated greenhouse, or indeed a greenhouse not heated, or heated using a wind powered heat pump. Does heating a greenhouse generate more carbon than truck transport? Is this calculation different for tomatoes than lettuces?

    I don't know, and the answer might well be different depending on the detail of the implementation. It could be impossible for me to know. One cannot expect individuals to make all of these judgements. With CFCs it was much easier - aerosol cans began to be available that were CFC-free. The task for the consumer who wanted to act was simple.

    A carbon tax applied equally to all sources of carbon will create a price signal that is obvious to see. It will encourage companies to take action.
  • eekeek Posts: 28,077
    nichomar said:

    Parliament to sit on Saturday according to sky news is it possible when prorogued?

    Nope on Saturday 19th (after the summit). See my earlier comment about how happy that makes me..
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,273

    HYUFD said:

    Unsurprising, but it doesn't seem to have been war-gamed by the geniuses in Number 10:

    https://twitter.com/SebastianEPayne/status/1181825475716337664

    It has been, any Tory MP who refuses to back the manifesto commitment to Brexit Deal or No Deal will be deselected and replaced by a candidate who will
    You would like that wouldn't you? Fascist, small tent ideology coming to a political party near you!
    No, simple maths. If the Tories win a majority with a manifesto commitment to Brexit Deal or No Deal and 50 Tory candidates refuse to respect that commitment it cannot be implemented. Hence deselections will have to occur if any candidates refuse to respect Brexit Deal or No Deal.

    As someone who refuses to respect the winning Leave vote come what may you are hardly in a position to lecture about democracy
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,483
    Parliament to sit on Saturday according to sky news is it possible when prorogued?
    eek said:

    nichomar said:

    Parliament to sit on Saturday according to sky news is it possible when prorogued?

    Nope on Saturday 19th (after the summit). See my earlier comment about how happy that makes me..
    She’s just clarified it’s what I would have thought.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 70,513
    Sandpit said:

    tlg86 said:

    TOPPING 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.
    Interesting, I suspected that might be the case. And this is part of the problem. It only generated media attention because the media doesn’t like Brazil’s president.

    An old colleague of mine said that part of the problem with Global Warming is the name, as demonstrated by that piece on the permafrost. Human activity might be contributing to the change there, but there’s clearly something specific to that area that’s causing the temperature rise to be particularly large. Perhaps as the ice melts, there’s a positive feedback loop that sees less sunlight reflected back from where it came.

    Yep, no-one was talking about the simultaneous African wildfires, because there wasn't a disliked (to American liberals) politician to go after.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-49471644
    Quite a lot of people were talking about it (as evidenced by the BBC having that article up).
    It's all the same globe, and dismissing particular because they disproportionate attention (or inattention) is foolish.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,273
    edited October 2019

    HYUFD said:

    Stocky said:

    Yes the PM will control the date of the election if gov loses a VONC. This is one reason why I don`t think that Corbyn will table a VONC this year - and possiby never (and is why I`ve backed GE for 2022 at long odds).

    Yellow Submarines Option D (8:18am) "become PM and set the date himself" is a key reason why Corbyn will not agree to anyone but himself heading a GNU. I think it still possible that a GNU with Corbyn as PM is a possibility only because he can then determine the GE date.

    The LDs and Tory rebels will never back Corbyn as PM
    Agreed. Why would Ms. Swinson, seeing they have a unique opportunity to replace Labour, do that? As for the Conservative rebels, Labour would not give them a free run in a GE. We have to remember that their careers trump all.

    Exactly, Swinson wants the LDs to overtake Corbyn Labour not prop up Corbyn Labour and while Tory rebels may defect to or do deals with the LDs they will not with Corbyn Labour
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    kle4 said:

    Unsurprising, but it doesn't seem to have been war-gamed by the geniuses in Number 10:

    https://twitter.com/SebastianEPayne/status/1181825475716337664

    I don't believe them. Put 'we want a deal but if not then no deal's and they'll pretend a deal has a chance and it's ok to not rebel.
    It won't be 50 but a further number will have had their credulity stretched beyond breaking point.
  • mwadamsmwadams Posts: 3,570

    Can we assume that PBers will be minimising their flying and cruises from now on ?

    Likewise with purchasing of imported fresh food.

    Perhaps we should all pledge never again to buy imported lettuce

    Your lettuce example is one reason why I think there should be a carbon tax to produce a price signal.

    It seems obvious that not importing lettuce by driving it a couple of thousand miles on a diesel truck would be helpful, but as a consumer I will not know when the distributor has switched to an electric truck, charged with solar power. If I do not know the growing season for lettuces I do not know whether a British lettuce has been grown in a gas-heated greenhouse, or indeed a greenhouse not heated, or heated using a wind powered heat pump. Does heating a greenhouse generate more carbon than truck transport? Is this calculation different for tomatoes than lettuces?

    I don't know, and the answer might well be different depending on the detail of the implementation. It could be impossible for me to know. One cannot expect individuals to make all of these judgements. With CFCs it was much easier - aerosol cans began to be available that were CFC-free. The task for the consumer who wanted to act was simple.

    A carbon tax applied equally to all sources of carbon will create a price signal that is obvious to see. It will encourage companies to take action.
    Likewise, not growing apples in England, shipping them to Spain for polishing, shipping them back, and declaring them to be "local".
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143

    TOPPING said:



    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.)

    There's not a great deal we can do. Being really green costs money. Veganism is costing me a fortune! I don't have the space to grow my own fruit and veg. The waiting list for an allotment is longer than the list for one of Charles' clubs, so I have to buy it all in. We go for organic but that's hit and miss in the supermarkets. Packaging is a nightmare, with so much single use plastic, and even when something comes in a paper bag they stick a "helpful" single use plastic window in it!
    I can neither fit nor afford a heat source pump, can't afford solar, can no longer cycle to work, can't afford an electric vehicle and there ain't any public transport at the time I head off, so my old diesel van is the only option........but we haven't used an aeroplane for 3 years if that counts?
    Veganism is an ideology.

    You can switch your gas/electricity supplier to someone like Pure Planet, who use 100% renewable electricity and offset 100% of all their gas and happen to be quite affordable too.

    Packaging is starting to change I think and low-cost electric vehicles are about 5-10 years away from being on the market.
    Which have done a lot of the legwork to compare how green different electricity providers who claim to be green are.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 70,513
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Unsurprising, but it doesn't seem to have been war-gamed by the geniuses in Number 10:

    https://twitter.com/SebastianEPayne/status/1181825475716337664

    It has been, any Tory MP who refuses to back the manifesto commitment to Brexit Deal or No Deal will be deselected and replaced by a candidate who will
    You would like that wouldn't you? Fascist, small tent ideology coming to a political party near you!
    No, simple maths. If the Tories win a majority with a manifesto commitment to Brexit Deal or No Deal and 50 Tory candidates refuse to respect that commitment it cannot be implemented. Hence deselections will have to occur if any candidates refuse to respect Brexit Deal or No Deal...
    Your argument boils down to that when given a clash between an imbecilic policy, and MPs who refuse to accept it as a manifesto commitment, you get rid of the MPs (something which in itself requires a degree of handwaving).

    There is an alternative, and less destructive means of solving that clash.
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 9,898
    Sandpit said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Sandpit said:

    modern F1 car engines for example are massively fuel-efficient,

    They really aren't - they do about 40-50l/100km which is risible. They exist in their current form only to give hybrid technology a veneer of motosports credibility for the manufacturers.

    If F1 were really interested in efficiency they would have a completely different set of aero regulations, tyres and less focus on mechanical grip.
    The F1 Mercedes is now more than 50% efficient at turning fuel into power. The previous generation of F1 cars were somewhere around 30% and road cars are considerably less efficient.
    Current F1 cars use 105kg of fuel (about 130l) for a c.300km race. Around 7mpg which is context is quite amazing.
    https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/131772/mercedes-engine-hits-remarkable-dyno-target

    F1's problem is that they're not shouting about this from the rooftops, it's an astonishing leap forward in engine technology.

    It's filtering down into road cars, such that the new AMG-A35 has a 300bhp, 2 litre petrol engine yet does 38.7mpg.
    https://www.pistonheads.com/news/ph-features/bmw-m135i-vs--mercedes-amg-a35/41069
    ... whereas the Tesla Model 3 does 130 MPGe and is also quite fast.
    https://www.edmunds.com/tesla/model-3/2018/mpg/
  • VerulamiusVerulamius Posts: 1,539
    You can not have a general election on 2nd of January as it is a Bank Holiday in Scotland.
  • HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Unsurprising, but it doesn't seem to have been war-gamed by the geniuses in Number 10:

    https://twitter.com/SebastianEPayne/status/1181825475716337664

    It has been, any Tory MP who refuses to back the manifesto commitment to Brexit Deal or No Deal will be deselected and replaced by a candidate who will
    You would like that wouldn't you? Fascist, small tent ideology coming to a political party near you!
    No, simple maths. If the Tories win a majority with a manifesto commitment to Brexit Deal or No Deal and 50 Tory candidates refuse to respect that commitment it cannot be implemented. Hence deselections will have to occur if any candidates refuse to respect Brexit Deal or No Deal.

    As someone who refuses to respect the winning Leave vote come what may you are hardly in a position to lecture about democracy
    Well my views on Brexit, unlike yours may I say, have never been hypocritical. Brexit is a bad idea period. As for "respecting" the vote, no-deal certainly does not do that as it was a very marginal win on a very dodgy prospectus. The only mandate for the stupidity of no-deal needs to be won by a fresh referendum, which ,as you know, would be lost, so will not be offered by Bozo.

    So, as a dedicated fanboy of Bozo, you will fall in behind the mendacious approach of pretending that all people who might be scared into voting Tory are backing no-deal. Your idea of "democracy", I am sorry to say has the all the depth of understanding of the simpleton.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,753

    TOPPING said:

    Foxy said:

    felix said:

    Foxy said:

    Sandpit said:

    felix 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").

    l.
    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 weaching - 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.)
    There's not a great deal we can do. Being really green costs money. Veganism is costing me a fortune! I don't have the space to grow my own fruit and veg. The waiting list for an allotment is longer than the list for one of Charles' clubs, so I have to buy it all in. We go for organic but that's hit and miss in the supermarkets. Packaging is a nightmare, with so much single use plastic, and even when something comes in a paper bag they stick a "helpful" single use plastic window in it!
    I can neither fit nor afford a heat source pump, can't afford solar, can no longer cycle to work, can't afford an electric vehicle and there ain't any public transport at the time I head off, so my old diesel van is the only option........but we haven't used an aeroplane for 3 years if that counts?
    Enviable awareness and understanding if I may say.
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 9,898
    CD13 said:

    Mr Foremain,

    "... does not reflect the very marginal nature of the result."

    Illogical.

    The winner of a general election is the one with a majority. If Jezza wins, he won't include some of the Tory or LD manifesto to reach out to the losing side.

    The referendum is designed to produce a yes/no verdict. If you want to be sympathetic to the losers, you could suggest a run-off between two sorts of Leave. Not as will happen, a run-off between two sorts of Remain.

    Rubbish, leaving with Mrs Mays deal is still Leaving. It's not a sort of Remain.
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,483
    mwadams said:

    Can we assume that PBers will be minimising their flying and cruises from now on ?

    Likewise with purchasing of imported fresh food.

    Perhaps we should all pledge never again to buy imported lettuce

    Your lettuce example is one reason why I think there should be a carbon tax to produce a price signal.

    It seems obvious that not importing lettuce by driving it a couple of thousand miles on a diesel truck would be helpful, but as a consumer I will not know when the distributor has switched to an electric truck, charged with solar power. If I do not know the growing season for lettuces I do not know whether a British lettuce has been grown in a gas-heated greenhouse, or indeed a greenhouse not heated, or heated using a wind powered heat pump. Does heating a greenhouse generate more carbon than truck transport? Is this calculation different for tomatoes than lettuces?

    I don't know, and the answer might well be different depending on the detail of the implementation. It could be impossible for me to know. One cannot expect individuals to make all of these judgements. With CFCs it was much easier - aerosol cans began to be available that were CFC-free. The task for the consumer who wanted to act was simple.

    A carbon tax applied equally to all sources of carbon will create a price signal that is obvious to see. It will encourage companies to take action.
    Likewise, not growing apples in England, shipping them to Spain for polishing, shipping them back, and declaring them to be "local".
    The bar I sit in for sundown drinks faces a large field which normally grows celery at this time of year 90% of their produce is bagged locally in telco branded packaging and shipped to the UK. They have just stopped planting for the last week and activity has stopped. Not sure if it is coincidental but will watch closely what happens next.
This discussion has been closed.