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.
It is a policy the vast majority of Tory members and voters support and the only one that will deliver a Tory majority at the next general election, if you refuse to back that policy then you will correctly be deselected in favour of candidates who if elected will
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 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.
It is a policy the vast majority of Tory members and voters support and the only one that will deliver a Tory majority at the next general election, if you refuse to back that policy then you will correctly be deselected in favour of candidates who if elected will
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.
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.
The Brazil fires weren't any different to what happens every year though, the only difference this year was that they were an excuse to bash Bolsonaro.
The same happens in the USA, where Obama detaining illegal border-crossers and deporting overstayers is barely mentioned, yet Trump doing the same makes him the worst person in the world. It's all politics.
On the substantive point of the fires, if we believe they need to be contained, then let's offer assistance to the affected countries before the 'season' starts.
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.
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
But something impossible has to happen between now and Getting Brexit Done. The question is- what?
In absence of a German denial that the phone call report is accurate, I'll believe it's mostly true. I think Boris learned the same lesson as Dave did in 2016 during his own negotiation - Merkel is completely and utterly unreliable. Any plans that depend on her should be binned.
The PM should have been talking to Macron who seems much, much more ready to to bend a few rules to get a deal over the line. Anyone who has watched Merkel's attitude to the EU should realise that she will make every other narion stick exactly to the letter of the law. The Greek bailout was probably the most obvious example, people literally died from the German austerity plan and there was no let up. She has blood on her hands but because it benefits Germany she forced it through.
Ireland will find themselves in the same position as well, they've made a bet on Merkel but ultimately she's as much of a nationalist as Trump, she just doesn't talk about it, instead she actions it.
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.
On BBC London News last night they had a feature on the protesters at Smithfield Market. Their motivation is simply that they don't like people eating meat rather than any concerns about CH4 emissions.
There's a bit of a debate in The Other Place about whether Leo V should be called Taoiseach or prime minister in the British media (ease of understanding v respect to someone's official title)
And a lot of people are going on about Angela Merkel being called Chancellor.
Which rather proves the point - because her title is *translated into English for the convenience and understanding of the target audience*. If the papers called her Bundeskanzler, I'd have some sympathy with the argument!
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.
I am not convinced. The media and the public would HATE an election campaign that is deliberately dragged out across the Christmas and New Year period. They would want it "over by Christmas". Trying to drag it out by silly games will be seen for what it is and will be as popular as syphillis.
So if a FTPA motion is put down again by Boris after an extension is agreed is Corbyn seriously able to abstain on that? The media would be furious at him and he won't have the fig leaf of being able to say that it is to prevent a no deal Brexit like last time.
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....)
It was on the telly recently , saw it advertised on one of the repeat channels when going through guide
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.
I believe the Tesla Model S economy is around 100mpg equivalent.
My comparison was that a 300bhp petrol engine in a road car now does nearly 40mpg, whereas a decade ago it would do closer to 20mpg. That's a massive improvement, aided by technology developed (in the UK) for F1.
On the electric car side, there's a lot of variables in trying to equivilise (is that a word?) an mpg figure, depending on things like the source of electricity and the unknown life of the battery packs. I'd say the newer electric cars are probably now better, especially the new Tesla Model 3 which uses the latest battery tech. On the other hand, many 6 or 7 year old electric cars such as the Nissan Leaf are being written off as the batteries are dead and the replacement cost isn't economic. The tipping point is close, the barriers are now the charging infrastructure and the higher purchase cost of electric cars.
On BBC London News last night they had a feature on the protesters at Smithfield Market. Their motivation is simply that they don't like people eating meat rather than any concerns about CH4 emissions.
Let's suppose City play Liverpool in the FA Cup final. Liverpool win 2 -1 - a narrow victory. The City supporters demand a replay, claiming Liverpool cheated because … everything. The weather was bad, a throw-in was awarded to them wrongly and City are the better team all round.
The FA (the MPs and media) are sympathetic and refuse to present the Cup, instead prevaricating and finally awarding the Cup to City or ordering a replay. Do you expect the Liverpool fans or neutrals to accept it?
The City fans will claim it's justice and a wrong has been righted, and many will genuinely believe that. I don't expect you as committed fan of the losing side to change your mind.
But don't expect others to see your point of view.
There's a bit of a debate in The Other Place about whether Leo V should be called Taoiseach or prime minister in the British media (ease of understanding v respect to someone's official title)
And a lot of people are going on about Angela Merkel being called Chancellor.
Which rather proves the point - because her title is *translated into English for the convenience and understanding of the target audience*. If the papers called her Bundeskanzler, I'd have some sympathy with the argument!
When Irish people are talking, in English, about the leader of their government, they use the term Taoiseach for the name of the position that their head of government holds. I don't see why, when we are speaking the same language, that we should do any different.
English has always been very good at adopting foreign words and incorporating them into the language. Why should this stop now?
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.
I believe the Tesla Model S economy is around 100mpg equivalent.
My comparison was that a 300bhp petrol engine in a road car now does nearly 40mpg, whereas a decade ago it would do closer to 20mpg. That's a massive improvement, aided by technology developed (in the UK) for F1.
On the electric car side, there's a lot of variables in trying to equivilise (is that a word?) an mpg figure, depending on things like the source of electricity and the unknown life of the battery packs. I'd say the newer electric cars are probably now better, especially the new Tesla Model 3 which uses the latest battery tech. On the other hand, many 6 or 7 year old electric cars such as the Nissan Leaf are being written off as the batteries are dead and the replacement cost isn't economic. The tipping point is close, the barriers are now the charging infrastructure and the higher purchase cost of electric cars.
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.
This is true.
But I think the point of recent speculation in this area is that the only way Boris survives extension is by going Full Fat Farage in the ensuing election campaign. And even if he holds open the idea of a deal, everyone will know by then that one on his terms (Irish border staffed by invisible pixies) isn't going to happen.
*This* article is about those on the other wing of his party reminding him that sweeping up Brexit votes doesn't in itself deliver a majority if he pisses the equivalent vote share up the wall at the other end.
Given the Boris/Dom playbook so far, I fully expect them to find a workable and warm-spirited compromise which accommodates both wings and respects the historical broad church of the Tory party.
Maybe a Christmas general election would be a good thing. As much as I despise Gropy McGropeface and that gloomy pipecleaner Rees-Mogg, I would rather listen to them in debates or party political broadcasts that hear Slade or Paul fucking McCartney all the time. My vote goes to anyone who makes it illegal to play War Is Over by John Lennon.
How believable is that? It would be a bizarre threat given their behaviour to date.
Firstly, the election will take place after an extension has happened. So we will be resetting the clock to where we were prior to the Benn Act, with no prospect of another Benn Act if Johnson gets a working majority in the election. Namely the new government will be engaging in negotiations to seek a deal, with a credible threat that if the EU refused to budge we would leave without one. They were content for that and indeed they were willing to vote against the Benn bill to try and make it happen by keeping the pressure on the EU to reach a deal.
Secondly, they were quite content to be elected on a 2017 manifesto which took precisely that approach, so much that an identical wording could be included in a 2019 manifesto i.e. "The negotiations will undoubtedly be tough, and there will be give and take on both sides, but we continue to believe that no deal is better than a bad deal for the UK."
If 50 sitting MPs have nonetheless changed their position from 2017, and disavowed the Conservative manifesto, then many would lose a large chunk of their votes to the Brexit Party and I think face an increased threat of losing their seats to one or other of their opponents.
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.
Unfortunately owing to the celebrification of Laura K on various comedy shows she has now become 'inebriated by the exuberance of her own verbosity' (as someone once said of someone else) and barely more informative than Robert Peston. Only Katya Adler can now be relied on for a sensible summary of what is going on in the Brexit saga
On BBC London News last night they had a feature on the protesters at Smithfield Market. Their motivation is simply that they don't like people eating meat rather than any concerns about CH4 emissions.
They had banners with a very similar message to that on the t-shirt worn by the girl in this video
There's a bit of a debate in The Other Place about whether Leo V should be called Taoiseach or prime minister in the British media (ease of understanding v respect to someone's official title)
And a lot of people are going on about Angela Merkel being called Chancellor.
Which rather proves the point - because her title is *translated into English for the convenience and understanding of the target audience*. If the papers called her Bundeskanzler, I'd have some sympathy with the argument!
When Irish people are talking, in English, about the leader of their government, they use the term Taoiseach for the name of the position that their head of government holds. I don't see why, when we are speaking the same language, that we should do any different.
English has always been very good at adopting foreign words and incorporating them into the language. Why should this stop now?
Because its pretentious plastic Paddy wank ?
Am amazed Nicla isn’t using the Gaelic term for First Minister - can only be a matter of time.
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
I think it is more likely that the story isn't accurate, but if it is I struggle to see how your suggested solution works. It is high risk. A manifesto tends to be produced quite late in the day, so that would require some organisation to pull off replacing 50 candidates and it is pretty well accepted that parties that look disorganised lose.
On a personal friendly note it would come over much better if you said 'I suspect it has been' or 'I think it has been' or 'I'm sure it has been' Similarly a lot of your posts start with 'No' or 'Wrong'. How about 'I disagree' or 'I think you are wrong'?
I believe the Tesla Model S economy is around 100mpg equivalent.
My comparison was that a 300bhp petrol engine in a road car now does nearly 40mpg, whereas a decade ago it would do closer to 20mpg. That's a massive improvement, aided by technology developed (in the UK) for F1.
On the electric car side, there's a lot of variables in trying to equivilise (is that a word?) an mpg figure, depending on things like the source of electricity and the unknown life of the battery packs. I'd say the newer electric cars are probably now better, especially the new Tesla Model 3 which uses the latest battery tech. On the other hand, many 6 or 7 year old electric cars such as the Nissan Leaf are being written off as the batteries are dead and the replacement cost isn't economic. The tipping point is close, the barriers are now the charging infrastructure and the higher purchase cost of electric cars.
Yep, if they're anywhere close to that endurance in the real world then it's an absolute game-changer. I imagine someone somewhere has a fleet of taxis using them (I've seen a few in this part of the world already), so it shouldn't take too long to find out.
Tesla are seriously moving the game along with regard to electric car technology, everyone else is playing catch-up. The only thing close is the new Porsche Taycan, which has better drivetrain technology, but that's a very expensive ($180K) and niche vehicle.
In absence of a German denial that the phone call report is accurate, I'll believe it's mostly true. I think Boris learned the same lesson as Dave did in 2016 during his own negotiation - Merkel is completely and utterly unreliable. Any plans that depend on her should be binned.
The PM should have been talking to Macron who seems much, much more ready to to bend a few rules to get a deal over the line. Anyone who has watched Merkel's attitude to the EU should realise that she will make every other narion stick exactly to the letter of the law. The Greek bailout was probably the most obvious example, people literally died from the German austerity plan and there was no let up. She has blood on her hands but because it benefits Germany she forced it through.
Ireland will find themselves in the same position as well, they've made a bet on Merkel but ultimately she's as much of a nationalist as Trump, she just doesn't talk about it, instead she actions it.
But quite happy to ignore rules when it helps German car manufacturers.
How believable is that? It would be a bizarre threat given their behaviour to date.
Firstly, the election will take place after an extension has happened. So we will be resetting the clock to where we were prior to the Benn Act, with no prospect of another Benn Act if Johnson gets a working majority in the election. Namely the new government will be engaging in negotiations to seek a deal, with a credible threat that if the EU refused to budge we would leave without one. They were content for that and indeed they were willing to vote against the Benn bill to try and make it happen by keeping the pressure on the EU to reach a deal.
Secondly, they were quite content to be elected on a 2017 manifesto which took precisely that approach, so much that an identical wording could be included in a 2019 manifesto i.e. "The negotiations will undoubtedly be tough, and there will be give and take on both sides, but we continue to believe that no deal is better than a bad deal for the UK."
If 50 sitting MPs have nonetheless changed their position from 2017, and disavowed the Conservative manifesto, then many would lose a large chunk of their votes to the Brexit Party and I think face an increased threat of losing their seats to one or other of their opponents.
I think the article is a reaction to the story that the Tory manifesto will be no deal leave immediately no more discussion. That is the manifesto they intend to try and bypass.
On BBC London News last night they had a feature on the protesters at Smithfield Market. Their motivation is simply that they don't like people eating meat rather than any concerns about CH4 emissions.
The meat industry is a major emitter of CO2 and methane, as well as deforestation. It is also very obesogenic, so bad for both planet and us.
I believe the Tesla Model S economy is around 100mpg equivalent.
My comparison was that a 300bhp petrol engine in a road car now does nearly 40mpg, whereas a decade ago it would do closer to 20mpg. That's a massive improvement, aided by technology developed (in the UK) for F1.
On the electric car side, there's a lot of variables in trying to equivilise (is that a word?) an mpg figure, depending on things like the source of electricity and the unknown life of the battery packs. I'd say the newer electric cars are probably now better, especially the new Tesla Model 3 which uses the latest battery tech. On the other hand, many 6 or 7 year old electric cars such as the Nissan Leaf are being written off as the batteries are dead and the replacement cost isn't economic. The tipping point is close, the barriers are now the charging infrastructure and the higher purchase cost of electric cars.
Yep, if they're anywhere close to that endurance in the real world then it's an absolute game-changer. I imagine someone somewhere has a fleet of taxis using them (I've seen a few in this part of the world already), so it shouldn't take too long to find out.
Tesla are seriously moving the game along with regard to electric car technology, everyone else is playing catch-up. The only thing close is the new Porsche Taycan, which has better drivetrain technology, but that's a very expensive ($180K) and niche vehicle.
And that drive train comes from Mate Rimac anyway.
Maybe a Christmas general election would be a good thing. As much as I despise Gropy McGropeface and that gloomy pipecleaner Rees-Mogg, I would rather listen to them in debates or party political broadcasts that hear Slade or Paul fucking McCartney all the time. My vote goes to anyone who makes it illegal to play War Is Over by John Lennon.
We can have endless reruns of the sound of music, the great escape etc etc to go with the National mood.
There's a bit of a debate in The Other Place about whether Leo V should be called Taoiseach or prime minister in the British media (ease of understanding v respect to someone's official title)
And a lot of people are going on about Angela Merkel being called Chancellor.
Which rather proves the point - because her title is *translated into English for the convenience and understanding of the target audience*. If the papers called her Bundeskanzler, I'd have some sympathy with the argument!
When Irish people are talking, in English, about the leader of their government, they use the term Taoiseach for the name of the position that their head of government holds. I don't see why, when we are speaking the same language, that we should do any different.
English has always been very good at adopting foreign words and incorporating them into the language. Why should this stop now?
To be fair, I agree this is at the less tricky end of the scale.
But if 85 per cent of the audience understand one term and 100 per cent understand the other, which has an identical and unmistakable meaning, why wouldn't you?
Next up.. let's call the Welsh Assembly the Senedd.
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
I think it is more likely that the story isn't accurate, but if it is I struggle to see how your suggested solution works. It is high risk. A manifesto tends to be produced quite late in the day, so that would require some organisation to pull off replacing 50 candidates and it is pretty well accepted that parties that look disorganised lose.
On a personal friendly note it would come over much better if you said 'I suspect it has been' or 'I think it has been' or 'I'm sure it has been' Similarly a lot of your posts start with 'No' or 'Wrong'. How about 'I disagree' or 'I think you are wrong'?
Yes. The deadline for candidate selection at the last GE was 12th May 2017. The Conservative Party manifesto was launched on the 18th May. Too late.
There's a bit of a debate in The Other Place about whether Leo V should be called Taoiseach or prime minister in the British media (ease of understanding v respect to someone's official title)
And a lot of people are going on about Angela Merkel being called Chancellor.
Which rather proves the point - because her title is *translated into English for the convenience and understanding of the target audience*. If the papers called her Bundeskanzler, I'd have some sympathy with the argument!
When Irish people are talking, in English, about the leader of their government, they use the term Taoiseach for the name of the position that their head of government holds. I don't see why, when we are speaking the same language, that we should do any different.
English has always been very good at adopting foreign words and incorporating them into the language. Why should this stop now?
I believe the Tesla Model S economy is around 100mpg equivalent.
My comparison was that a 300bhp petrol engine in a road car now does nearly 40mpg, whereas a decade ago it would do closer to 20mpg. That's a massive improvement, aided by technology developed (in the UK) for F1.
On the electric car side, there's a lot of variables in trying to equivilise (is that a word?) an mpg figure, depending on things like the source of electricity and the unknown life of the battery packs. I'd say the newer electric cars are probably now better, especially the new Tesla Model 3 which uses the latest battery tech. On the other hand, many 6 or 7 year old electric cars such as the Nissan Leaf are being written off as the batteries are dead and the replacement cost isn't economic. The tipping point is close, the barriers are now the charging infrastructure and the higher purchase cost of electric cars.
Yep, if they're anywhere close to that endurance in the real world then it's an absolute game-changer. I imagine someone somewhere has a fleet of taxis using them (I've seen a few in this part of the world already), so it shouldn't take too long to find out.
Tesla are seriously moving the game along with regard to electric car technology, everyone else is playing catch-up. The only thing close is the new Porsche Taycan, which has better drivetrain technology, but that's a very expensive ($180K) and niche vehicle.
And that drive train comes from Mate Rimac anyway.
Yeah, VAG bought a 10% stake in Rimac last year. They've been at the forefront of electric car tech in Europe, while remaining relativley unknown (Richard Hammond crashing their prototype supercar aside).
On BBC London News last night they had a feature on the protesters at Smithfield Market. Their motivation is simply that they don't like people eating meat rather than any concerns about CH4 emissions.
The meat industry is a major emitter of CO2 and methane, as well as deforestation. It is also very obesogenic, so bad for both planet and us.
On BBC London News last night they had a feature on the protesters at Smithfield Market. Their motivation is simply that they don't like people eating meat rather than any concerns about CH4 emissions.
The meat industry is a major emitter of CO2 and methane, as well as deforestation. It is also very obesogenic, so bad for both planet and us.
Maybe a Christmas general election would be a good thing. As much as I despise Gropy McGropeface and that gloomy pipecleaner Rees-Mogg, I would rather listen to them in debates or party political broadcasts that hear Slade or Paul fucking McCartney all the time. My vote goes to anyone who makes it illegal to play War Is Over by John Lennon.
We can have endless reruns of the sound of music, the great escape etc etc to go with the National mood.
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
I think it is more likely that the story isn't accurate, but if it is I struggle to see how your suggested solution works. It is high risk. A manifesto tends to be produced quite late in the day, so that would require some organisation to pull off replacing 50 candidates and it is pretty well accepted that parties that look disorganised lose.
On a personal friendly note it would come over much better if you said 'I suspect it has been' or 'I think it has been' or 'I'm sure it has been' Similarly a lot of your posts start with 'No' or 'Wrong'. How about 'I disagree' or 'I think you are wrong'?
Yes. The deadline for candidate selection at the last GE was 12th May 2017. The Conservative Party manifesto was launched on the 18th May. Too late.
Put a rider on the form to be a candidate for the party e.g. "If elected I will vote for a no deal Brexit if that is the party policy".
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.
This is true.
But I think the point of recent speculation in this area is that the only way Boris survives extension is by going Full Fat Farage in the ensuing election campaign. And even if he holds open the idea of a deal, everyone will know by then that one on his terms (Irish border staffed by invisible pixies) isn't going to happen.
"Everyone" doesn't know that. We don't know whether the Irish and the EU would have compromised if parliament had not passed a law ruling out no deal. We don't know whether the Irish and the EU will be prepared to compromise if after a GE the opposition in parliament is in a minority and they are finally faced with the prospect of no deal if they still refuse to play ball.
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
I think it is more likely that the story isn't accurate, but if it is I struggle to see how your suggested solution works. It is high risk. A manifesto tends to be produced quite late in the day, so that would require some organisation to pull off replacing 50 candidates and it is pretty well accepted that parties that look disorganised lose.
On a personal friendly note it would come over much better if you said 'I suspect it has been' or 'I think it has been' or 'I'm sure it has been' Similarly a lot of your posts start with 'No' or 'Wrong'. How about 'I disagree' or 'I think you are wrong'?
The 21 anti No Deal rebels will automatically be deselected unless they change their mind, any further candidate who says they will not support No Deal will not be deselected.
I am not going to stop being definitive when needed
In summary: The Sovereign could refuse a request from the Prime Minister to dissolve Parliament if three conditions were met:
- if the existing Parliament was still "vital, viable, and capable of doing its job", - if a general election would be "detrimental to the national economy", and - if the Sovereign could "rely on finding another prime minister who could govern for a reasonable period with a working majority in the House of Commons".
A cunning plan by Cummings to forbid the sovereign to appoint an alternative PM, with just six drawbacks: Firstly, the monarch has the option of refusing a request from the PM to dissolve Parliament; it is not compulsory Secondly, that the argument that the existing Parliament is still "vital, viable, and capable of doing its job" is questionable at best. Thirdly, that there is no evidence that a general election could be detrimental to the national economy. Fourthly, that if a caretaker PM has been made known, the Lascelles Provisions explicitly say that the Sovereign could appoint him or her. Fifthly, that the Lascelles Principles apply to the dissolution of Parliament; not the resignation or removal of a PM following a Vote of No Confidence, so they'd be irrelevant even if the next point were not valid. And Sixthly, that the Lascelles Provisions were put into abeyance in 2011 following the passing of the FTPA which removed the Royal Prerogative to dissolve Parliament for which the Principles were made to clarify.
On BBC London News last night they had a feature on the protesters at Smithfield Market. Their motivation is simply that they don't like people eating meat rather than any concerns about CH4 emissions.
The meat industry is a major emitter of CO2 and methane, as well as deforestation. It is also very obesogenic, so bad for both planet and us.
It's also a tasty and beloved source of protein.
How does a source of protein become 'beloved'?
Taste great.
Be an iconic part of people's lives that they look forward to. People enjoy their meals and in the summer people love to put meat on the barbecue etc.
On BBC London News last night they had a feature on the protesters at Smithfield Market. Their motivation is simply that they don't like people eating meat rather than any concerns about CH4 emissions.
The meat industry is a major emitter of CO2 and methane, as well as deforestation. It is also very obesogenic, so bad for both planet and us.
Indeed, and I like to think that I'm pretty good. Generally I eat chicken and pork, and beef is a bit of a treat.
But what's driving the anti-meat agenda isn't climate change, it's a visceral hatred of meat eaters in general.
How believable is that? It would be a bizarre threat given their behaviour to date.
Firstly, the election will take place after an extension has happened. So we will be resetting the clock to where we were prior to the Benn Act, with no prospect of another Benn Act if Johnson gets a working majority in the election. Namely the new government will be engaging in negotiations to seek a deal, with a credible threat that if the EU refused to budge we would leave without one. They were content for that and indeed they were willing to vote against the Benn bill to try and make it happen by keeping the pressure on the EU to reach a deal.
Secondly, they were quite content to be elected on a 2017 manifesto which took precisely that approach, so much that an identical wording could be included in a 2019 manifesto i.e. "The negotiations will undoubtedly be tough, and there will be give and take on both sides, but we continue to believe that no deal is better than a bad deal for the UK."
If 50 sitting MPs have nonetheless changed their position from 2017, and disavowed the Conservative manifesto, then many would lose a large chunk of their votes to the Brexit Party and I think face an increased threat of losing their seats to one or other of their opponents.
I think the article is a reaction to the story that the Tory manifesto will be no deal leave immediately no more discussion. That is the manifesto they intend to try and bypass.
If the Tories win a majority and do not need the DUP I suspect a NI only backstop would be likely in the end but until then if the current Boris plan is rejected No Deal it has to be as Tory policy until the EU agree to remove the backstop
On BBC London News last night they had a feature on the protesters at Smithfield Market. Their motivation is simply that they don't like people eating meat rather than any concerns about CH4 emissions.
The meat industry is a major emitter of CO2 and methane, as well as deforestation. It is also very obesogenic, so bad for both planet and us.
It's also a tasty and beloved source of protein.
How does a source of protein become 'beloved'?
Taste great.
Be an iconic part of people's lives that they look forward to. People enjoy their meals and in the summer people love to put meat on the barbecue etc.
A good friend of mine is a muslim vegetarian. He is still occasionally persuaded by a bacon sandwich
The 20th Century was Conservative Century because their conservativism was business friendly, and through that pro EU. It wouldn’t do the dirty on the police, the queen nor expel and repel its own moderate members and supporters
See this. This is metaphor for what Boris is doing to the Conservative Party. Turning it into something that is far removed from what it was.
I believe the Tesla Model S economy is around 100mpg equivalent.
My comparison was that a 300bhp petrol engine in a road car now does nearly 40mpg, whereas a decade ago it would do closer to 20mpg. That's a massive improvement, aided by technology developed (in the UK) for F1.
On the electric car side, there's a lot of variables in trying to equivilise (is that a word?) an mpg figure, depending on things like the source of electricity and the unknown life of the battery packs. I'd say the newer electric cars are probably now better, especially the new Tesla Model 3 which uses the latest battery tech. On the other hand, many 6 or 7 year old electric cars such as the Nissan Leaf are being written off as the batteries are dead and the replacement cost isn't economic. The tipping point is close, the barriers are now the charging infrastructure and the higher purchase cost of electric cars.
Yep, if they're anywhere close to that endurance in the real world then it's an absolute game-changer. I imagine someone somewhere has a fleet of taxis using them (I've seen a few in this part of the world already), so it shouldn't take too long to find out.
Tesla are seriously moving the game along with regard to electric car technology, everyone else is playing catch-up. The only thing close is the new Porsche Taycan, which has better drivetrain technology, but that's a very expensive ($180K) and niche vehicle.
The further point, of course, is that big money is being spent on pursuing better battery tech. Tesla will probably be able to wring something like another 30% improvement in energy density by incorporating the solvent free electrode coating technology they recently acquired with Maxwell, but should we ever crack (for example) the lithium sulphur battery (and there is a lot of recent promising research) we could see doubling or tripling of current efficiencies.
Maybe a Christmas general election would be a good thing. As much as I despise Gropy McGropeface and that gloomy pipecleaner Rees-Mogg, I would rather listen to them in debates or party political broadcasts that hear Slade or Paul fucking McCartney all the time. My vote goes to anyone who makes it illegal to play War Is Over by John Lennon.
How believable is that? It would be a bizarre threat given their behaviour to date.
Firstly, the election will take place after an extension has happened. So we will be resetting the clock to where we were prior to the Benn Act, with no prospect of another Benn Act if Johnson gets a working majority in the election. Namely the new government will be engaging in negotiations to seek a deal, with a credible threat that if the EU refused to budge we would leave without one. They were content for that and indeed they were willing to vote against the Benn bill to try and make it happen by keeping the pressure on the EU to reach a deal.
Secondly, they were quite content to be elected on a 2017 manifesto which took precisely that approach, so much that an identical wording could be included in a 2019 manifesto i.e. "The negotiations will undoubtedly be tough, and there will be give and take on both sides, but we continue to believe that no deal is better than a bad deal for the UK."
If 50 sitting MPs have nonetheless changed their position from 2017, and disavowed the Conservative manifesto, then many would lose a large chunk of their votes to the Brexit Party and I think face an increased threat of losing their seats to one or other of their opponents.
I think the article is a reaction to the story that the Tory manifesto will be no deal leave immediately no more discussion. That is the manifesto they intend to try and bypass.
If the Tories win a majority and do not need the DUP I suspect a NI only backstop would be likely in the end but until then if the current Boris plan is rejected No Deal it has to be as Tory policy until the EU agree to remove the backstop
The average of the polls is not good enough for the Tories if they want a working majority. Is a good result a win but with majority 1 to 10?
How believable is that? It would be a bizarre threat given their behaviour to date.
Firstly, the election will take place after an extension has happened. So we will be resetting the clock to where we were prior to the Benn Act, with no prospect of another Benn Act if Johnson gets a working majority in the election. Namely the new government will be engaging in negotiations to seek a deal, with a credible threat that if the EU refused to budge we would leave without one. They were content for that and indeed they were willing to vote against the Benn bill to try and make it happen by keeping the pressure on the EU to reach a deal.
Secondly, they were quite content to be elected on a 2017 manifesto which took precisely that approach, so much that an identical wording could be included in a 2019 manifesto i.e. "The negotiations will undoubtedly be tough, and there will be give and take on both sides, but we continue to believe that no deal is better than a bad deal for the UK."
If 50 sitting MPs have nonetheless changed their position from 2017, and disavowed the Conservative manifesto, then many would lose a large chunk of their votes to the Brexit Party and I think face an increased threat of losing their seats to one or other of their opponents.
I think the article is a reaction to the story that the Tory manifesto will be no deal leave immediately no more discussion. That is the manifesto they intend to try and bypass.
If the Tories win a majority and do not need the DUP I suspect a NI only backstop would be likely in the end but until then if the current Boris plan is rejected No Deal it has to be as Tory policy until the EU agree to remove the backstop
I think you are wrong. If Boris wins a majority he would have the strength and ability and mandate to demand the backstop is dropped all together. No NI only.
This is essentially what some of us have been suggesting for a while. My guess is that it would get enough Labour votes to pass - but it would split the Tories, turbocharge the BXP and provide strong fodde for the SNP (but No Deal will do that anyway). Against that, it is undoubtedly GFA compliant, delivers Brexit, allows those parts of the UK that voted for Brexit to have it full whack if they so desire and gives NI the scope to change its mind. https://twitter.com/BrunoBrussels/status/1181845952392503296
I think it's pretty weird to blame modern day Britons for the decision of Henry II to give responsibility for taking/holding Ireland to John Lackland.
Yesterday everyone here was united condemning the ridiculous Leave.EU poster that referenced Merkel and WWII. It was clearly, and rightly, seen as ridiculous to cling to grudges of WWII, which ended less than a century ago.
Yet some think it's clever, or wise, or witty, to hark back to the doings of the Angevins in the 12th century. As if that's remotely relevant to or the responsibility of anyone around today.
Why not go back one more century and attack the Normans for the Harrying of the North? Or a century further back and attack the Scandinavians for Viking naughtiness?
How believable is that? It would be a bizarre threat given their behaviour to date.
Firstly, the election will take place after an extension has happened. So we will be resetting the clock to where we were prior to the Benn Act, with no prospect of another Benn Act if Johnson gets a working majority in the election. Namely the new government will be engaging in negotiations to seek a deal, with a credible threat that if the EU refused to budge we would leave without one. They were content for that and indeed they were willing to vote against the Benn bill to try and make it happen by keeping the pressure on the EU to reach a deal.
Secondly, they were quite content to be elected on a 2017 manifesto which took precisely that approach, so much that an identical wording could be included in a 2019 manifesto i.e. "The negotiations will undoubtedly be tough, and there will be give and take on both sides, but we continue to believe that no deal is better than a bad deal for the UK."
If 50 sitting MPs have nonetheless changed their position from 2017, and disavowed the Conservative manifesto, then many would lose a large chunk of their votes to the Brexit Party and I think face an increased threat of losing their seats to one or other of their opponents.
I think the article is a reaction to the story that the Tory manifesto will be no deal leave immediately no more discussion. That is the manifesto they intend to try and bypass.
If the Tories win a majority and do not need the DUP I suspect a NI only backstop would be likely in the end but until then if the current Boris plan is rejected No Deal it has to be as Tory policy until the EU agree to remove the backstop
Surely if than ran on a no deal no discussion platform and they won then that is what they do you’re not suggesting he’s lying are you?
Here’s a question. Imagine Britain does not leave the EU on 31 October. Imagine further that you are Jeremy Corbyn. Do you want to have an election immediately and if so do you want a short or long campaign?
Not immediately and a long campaign.
My view too. Which means that a 2019 election is far too short-priced.
Appreciating you may have logged off, but what does Labour say when an extension is granted (to either January 2020 or later) and Johnson asks for an election. He's done everything Labour have asked. Do they keep adding more conditions? "We'll grant the election, but only in a month ending with a Z?"
People here complaining about the climate protesters making demands on them to change have obviously not engaged with any of them. XR specifically argues against individual blame and says the responsibility for change lies with those who have power, the government and big businesses, rather than individuals.
They make it clear nobody can live a sustainable life under the current system, where if you want to eat you have to buy food from businesses that use unsustainable methods, that if you want to live you have to work in an unsustainable system and that if you want to be happy you often do things that aren't "good" for the planet.
No XR campaign is saying nobody should fly, or nobody should eat meat, or whatever. They are asking for it to be made easier to make good choices. A few people living close to "perfectly" (which isn't possible) won't make nearly as much difference as most people living half as better.
Their desire is not to shame individuals into change, but argue governments should be doing more to help the shift to better technology, rearrange subsidies in a way to help make better life choices (more to green tech, less to fossil fuels, more to fruit and veg, less to meat, etc).
Some are anti-capitalist leftists, sure. But the vast majority are not. Typically parents or grandparents who have been radicalised by what they see, what they learn, and what the future holds for their children and grandchildren.
On BBC London News last night they had a feature on the protesters at Smithfield Market. Their motivation is simply that they don't like people eating meat rather than any concerns about CH4 emissions.
The meat industry is a major emitter of CO2 and methane, as well as deforestation. It is also very obesogenic, so bad for both planet and us.
Indeed, and I like to think that I'm pretty good. Generally I eat chicken and pork, and beef is a bit of a treat.
But what's driving the anti-meat agenda isn't climate change, it's a visceral hatred of meat eaters in general.
That's as ridiculous as saying that the Brexit agenda is driven by a visceral hatred of foreigners.
How believable is that? It would be a bizarre threat given their behaviour to date.
Firstly, the election will take place after an extension has happened. So we will be resetting the clock to where we were prior to the Benn Act, with no prospect of another Benn Act if Johnson gets a working majority in the election. Namely the new government will be engaging in negotiations to seek a deal, with a credible threat that if the EU refused to budge we would leave without one. They were content for that and indeed they were willing to vote against the Benn bill to try and make it happen by keeping the pressure on the EU to reach a deal.
Secondly, they were quite content to be elected on a 2017 manifesto which took precisely that approach, so much that an identical wording could be included in a 2019 manifesto i.e. "The negotiations will undoubtedly be tough, and there will be give and take on both sides, but we continue to believe that no deal is better than a bad deal for the UK."
If 50 sitting MPs have nonetheless changed their position from 2017, and disavowed the Conservative manifesto, then many would lose a large chunk of their votes to the Brexit Party and I think face an increased threat of losing their seats to one or other of their opponents.
I think the article is a reaction to the story that the Tory manifesto will be no deal leave immediately no more discussion. That is the manifesto they intend to try and bypass.
If the Tories win a majority and do not need the DUP I suspect a NI only backstop would be likely in the end but until then if the current Boris plan is rejected No Deal it has to be as Tory policy until the EU agree to remove the backstop
I think you are wrong. If Boris wins a majority he would have the strength and ability and mandate to demand the backstop is dropped all together. No NI only.
It is the GB backstop he really wants removed, if the EU agree to remove the NI backstop too with a Tory majority and No Deal threat great if not with a Tory majority and not reliant on the DUP anymore I suspect as rumoured Boris would let NI voters decide by referendum on the NI backstop
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
I think it is more likely that the story isn't accurate, but if it is I struggle to see how your suggested solution works. It is high risk. A manifesto tends to be produced quite late in the day, so that would require some organisation to pull off replacing 50 candidates and it is pretty well accepted that parties that look disorganised lose.
On a personal friendly note it would come over much better if you said 'I suspect it has been' or 'I think it has been' or 'I'm sure it has been' Similarly a lot of your posts start with 'No' or 'Wrong'. How about 'I disagree' or 'I think you are wrong'?
The 21 anti No Deal rebels will automatically be deselected unless they change their mind, any further candidate who says they will not support No Deal will not be deselected.
I am not going to stop being definitive when needed
There is a difference between "supporting No Deal as a last resort but we really don't think it's great so we're doing all we can for a deal" and "Hell yeah.. No Deal is *ace*.. we should probably do it".
If the manifesto is the latter, that will cause problems for those MPs who could support the 2017 version because the chances felt a lot more remote. Indeed, I expect there'll be much less "nose holding" this time round precisely because standing on a manifesto commitment is now seen as a blood-signed contract, whatever the change in circumstances thereafter.
How believable is that? It would be a bizarre threat given their behaviour to date.
Firstly, the election will take place after an extension has happened. So we will be resetting the clock to where we were prior to the Benn Act, with no prospect of another Benn Act if Johnson gets a working majority in the election. Namely the new government will be engaging in negotiations to seek a deal, with a credible threat that if the EU refused to budge we would leave without one. They were content for that and indeed they were willing to vote against the Benn bill to try and make it happen by keeping the pressure on the EU to reach a deal.
Secondly, they were quite content to be elected on a 2017 manifesto which took precisely that approach, so much that an identical wording could be included in a 2019 manifesto i.e. "The negotiations will undoubtedly be tough, and there will be give and take on both sides, but we continue to believe that no deal is better than a bad deal for the UK."
If 50 sitting MPs have nonetheless changed their position from 2017, and disavowed the Conservative manifesto, then many would lose a large chunk of their votes to the Brexit Party and I think face an increased threat of losing their seats to one or other of their opponents.
I think the article is a reaction to the story that the Tory manifesto will be no deal leave immediately no more discussion. That is the manifesto they intend to try and bypass.
If the Tories win a majority and do not need the DUP I suspect a NI only backstop would be likely in the end but until then if the current Boris plan is rejected No Deal it has to be as Tory policy until the EU agree to remove the backstop
The average of the polls is not good enough for the Tories if they want a working majority. Is a good result a win but with majority 1 to 10?
Opinium, Yougov, Kantar would give the Tories a majority close to 50+
On BBC London News last night they had a feature on the protesters at Smithfield Market. Their motivation is simply that they don't like people eating meat rather than any concerns about CH4 emissions.
The meat industry is a major emitter of CO2 and methane, as well as deforestation. It is also very obesogenic, so bad for both planet and us.
Indeed, and I like to think that I'm pretty good. Generally I eat chicken and pork, and beef is a bit of a treat.
But what's driving the anti-meat agenda isn't climate change, it's a visceral hatred of meat eaters in general.
That's as ridiculous as saying that the Brexit agenda is driven by a visceral hatred of foreigners.
I'm just going on what BBC London showed me.
Perhaps it would help if some of those higher up XR distanced themselves from such views.
There's a bit of a debate in The Other Place about whether Leo V should be called Taoiseach or prime minister in the British media (ease of understanding v respect to someone's official title)
And a lot of people are going on about Angela Merkel being called Chancellor.
Which rather proves the point - because her title is *translated into English for the convenience and understanding of the target audience*. If the papers called her Bundeskanzler, I'd have some sympathy with the argument!
When Irish people are talking, in English, about the leader of their government, they use the term Taoiseach for the name of the position that their head of government holds. I don't see why, when we are speaking the same language, that we should do any different.
English has always been very good at adopting foreign words and incorporating them into the language. Why should this stop now?
Because its pretentious plastic Paddy wank ?
Am amazed Nicla isn’t using the Gaelic term for First Minister - can only be a matter of time.
You're over steeped in your kulture, I don't think folk living in Ireland can actually be called 'plastic' Paddies, being Irish people in Ireland 'n'all that. PVC The People in the home counties otoh..
Guardian says the Government is planning a Saturday sitting on the 19th for MV4 or Benn Act motions including possibly the option of Revoking A50 to force the Commons hand.
But the Guardian points out the Commons woukd have to vote to sit on a Saturday. The Guardian doesn't mention that date is also the next People's Vote mega march in London. The Commons sitting on a Saturday while 1 million people are on the streets would be quite something.
There's a bit of a debate in The Other Place about whether Leo V should be called Taoiseach or prime minister in the British media (ease of understanding v respect to someone's official title)
And a lot of people are going on about Angela Merkel being called Chancellor.
Which rather proves the point - because her title is *translated into English for the convenience and understanding of the target audience*. If the papers called her Bundeskanzler, I'd have some sympathy with the argument!
As the story goes Charles Haughey went to visit the Irish dressing room after a 1990 world cup football match in Rome, and met men in Green shirts with limited experience of Erin's shores.
"Who the f**k is he?" striker Tony Cascarino asked Niall Quinn.
"That's the Taoiseach," replied Niall.
"Who is it, Cas?" asked Andy Townsend.
"I dunno," Cascarino replied. "Quinny says he owns a tea shop!"
On BBC London News last night they had a feature on the protesters at Smithfield Market. Their motivation is simply that they don't like people eating meat rather than any concerns about CH4 emissions.
The meat industry is a major emitter of CO2 and methane, as well as deforestation. It is also very obesogenic, so bad for both planet and us.
Indeed, and I like to think that I'm pretty good. Generally I eat chicken and pork, and beef is a bit of a treat.
But what's driving the anti-meat agenda isn't climate change, it's a visceral hatred of meat eaters in general.
Really ? Talking to my vegetarian friends and relatives, that really doesn't seem to be the case. Much of the animus seems to be in the opposite direction.
In any event, once this stuff really mimics meat successfully, and starts being produced on a mass scale, the cost advantages in terms of agricultural inputs will reduce beef in particular to a very expensive luxury: https://www.beyondmeat.com/products/
How believable is that? It would be a bizarre threat given their behaviour to date.
Firstly, the election will take place after an extension has happened. So we will be resetting the clock to where we were prior to the Benn Act, with no prospect of another Benn Act if Johnson gets a working majority in the election. Namely the new government will be engaging in negotiations to seek a deal, with a credible threat that if the EU refused to budge we would leave without one. They were content for that and indeed they were willing to vote against the Benn bill to try and make it happen by keeping the pressure on the EU to reach a deal.
Secondly, they were quite content to be elected on a 2017 manifesto which took precisely that approach, so much that an identical wording could be included in a 2019 manifesto i.e. "The negotiations will undoubtedly be tough, and there will be give and take on both sides, but we continue to believe that no deal is better than a bad deal for the UK."
If 50 sitting MPs have nonetheless changed their position from 2017, and disavowed the Conservative manifesto, then many would lose a large chunk of their votes to the Brexit Party and I think face an increased threat of losing their seats to one or other of their opponents.
I think the article is a reaction to the story that the Tory manifesto will be no deal leave immediately no more discussion. That is the manifesto they intend to try and bypass.
If the Tories win a majority and do not need the DUP I suspect a NI only backstop would be likely in the end but until then if the current Boris plan is rejected No Deal it has to be as Tory policy until the EU agree to remove the backstop
Surely if than ran on a no deal no discussion platform and they won then that is what they do you’re not suggesting he’s lying are you?
The manifesto would be Deal minus backstop or No Deal.
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
I think it is more likely that the story isn't accurate, but if it is I struggle to see how your suggested solution works. It is high risk. A manifesto tends to be produced quite late in the day, so that would require some organisation to pull off replacing 50 candidates and it is pretty well accepted that parties that look disorganised lose.
On a personal friendly note it would come over much better if you said 'I suspect it has been' or 'I think it has been' or 'I'm sure it has been' Similarly a lot of your posts start with 'No' or 'Wrong'. How about 'I disagree' or 'I think you are wrong'?
The 21 anti No Deal rebels will automatically be deselected unless they change their mind, any further candidate who says they will not support No Deal will not be deselected.
I am not going to stop being definitive when needed
It does surprise me number ten hadn’t rowed back on that mistake, and brought them back in already. Sure the rebels sided with opponents in parliament to stop no deal, but the optics of the punishment will run for years. To have voted for brexit, but dislike no deal, does their punishment suit such a stance? No. It doesn’t. That punishment changes the Conservative party, changes British politics.
How believable is that? It would be a bizarre threat given their behaviour to date.
Firstly, the election will take place after an extension has happened. So we will be resetting the clock to where we were prior to the Benn Act, with no prospect of another Benn Act if Johnson gets a working majority in the election. Namely the new government will be engaging in negotiations to seek a deal, with a credible threat that if the EU refused to budge we would leave without one. They were content for that and indeed they were willing to vote against the Benn bill to try and make it happen by keeping the pressure on the EU to reach a deal.
Secondly, they were quite content to be elected on a 2017 manifesto which took precisely that approach, so much that an identical wording could be included in a 2019 manifesto i.e. "The negotiations will undoubtedly be tough, and there will be give and take on both sides, but we continue to believe that no deal is better than a bad deal for the UK."
If 50 sitting MPs have nonetheless changed their position from 2017, and disavowed the Conservative manifesto, then many would lose a large chunk of their votes to the Brexit Party and I think face an increased threat of losing their seats to one or other of their opponents.
I think the article is a reaction to the story that the Tory manifesto will be no deal leave immediately no more discussion. That is the manifesto they intend to try and bypass.
If you are right I could see why it might cause such a reaction. Which is why Johnson would be well advised to stick to the line in the 2017 manifesto, a stance which will suffice for his purposes. A majority of the public I think back leaving with a deal and they are split equally on whether to follow through with no deal (which doesn't stop negotiations after that). Only a relatively small minority would want to pursue no deal while ruling out any further negotiations until we have left.
On BBC London News last night they had a feature on the protesters at Smithfield Market. Their motivation is simply that they don't like people eating meat rather than any concerns about CH4 emissions.
The meat industry is a major emitter of CO2 and methane, as well as deforestation. It is also very obesogenic, so bad for both planet and us.
Indeed, and I like to think that I'm pretty good. Generally I eat chicken and pork, and beef is a bit of a treat.
But what's driving the anti-meat agenda isn't climate change, it's a visceral hatred of meat eaters in general.
That's as ridiculous as saying that the Brexit agenda is driven by a visceral hatred of foreigners.
I'm just going on what BBC London showed me.
Perhaps it would help if some of those higher up XR distanced themselves from such views.
And you can find Brexit supporters espousing xenophobic views. That doesn't mean that such people are representative of the mainstream opinion, or that their opinion is the driver of some posited agenda.
How believable is that? It would be a bizarre threat given their behaviour to date.
Firstly, the election will take place after an extension has happened. So we will be resetting the clock to where we were prior to the Benn Act, with no prospect of another Benn Act if Johnson gets a working majority in the election. Namely the new government will be engaging in negotiations to seek a deal, with a credible threat that if the EU refused to budge we would leave without one. They were content for that and indeed they were willing to vote against the Benn bill to try and make it happen by keeping the pressure on the EU to reach a deal.
Secondly, they were quite content to be elected on a 2017 manifesto which took precisely that approach, so much that an identical wording could be included in a 2019 manifesto i.e. "The negotiations will undoubtedly be tough, and there will be give and take on both sides, but we continue to believe that no deal is better than a bad deal for the UK."
If 50 sitting MPs have nonetheless changed their position from 2017, and disavowed the Conservative manifesto, then many would lose a large chunk of their votes to the Brexit Party and I think face an increased threat of losing their seats to one or other of their opponents.
I think the article is a reaction to the story that the Tory manifesto will be no deal leave immediately no more discussion. That is the manifesto they intend to try and bypass.
If the Tories win a majority and do not need the DUP I suspect a NI only backstop would be likely in the end but until then if the current Boris plan is rejected No Deal it has to be as Tory policy until the EU agree to remove the backstop
Surely if than ran on a no deal no discussion platform and they won then that is what they do you’re not suggesting he’s lying are you?
The manifesto would be Deal minus backstop or No Deal.
Deal minus GB backstop still delivers that
There is, apparently, no deal without the backstop. Unless you are right that the EU will fold absent the Benn Act. Problem is that every single prediction of the EU folding made in the last three years has been proved false.
On BBC London News last night they had a feature on the protesters at Smithfield Market. Their motivation is simply that they don't like people eating meat rather than any concerns about CH4 emissions.
The meat industry is a major emitter of CO2 and methane, as well as deforestation. It is also very obesogenic, so bad for both planet and us.
Meat has been part of the human diet for millions of years. We tend to struggle to get the right nutrients without it without careful planning and balance. Obesity is a function of inactivity and overconsumption. Not meat.
There is nothing either ethical or unethical about eating meat or not eating meat. A modest amount of meat is usually sensible in any human diet. The food chain consists of millions of creatures that consume one another and it forms a fundamental part of the ecology of the earth and its diversity of species. Death plays as much a part in creating and sustaining life as life itself.
Turning over grazing land and habitats to mass single crop growing - to fuel 9 billion vegan humans - would also have a very serious ecological impact upon the diversity of plant and animal species on Earth as it became more monocultured. A convincing ethical argument could be very easily constructed against that as well. There are no easy black and white choices to be made.
We should eat some meat and we should do it sustainably, sensibly and without needless cruelty but the rest is ideology.
On BBC London News last night they had a feature on the protesters at Smithfield Market. Their motivation is simply that they don't like people eating meat rather than any concerns about CH4 emissions.
The meat industry is a major emitter of CO2 and methane, as well as deforestation. It is also very obesogenic, so bad for both planet and us.
Indeed, and I like to think that I'm pretty good. Generally I eat chicken and pork, and beef is a bit of a treat.
But what's driving the anti-meat agenda isn't climate change, it's a visceral hatred of meat eaters in general.
That's as ridiculous as saying that the Brexit agenda is driven by a visceral hatred of foreigners.
I'm just going on what BBC London showed me.
Perhaps it would help if some of those higher up XR distanced themselves from such views.
And you can find Brexit supporters espousing xenophobic views. That doesn't mean that such people are representative of the mainstream opinion, or that their opinion is the driver of some posited agenda.
And you'll notice a lot of people distancing themselves from such views - including Banks himself (even if the cynical view is that they put it out there knowing it would kick up a storm that would curry support from certain voters).
How believable is that? It would be a bizarre threat given their behaviour to date.
Firstly, the election will take place after an extension has happened. So we will be resetting the clock to where we were prior to the Benn Act, with no prospect of another Benn Act if Johnson gets a working majority in the election. Namely the new government will be engaging in negotiations to seek a deal, with a credible threat that if the EU refused to budge we would leave without one. They were content for that and indeed they were willing to vote against the Benn bill to try and make it happen by keeping the pressure on the EU to reach a deal.
Secondly, they were quite content to be elected on a 2017 manifesto which took precisely that approach, so much that an identical wording could be included in a 2019 manifesto i.e. "The negotiations will undoubtedly be tough, and there will be give and take on both sides, but we continue to believe that no deal is better than a bad deal for the UK."
If 50 sitting MPs have nonetheless changed their position from 2017, and disavowed the Conservative manifesto, then many would lose a large chunk of their votes to the Brexit Party and I think face an increased threat of losing their seats to one or other of their opponents.
I think the article is a reaction to the story that the Tory manifesto will be no deal leave immediately no more discussion. That is the manifesto they intend to try and bypass.
If the Tories win a majority and do not need the DUP I suspect a NI only backstop would be likely in the end but until then if the current Boris plan is rejected No Deal it has to be as Tory policy until the EU agree to remove the backstop
Surely if than ran on a no deal no discussion platform and they won then that is what they do you’re not suggesting he’s lying are you?
The manifesto would be Deal minus backstop or No Deal.
Deal minus GB backstop still delivers that
That’s not what was reported earlier it was suggested they will campaign on no deal no discussion immediately revoke European legislation.
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
I think it is more likely that the story isn't accurate, but if it is I struggle to see how your suggested solution works. It is high risk. A manifesto tends to be produced quite late in the day, so that would require some organisation to pull off replacing 50 candidates and it is pretty well accepted that parties that look disorganised lose.
On a personal friendly note it would come over much better if you said 'I suspect it has been' or 'I think it has been' or 'I'm sure it has been' Similarly a lot of your posts start with 'No' or 'Wrong'. How about 'I disagree' or 'I think you are wrong'?
The 21 anti No Deal rebels will automatically be deselected unless they change their mind, any further candidate who says they will not support No Deal will not be deselected.
I am not going to stop being definitive when needed
I agree re the 21. It would be the +50 being deselected that I think would be a big gamble. Might work, but a big risk.
Did you mean the last part of that sentence? Did you mean will not be deselected? I assume you meant will be deselected as otherwise this is not a story.
HYUFD you are always definitive And sometimes you can't know. Like on the statement above. There are opinions and there are facts. Some opinions may be based upon good evidence, but they are still opinions.
We're having a Queens Speech on Monday are we not? Which, if it isn't going to be a one-liner, has to contain some proposals, which may well, of course, be party hard tomorrow and pay for it some time in the distant future, but must, surely, contain some indication of what Boris and his 'team' want to do about relations with the EU.
HMQ should look over her glasses at the assembled Parliamentarians and say in her best Terry Thomas voice: "You're all an absolute shower.".
How believable is that? It would be a bizarre threat given their behaviour to date.
Firstly, the election will take place after an extension has happened. So we will be resetting the clock to where we were prior to the Benn Act, with no prospect of another Benn Act if Johnson gets a working majority in the election. Namely the new government will be engaging in negotiations to seek a deal, with a credible threat that if the EU refused to budge we would leave without one. They were content for that and indeed they were willing to vote against the Benn bill to try and make it happen by keeping the pressure on the EU to reach a deal.
Secondly, they were quite content to be elected on a 2017 manifesto which took precisely that approach, so much that an identical wording could be included in a 2019 manifesto i.e. "The negotiations will undoubtedly be tough, and there will be give and take on both sides, but we continue to believe that no deal is better than a bad deal for the UK."
If 50 sitting MPs have nonetheless changed their position from 2017, and disavowed the Conservative manifesto, then many would lose a large chunk of their votes to the Brexit Party and I think face an increased threat of losing their seats to one or other of their opponents.
I think the article is a reaction to the story that the Tory manifesto will be no deal leave immediately no more discussion. That is the manifesto they intend to try and bypass.
If the Tories win a majority and do not need the DUP I suspect a NI only backstop would be likely in the end but until then if the current Boris plan is rejected No Deal it has to be as Tory policy until the EU agree to remove the backstop
The average of the polls is not good enough for the Tories if they want a working majority. Is a good result a win but with majority 1 to 10?
Opinium, Yougov, Kantar would give the Tories a majority close to 50+
We're having a Queens Speech on Monday are we not? Which, if it isn't going to be a one-liner, has to contain some proposals, which may well, of course, be party hard tomorrow and pay for it some time in the distant future, but must, surely, contain some indication of what Boris and his 'team' want to do about relations with the EU.
HMQ should look over her glasses at the assembled Parliamentarians and say in her best Terry Thomas voice: "You're all an absolute shower.".
The new EU offer throws a great big spanner in the Cummings works. It delivers brexit while giving the peope of Northern Ireland what they want and the ability to change their minds in the future. It can also be presented as a climbdown, so a win for Johnson. Why would anyone who has the good of the UK front and centre reject it?
Just an aside, but the news never thinks to mention that the EU saw May's deal fail repeatedly in the Commons, refused any significant change at all, yet are never portrayed as being unreasonable.
Thinking the PM's proposals don't work is fine, but clinging to proposals that have repeatedly failed to pass the Commons is ridiculous.
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
I think it is more likely that the story isn't accurate, but if it is I struggle to see how your suggested solution works. It is high risk. A manifesto tends to be produced quite late in the day, so that would require some organisation to pull off replacing 50 candidates and it is pretty well accepted that parties that look disorganised lose.
On a personal friendly note it would come over much better if you said 'I suspect it has been' or 'I think it has been' or 'I'm sure it has been' Similarly a lot of your posts start with 'No' or 'Wrong'. How about 'I disagree' or 'I think you are wrong'?
The 21 anti No Deal rebels will automatically be deselected unless they change their mind, any further candidate who says they will not support No Deal will not be deselected.
I am not going to stop being definitive when needed
It does surprise me number ten hadn’t rowed back on that mistake, and brought them back in already. Sure the rebels sided with opponents in parliament to stop no deal, but the optics of the punishment will run for years. To have voted for brexit, but dislike no deal, does their punishment suit such a stance? No. It doesn’t. That punishment changes the Conservative party, changes British politics.
It's not a mistake if there will be an election soon. It was made clear to the rebels that the party saw this vote as a 'four line whip' well in advance, yet they still voted the way they did. Letting them back in could leave a situation where, after an election returned a Con majority, the government still wouldn't be able to get their agenda through Parliament. Better to deal with the problem now, replace the recalcitrant MPs with new candidates at the election.
On BBC London News last night they had a feature on the protesters at Smithfield Market. Their motivation is simply that they don't like people eating meat rather than any concerns about CH4 emissions.
The meat industry is a major emitter of CO2 and methane, as well as deforestation. It is also very obesogenic, so bad for both planet and us.
Indeed, and I like to think that I'm pretty good. Generally I eat chicken and pork, and beef is a bit of a treat.
But what's driving the anti-meat agenda isn't climate change, it's a visceral hatred of meat eaters in general.
That's as ridiculous as saying that the Brexit agenda is driven by a visceral hatred of foreigners.
I'm just going on what BBC London showed me.
Perhaps it would help if some of those higher up XR distanced themselves from such views.
And you can find Brexit supporters espousing xenophobic views. That doesn't mean that such people are representative of the mainstream opinion, or that their opinion is the driver of some posited agenda.
And you'll notice a lot of people distancing themselves from such views - including Banks himself (even if the cynical view is that they put it out there knowing it would kick up a storm that would curry support from certain voters).
"We didn't win two world wars to be pushed around by a kraut" is distancing himself from xenophobia?
There's a bit of a debate in The Other Place about whether Leo V should be called Taoiseach or prime minister in the British media (ease of understanding v respect to someone's official title)
And a lot of people are going on about Angela Merkel being called Chancellor.
Which rather proves the point - because her title is *translated into English for the convenience and understanding of the target audience*. If the papers called her Bundeskanzler, I'd have some sympathy with the argument!
When Irish people are talking, in English, about the leader of their government, they use the term Taoiseach for the name of the position that their head of government holds. I don't see why, when we are speaking the same language, that we should do any different.
English has always been very good at adopting foreign words and incorporating them into the language. Why should this stop now?
Because its pretentious plastic Paddy wank ?
Am amazed Nicla isn’t using the Gaelic term for First Minister - can only be a matter of time.
You're over steeped in your kulture, I don't think folk living in Ireland can actually be called 'plastic' Paddies, being Irish people in Ireland 'n'all that. PVC The People in the home counties otoh..
When you start using the Russian for President when referring to Putin then let me know.
This is essentially what some of us have been suggesting for a while. My guess is that it would get enough Labour votes to pass - but it would split the Tories, turbocharge the BXP and provide strong fodde for the SNP (but No Deal will do that anyway). Against that, it is undoubtedly GFA compliant, delivers Brexit, allows those parts of the UK that voted for Brexit to have it full whack if they so desire and gives NI the scope to change its mind. https://twitter.com/BrunoBrussels/status/1181845952392503296
That's not a major concession though it is a sensible compromise. What about customs though?
We're having a Queens Speech on Monday are we not? Which, if it isn't going to be a one-liner, has to contain some proposals, which may well, of course, be party hard tomorrow and pay for it some time in the distant future, but must, surely, contain some indication of what Boris and his 'team' want to do about relations with the EU.
HMQ should look over her glasses at the assembled Parliamentarians and say in her best Terry Thomas voice: "You're all an absolute shower.".
Then leave.
Either that, or the old Private Eye cover; "I hope you realise that I didn't write this (rude word redacted)"
On BBC London News last night they had a feature on the protesters at Smithfield Market. Their motivation is simply that they don't like people eating meat rather than any concerns about CH4 emissions.
The meat industry is a major emitter of CO2 and methane, as well as deforestation. It is also very obesogenic, so bad for both planet and us.
Indeed, and I like to think that I'm pretty good. Generally I eat chicken and pork, and beef is a bit of a treat.
But what's driving the anti-meat agenda isn't climate change, it's a visceral hatred of meat eaters in general.
That's as ridiculous as saying that the Brexit agenda is driven by a visceral hatred of foreigners.
I'm just going on what BBC London showed me.
Perhaps it would help if some of those higher up XR distanced themselves from such views.
And you can find Brexit supporters espousing xenophobic views. That doesn't mean that such people are representative of the mainstream opinion, or that their opinion is the driver of some posited agenda.
And you'll notice a lot of people distancing themselves from such views - including Banks himself (even if the cynical view is that they put it out there knowing it would kick up a storm that would curry support from certain voters).
"We didn't win two world wars to be pushed around by a kraut" is distancing himself from xenophobia?
Has he not apologised for it? I thought I saw that earlier in this thread? Not that that excuses them, of course.
There's a bit of a debate in The Other Place about whether Leo V should be called Taoiseach or prime minister in the British media (ease of understanding v respect to someone's official title)
And a lot of people are going on about Angela Merkel being called Chancellor.
Which rather proves the point - because her title is *translated into English for the convenience and understanding of the target audience*. If the papers called her Bundeskanzler, I'd have some sympathy with the argument!
When Irish people are talking, in English, about the leader of their government, they use the term Taoiseach for the name of the position that their head of government holds. I don't see why, when we are speaking the same language, that we should do any different.
English has always been very good at adopting foreign words and incorporating them into the language. Why should this stop now?
Because its pretentious plastic Paddy wank ?
Am amazed Nicla isn’t using the Gaelic term for First Minister - can only be a matter of time.
You're over steeped in your kulture, I don't think folk living in Ireland can actually be called 'plastic' Paddies, being Irish people in Ireland 'n'all that. PVC The People in the home counties otoh..
When you start using the Russian for President when referring to Putin then let me know.
The new EU offer throws a great big spanner in the Cummings works. It delivers brexit while giving the peope of Northern Ireland what they want and the ability to change their minds in the future. It can also be presented as a climbdown, so a win for Johnson. Why would anyone who has the good of the UK front and centre reject it?
Swinson, Corbyn and Blackford are almost certain to reject it. Johnson will at least have a think.
I think it's pretty weird to blame modern day Britons for the decision of Henry II to give responsibility for taking/holding Ireland to John Lackland.
Yesterday everyone here was united condemning the ridiculous Leave.EU poster that referenced Merkel and WWII. It was clearly, and rightly, seen as ridiculous to cling to grudges of WWII, which ended less than a century ago.
Yet some think it's clever, or wise, or witty, to hark back to the doings of the Angevins in the 12th century. As if that's remotely relevant to or the responsibility of anyone around today.
Why not go back one more century and attack the Normans for the Harrying of the North? Or a century further back and attack the Scandinavians for Viking naughtiness?
Delving into history is relevant if the nature of the world today is a continuation of decisions made and that there is a continuity between then and now. Let me illustrate. The identification of the German state with Nazi Germany is offensive because after the defeat of Nazism, the German state was utterly transformed. Today it is democratic, pluralistic, stable and responsible. Its imperfections cannot be and should not be attributable to the Germany of the 1930s, which was utterly extinguished. The United Kingdom of today owes its boundaries to the decisions made a century ago. The partition of Ireland is not a discrete historical event because its consequences are with us today and the actors in that event are still with us. I take no view on whether that's a good or a bad thing, it's merely a statement of fact. Of course, almost everyone alive then is now dead.
I don't really know about the period of Henry II, so I recognise that I'm talking away from the specifics of your post, but I think using the above schema we can probably judge that the actions of England that far back a pure history and not really relevant today. The character of England in C12th is utterly unlike the United Kingdom of C21st. But the character of the UK between the 1920s and the 2010s is quite similar. Constitutional continuity over the intervening times is profound, despite the extension of voting rights and the loss of colonies. The UK is essentially the same country. A similar argument could be made about bankruptcy. If a firm goes under and a new one is formed with a similar name, taking over the same properties and functions, it's a new entity and isn't liable for the actions of the previous one. But without that break, an existing firm can still be held responsible for its actions, even after moving premises and getting a new management team.
Comments
The same happens in the USA, where Obama detaining illegal border-crossers and deporting overstayers is barely mentioned, yet Trump doing the same makes him the worst person in the world. It's all politics.
On the substantive point of the fires, if we believe they need to be contained, then let's offer assistance to the affected countries before the 'season' starts.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/leaveeu-campaign-apologises-over-tweet-calling-merkel-a-kraut-and-invoking-world-war/ar-AAIuCXT?ocid=spartanntp
The PM should have been talking to Macron who seems much, much more ready to to bend a few rules to get a deal over the line. Anyone who has watched Merkel's attitude to the EU should realise that she will make every other narion stick exactly to the letter of the law. The Greek bailout was probably the most obvious example, people literally died from the German austerity plan and there was no let up. She has blood on her hands but because it benefits Germany she forced it through.
Ireland will find themselves in the same position as well, they've made a bet on Merkel but ultimately she's as much of a nationalist as Trump, she just doesn't talk about it, instead she actions it.
Cummings is aiming for the trifecta.
And a lot of people are going on about Angela Merkel being called Chancellor.
Which rather proves the point - because her title is *translated into English for the convenience and understanding of the target audience*. If the papers called her Bundeskanzler, I'd have some sympathy with the argument!
https://twitter.com/DarrenEuronews/status/1181825910921728000?s=20
So if a FTPA motion is put down again by Boris after an extension is agreed is Corbyn seriously able to abstain on that? The media would be furious at him and he won't have the fig leaf of being able to say that it is to prevent a no deal Brexit like last time.
On the electric car side, there's a lot of variables in trying to equivilise (is that a word?) an mpg figure, depending on things like the source of electricity and the unknown life of the battery packs. I'd say the newer electric cars are probably now better, especially the new Tesla Model 3 which uses the latest battery tech. On the other hand, many 6 or 7 year old electric cars such as the Nissan Leaf are being written off as the batteries are dead and the replacement cost isn't economic. The tipping point is close, the barriers are now the charging infrastructure and the higher purchase cost of electric cars.
Let's suppose City play Liverpool in the FA Cup final. Liverpool win 2 -1 - a narrow victory. The City supporters demand a replay, claiming Liverpool cheated because … everything. The weather was bad, a throw-in was awarded to them wrongly and City are the better team all round.
The FA (the MPs and media) are sympathetic and refuse to present the Cup, instead prevaricating and finally awarding the Cup to City or ordering a replay. Do you expect the Liverpool fans or neutrals to accept it?
The City fans will claim it's justice and a wrong has been righted, and many will genuinely believe that. I don't expect you as committed fan of the losing side to change your mind.
But don't expect others to see your point of view.
English has always been very good at adopting foreign words and incorporating them into the language. Why should this stop now?
https://insideevs.com/news/374238/million-mile-batteries-tesla-details/
(Which will be essential to make their commercial trucks economically viable.)
And the Model S of a similar vintage to the failing Leafs performs way better in terms of durability:
https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1110149_tesla-model-s-battery-life-what-the-data-show-so-far
But I think the point of recent speculation in this area is that the only way Boris survives extension is by going Full Fat Farage in the ensuing election campaign. And even if he holds open the idea of a deal, everyone will know by then that one on his terms (Irish border staffed by invisible pixies) isn't going to happen.
*This* article is about those on the other wing of his party reminding him that sweeping up Brexit votes doesn't in itself deliver a majority if he pisses the equivalent vote share up the wall at the other end.
Given the Boris/Dom playbook so far, I fully expect them to find a workable and warm-spirited compromise which accommodates both wings and respects the historical broad church of the Tory party.
Only kidding.
My vote goes to anyone who makes it illegal to play War Is Over by John Lennon.
How believable is that? It would be a bizarre threat given their behaviour to date.
Firstly, the election will take place after an extension has happened. So we will be resetting the clock to where we were prior to the Benn Act, with no prospect of another Benn Act if Johnson gets a working majority in the election. Namely the new government will be engaging in negotiations to seek a deal, with a credible threat that if the EU refused to budge we would leave without one. They were content for that and indeed they were willing to vote against the Benn bill to try and make it happen by keeping the pressure on the EU to reach a deal.
Secondly, they were quite content to be elected on a 2017 manifesto which took precisely that approach, so much that an identical wording could be included in a 2019 manifesto i.e. "The negotiations will undoubtedly be tough, and there will be give and take on both sides, but we continue to believe that no deal is better than a bad deal for the UK."
If 50 sitting MPs have nonetheless changed their position from 2017, and disavowed the Conservative manifesto, then many would lose a large chunk of their votes to the Brexit Party and I think face an increased threat of losing their seats to one or other of their opponents.
https://youtu.be/d0LeL9BUPtA
Am amazed Nicla isn’t using the Gaelic term for First Minister - can only be a matter of time.
On a personal friendly note it would come over much better if you said 'I suspect it has been' or 'I think it has been' or 'I'm sure it has been' Similarly a lot of your posts start with 'No' or 'Wrong'. How about 'I disagree' or 'I think you are wrong'?
Tesla are seriously moving the game along with regard to electric car technology, everyone else is playing catch-up. The only thing close is the new Porsche Taycan, which has better drivetrain technology, but that's a very expensive ($180K) and niche vehicle.
https://www.dw.com/en/german-government-hiding-co2-emissions-test-results/a-36445639
We can have endless reruns of the sound of music, the great escape etc etc to go with the National mood.
To be fair, I agree this is at the less tricky end of the scale.
But if 85 per cent of the audience understand one term and 100 per cent understand the other, which has an identical and unmistakable meaning, why wouldn't you?
Next up.. let's call the Welsh Assembly the Senedd.
I am not going to stop being definitive when needed
In summary:
The Sovereign could refuse a request from the Prime Minister to dissolve Parliament if three conditions were met:
- if the existing Parliament was still "vital, viable, and capable of doing its job",
- if a general election would be "detrimental to the national economy", and
- if the Sovereign could "rely on finding another prime minister who could govern for a reasonable period with a working majority in the House of Commons".
A cunning plan by Cummings to forbid the sovereign to appoint an alternative PM, with just six drawbacks:
Firstly, the monarch has the option of refusing a request from the PM to dissolve Parliament; it is not compulsory
Secondly, that the argument that the existing Parliament is still "vital, viable, and capable of doing its job" is questionable at best.
Thirdly, that there is no evidence that a general election could be detrimental to the national economy.
Fourthly, that if a caretaker PM has been made known, the Lascelles Provisions explicitly say that the Sovereign could appoint him or her.
Fifthly, that the Lascelles Principles apply to the dissolution of Parliament; not the resignation or removal of a PM following a Vote of No Confidence, so they'd be irrelevant even if the next point were not valid.
And Sixthly, that the Lascelles Provisions were put into abeyance in 2011 following the passing of the FTPA which removed the Royal Prerogative to dissolve Parliament for which the Principles were made to clarify.
Apart from that, genius.
Be an iconic part of people's lives that they look forward to. People enjoy their meals and in the summer people love to put meat on the barbecue etc.
But what's driving the anti-meat agenda isn't climate change, it's a visceral hatred of meat eaters in general.
See this. This is metaphor for what Boris is doing to the Conservative Party. Turning it into something that is far removed from what it was.
https://youtu.be/L1yWH6QSP4k
And that’s the bit Boris and Cummings got wrong. In 2016 they weren’t getting Labour leavers to vote Conservative.
Tesla will probably be able to wring something like another 30% improvement in energy density by incorporating the solvent free electrode coating technology they recently acquired with Maxwell, but should we ever crack (for example) the lithium sulphur battery (and there is a lot of recent promising research) we could see doubling or tripling of current efficiencies.
Is that the latest tweet from Leave.EU?
https://twitter.com/BrunoBrussels/status/1181845952392503296
Yesterday everyone here was united condemning the ridiculous Leave.EU poster that referenced Merkel and WWII. It was clearly, and rightly, seen as ridiculous to cling to grudges of WWII, which ended less than a century ago.
Yet some think it's clever, or wise, or witty, to hark back to the doings of the Angevins in the 12th century. As if that's remotely relevant to or the responsibility of anyone around today.
Why not go back one more century and attack the Normans for the Harrying of the North? Or a century further back and attack the Scandinavians for Viking naughtiness?
They make it clear nobody can live a sustainable life under the current system, where if you want to eat you have to buy food from businesses that use unsustainable methods, that if you want to live you have to work in an unsustainable system and that if you want to be happy you often do things that aren't "good" for the planet.
No XR campaign is saying nobody should fly, or nobody should eat meat, or whatever. They are asking for it to be made easier to make good choices. A few people living close to "perfectly" (which isn't possible) won't make nearly as much difference as most people living half as better.
Their desire is not to shame individuals into change, but argue governments should be doing more to help the shift to better technology, rearrange subsidies in a way to help make better life choices (more to green tech, less to fossil fuels, more to fruit and veg, less to meat, etc).
Some are anti-capitalist leftists, sure. But the vast majority are not. Typically parents or grandparents who have been radicalised by what they see, what they learn, and what the future holds for their children and grandchildren.
If the manifesto is the latter, that will cause problems for those MPs who could support the 2017 version because the chances felt a lot more remote. Indeed, I expect there'll be much less "nose holding" this time round precisely because standing on a manifesto commitment is now seen as a blood-signed contract, whatever the change in circumstances thereafter.
Perhaps it would help if some of those higher up XR distanced themselves from such views.
Imagine if Varadkar can finally a pull out a deal that allows him to then have a "sun-filled uplands" giveaway budget instead?
Or am I being too cynical?
https://order-order.com/2019/10/09/boris-varadkar-meeting-scheduled-tomorrow/
But the Guardian points out the Commons woukd have to vote to sit on a Saturday. The Guardian doesn't mention that date is also the next People's Vote mega march in London. The Commons sitting on a Saturday while 1 million people are on the streets would be quite something.
"Who the f**k is he?" striker Tony Cascarino asked Niall Quinn.
"That's the Taoiseach," replied Niall.
"Who is it, Cas?" asked Andy Townsend.
"I dunno," Cascarino replied. "Quinny says he owns a tea shop!"
Talking to my vegetarian friends and relatives, that really doesn't seem to be the case. Much of the animus seems to be in the opposite direction.
In any event, once this stuff really mimics meat successfully, and starts being produced on a mass scale, the cost advantages in terms of agricultural inputs will reduce beef in particular to a very expensive luxury:
https://www.beyondmeat.com/products/
Deal minus GB backstop still delivers that
There is nothing either ethical or unethical about eating meat or not eating meat. A modest amount of meat is usually sensible in any human diet. The food chain consists of millions of creatures that consume one another and it forms a fundamental part of the ecology of the earth and its diversity of species. Death plays as much a part in creating and sustaining life as life itself.
Turning over grazing land and habitats to mass single crop growing - to fuel 9 billion vegan humans - would also have a very serious ecological impact upon the diversity of plant and animal species on Earth as it became more monocultured. A convincing ethical argument could be very easily constructed against that as well. There are no easy black and white choices to be made.
We should eat some meat and we should do it sustainably, sensibly and without needless cruelty but the rest is ideology.
Did you mean the last part of that sentence? Did you mean will not be deselected? I assume you meant will be deselected as otherwise this is not a story.
HYUFD you are always definitive
Then leave.
Thinking the PM's proposals don't work is fine, but clinging to proposals that have repeatedly failed to pass the Commons is ridiculous.
Prime Minister Varadkar should be used.
"I hope you realise that I didn't write this (rude word redacted)"
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/oct/09/hundreds-of-thomas-cook-jobs-saved-as-uk-stores-bought-up
The identification of the German state with Nazi Germany is offensive because after the defeat of Nazism, the German state was utterly transformed. Today it is democratic, pluralistic, stable and responsible. Its imperfections cannot be and should not be attributable to the Germany of the 1930s, which was utterly extinguished.
The United Kingdom of today owes its boundaries to the decisions made a century ago. The partition of Ireland is not a discrete historical event because its consequences are with us today and the actors in that event are still with us. I take no view on whether that's a good or a bad thing, it's merely a statement of fact. Of course, almost everyone alive then is now dead.
I don't really know about the period of Henry II, so I recognise that I'm talking away from the specifics of your post, but I think using the above schema we can probably judge that the actions of England that far back a pure history and not really relevant today. The character of England in C12th is utterly unlike the United Kingdom of C21st. But the character of the UK between the 1920s and the 2010s is quite similar. Constitutional continuity over the intervening times is profound, despite the extension of voting rights and the loss of colonies. The UK is essentially the same country.
A similar argument could be made about bankruptcy. If a firm goes under and a new one is formed with a similar name, taking over the same properties and functions, it's a new entity and isn't liable for the actions of the previous one. But without that break, an existing firm can still be held responsible for its actions, even after moving premises and getting a new management team.