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?
Did I fall asleep and miss the announcement? Yes I obviously did.
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.
The predictions on the EU folding have always been based on the idea of if the UK is firm and taken seriously. That hasn't happened yet.
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.
The decision not to eat parts of a dead animal is often made for ethical reasons. Because you are happy to eat meat, it does not mean this is not an ethical issue.
Why use three words when one will do? Taoiseach is more economical.
Then we should also use Bundeskanzler then rather than Chancellor. It has the added benefit of avoiding tarring her with the same brush as Reichskanzler, rather than ignoring the choice of the Germans to make a distinction between the titles.
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.
Maybe because they aren't 21 anymore? Gyimah's gone to another party. Grieve and Stewart are both independents, and definitely not coming back. Clarke is standing down. Who else? If No 10 rowed back, they might regain about 11 of those original 21 rebels. To take their minority from -45 to about -23. Good job guys!
Of course, Corbyn should take the election. He should've took it on 3rd September. But he's a muppet.
Why use three words when one will do? Taoiseach is more economical.
Presumably for similar reasons that motivate the desire to inflict a Brexit settlement on NI against the wishes of a substantial majority of the NI electorate ?
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
You've pulled that from your own backside. When has he EVER said that it is the GB backstop alone he wants removing?
If he has a majority he'd have no reason to reneg on NI.
Rugby post: Scotland 61-0 Russia This is the fifth time Scotland have kept a clean sheet in a world cup match, more than any other team in world cup history. Scotland 5 South Africa 4 New Zealand 2 Australia 1 Georgia 1 Wales 1 Ireland 1
Come the GE, people will fall into one of the following categories -
1. Priority stop Brexit therefore must swallow PM Corbyn. 2. Priority PM Corbyn therefore must swallow a 2nd EU Referendum. 3. Priority avoid PM Corbyn therefore must swallow PM Johnson and Hard Brexit.
Tough choices but them's the rules on this one.
I am in (2). I want a Labour government more than I do not want Ref2.
But that's me. I'm a bit niche, I think. (2) will be the smallest group.
By contrast (1) and (3) will describe many millions and their relative size will determine the election result.
If (1) is bigger than (3) - it's Lab minority govt. If (3) is bigger than (1) - it's Con majority.
This is simplifying, obviously, but IMO in a useful way.
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.
The whole Boris battle plan is bonkers 😁
1. After a decade causing a mess in health, education, policing, housing, they now trump Labour, in Labour heartlands, promising the same level of spending and same investment priority policies as Labour. yes to the genius of Cummings crouched in a broom cupboard copying the strategy out of Mein Kampf This will work LOL
2. When it comes to the election there is no such thing as deal minus a backstop anymore, Tories have to campaign on no deal. it’s not that Britain tried to get a deal and failed it will be Tories with their red lines failed, staying in custom union Labour would get a deal with EU in weeks if not days.
3. Labour’s brexit position too complicated? All voters will get a vote on the brexit deal v remain. Not too complicated for you to understand is it 😃
4. By the end of the campaign the GE is this bottom line. No deal brexit v Jeremy corbyn. No deal, destruction of manufacturing industry, destruction of farming industry, doubling of debt and trashing of economy Corbyn, all the investment borrowing the Tories are promising plus everyone gets vote on whether to proceed with customs deal brexit or remain.
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.
The predictions on the EU folding have always been based on the idea of if the UK is firm and taken seriously. That hasn't happened yet.
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.
Prime Minister Varadkar should be used.
Come, come, it is acceptable to use either.
I am never going to use Rhineland Palitinate for Rheinland-Pfalz because the English name just sounds silly to me. If you want to use the English translation one, fine by me. Anyway I reckon that almost everyone who knows what and where Rhineland Palitinate is would understand the German name anyway.
Come the GE, people will fall into one of the following categories -
1. Priority stop Brexit therefore must swallow PM Corbyn. 2. Priority PM Corbyn therefore must swallow a 2nd EU Referendum. 3. Priority avoid PM Corbyn therefore must swallow PM Johnson and Hard Brexit.
Tough choices but them's the rules on this one.
I am in (2). I want a Labour government more than I do not want Ref2.
But that's me. I'm a bit niche, I think. (2) will be the smallest group.
By contrast (1) and (3) will describe many millions and their relative size will determine the election result.
If (1) is bigger than (3) - it's Lab minority govt. If (3) is bigger than (1) - it's Con majority.
This is simplifying, obviously, but IMO in a useful way.
4. Priority avoid PM Corbyn therefore must swallow PM Johnson and reckon he tilts to a deal post election with a good majority.
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
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
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.
They weren't any worse than previous years because international pressure and attention forced Bolsanaro to act!
There are plenty of fires elsewhere in the world. Indonesia and Russia being particularly bad this year, but it does vary very much with where the dry season falls.
The rainy season has been late and light in Angola this year.This means fires break out more readily, but is in part due to climate change in Southern Africa, so the result of environmental damage as much as the cause.
Come the GE, people will fall into one of the following categories -
1. Priority stop Brexit therefore must swallow PM Corbyn. 2. Priority PM Corbyn therefore must swallow a 2nd EU Referendum. 3. Priority avoid PM Corbyn therefore must swallow PM Johnson and Hard Brexit.
Tough choices but them's the rules on this one.
I am in (2). I want a Labour government more than I do not want Ref2.
But that's me. I'm a bit niche, I think. (2) will be the smallest group.
By contrast (1) and (3) will describe many millions and their relative size will determine the election result.
If (1) is bigger than (3) - it's Lab minority govt. If (3) is bigger than (1) - it's Con majority.
This is simplifying, obviously, but IMO in a useful way.
Interesting way of looking at it. If we go with that schema, I'm (1).
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.
The decision not to eat parts of a dead animal is often made for ethical reasons. Because you are happy to eat meat, it does not mean this is not an ethical issue.
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.
Millions of years?????? Was this when we were killing dinosaurs?
Come the GE, people will fall into one of the following categories -
1. Priority stop Brexit therefore must swallow PM Corbyn. 2. Priority PM Corbyn therefore must swallow a 2nd EU Referendum. 3. Priority avoid PM Corbyn therefore must swallow PM Johnson and Hard Brexit.
Tough choices but them's the rules on this one.
I am in (2). I want a Labour government more than I do not want Ref2.
But that's me. I'm a bit niche, I think. (2) will be the smallest group.
By contrast (1) and (3) will describe many millions and their relative size will determine the election result.
If (1) is bigger than (3) - it's Lab minority govt. If (3) is bigger than (1) - it's Con majority.
This is simplifying, obviously, but IMO in a useful way.
You forgot (1a) Priority to stop a Conservative government. I think this would be at least as large a group as your (2).
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.
Millions of years?????? Was this when we were killing dinosaurs?
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.
Millions of years?????? Was this when we were killing dinosaurs?
Dinosaurs became extinct c.65 million years ago.
Proto-Humans have been around (homo erectus) for up to 2 million years, and Australopithecus even before that.
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.
Two points of order: 1. Choosing a plant-based diet is not the same as choosing monoculture. 2. Farming for plant-based diets is more space intensive, meaning less incursion into wild land.
I'm not advocating any particular choice, and I eat meat, but there's no doubt at all that livestock farming has greater environmental impacts than arable.
The decision not to eat parts of a dead animal is often made for ethical reasons. Because you are happy to eat meat, it does not mean this is not an ethical issue.
It’s a choice.
Fundamentally there are no ethical issues.
This is complete ******. Why do we not do medical experiments on disabled people, even when the results experiments could help millions of people?
Come the GE, people will fall into one of the following categories -
1. Priority stop Brexit therefore must swallow PM Corbyn. 2. Priority PM Corbyn therefore must swallow a 2nd EU Referendum. 3. Priority avoid PM Corbyn therefore must swallow PM Johnson and Hard Brexit.
Tough choices but them's the rules on this one.
I am in (2). I want a Labour government more than I do not want Ref2.
But that's me. I'm a bit niche, I think. (2) will be the smallest group.
By contrast (1) and (3) will describe many millions and their relative size will determine the election result.
If (1) is bigger than (3) - it's Lab minority govt. If (3) is bigger than (1) - it's Con majority.
This is simplifying, obviously, but IMO in a useful way.
You forgot (1a) Priority to stop a Conservative government. I think this would be at least as large a group as your (2).
And (1b) Priority to stop THIS Conservative Government - I like a fiscally conservative centralist Government - Boris is not that.
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.
Two points of order: 1. Choosing a plant-based diet is not the same as choosing monoculture. 2. Farming for plant-based diets is more space intensive, meaning less incursion into wild land.
I'm not advocating any particular choice, and I eat meat, but there's no doubt at all that livestock farming has greater environmental impacts than arable.
Turning over masses of grazing land to arable farming of maize, cereals and other crops will certainly have an impact on the diversity of grassland grazing species, insects, birds and mammals that use them.
It may reduce CO2 in totality, and it will also do a lot of other things. Many of them ecologically negative.
The decision not to eat parts of a dead animal is often made for ethical reasons. Because you are happy to eat meat, it does not mean this is not an ethical issue.
It’s a choice.
Fundamentally there are no ethical issues.
This is complete ******. Why do we not do medical experiments on disabled people, even when the results experiments could help millions of people?
Nope. It’s not. My post is logical and well argued. Yours is an emotional toilet.
Try reading and re-reading my original post until your limited brain understand it.
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.
Millions of years?????? Was this when we were killing dinosaurs?
Dinosaurs became extinct c.65 million years ago.
Proto-Humans have been around (homo erectus) for up to 2 million years, and Australopithecus even before that.
See previous post. A poor joke by me. Surprising how many people do think people and dinosaurs were around at the same time sadly.
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.
A high proportion of agrarian industrial monoculture is for production of cattle feed. The days of romantic cowboys cattleherding are gone. Those cattle are in vast feedlots and being fed on soybeans etc.
An adult human needs about 50g or 2 Oz of protein per day, and of course there is plenty of high quality protein in plants. Cattle in particular are poor converters of feed to animal protein.
The world would be both healthier and environmentally improved by lower meat consumption.
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.
Millions of years?????? Was this when we were killing dinosaurs?
Dinosaurs became extinct c.65 million years ago.
Proto-Humans have been around (homo erectus) for up to 2 million years, and Australopithecus even before that.
See previous post. A poor joke by me. Surprising how many people do think people and dinosaurs were around at the same time sadly.
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.
Millions of years?????? Was this when we were killing dinosaurs?
Dinosaurs became extinct c.65 million years ago.
Proto-Humans have been around (homo erectus) for up to 2 million years, and Australopithecus even before that.
See previous post. A poor joke by me. Surprising how many people do think people and dinosaurs were around at the same time sadly.
The decision not to eat parts of a dead animal is often made for ethical reasons. Because you are happy to eat meat, it does not mean this is not an ethical issue.
It’s a choice.
Fundamentally there are no ethical issues.
This is complete ******. Why do we not do medical experiments on disabled people, even when the results experiments could help millions of people?
Nope. It’s not. My post is logical and well argued. Yours is an emotional toilet.
Try reading and re-reading my original post until your limited brain understand it.
I'm sorry, but you're mistaken on this. Eating meat is an ethical issue, it's a religious issue, it's a health issue, and it's an environmental issue. You may argue, as I do, that it's ethically sound, that my particular religion has nothing to say about it, that it's healthy to consume some meat, and that it's environmentally sustainable for people who choose to eat /some/ meat to do so. But those are stances within ethical, religious, health, and environmental debates.
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.
Millions of years?????? Was this when we were killing dinosaurs?
Dinosaurs became extinct c.65 million years ago.
Proto-Humans have been around (homo erectus) for up to 2 million years, and Australopithecus even before that.
See previous post. A poor joke by me. Surprising how many people do think people and dinosaurs were around at the same time sadly.
On that subject, an interesting quirk of time is that Tyrannosaurus Rex is closer in time to Marc Bolan and T Rex than it is to Stegosaurus
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.
A high proportion of agrarian industrial monoculture is for production of cattle feed. The days of romantic cowboys cattleherding are gone. Those cattle are in vast feedlots and being fed on soybeans etc.
An adult human needs about 50g or 2 Oz of protein per day, and of course there is plenty of high quality protein in plants. Cattle in particular are poor converters of feed to animal protein.
The world would be both healthier and environmentally improved by lower meat consumption.
The question I wonder about is the transition. There are currently something like 2 billion pigs, 1.5 billion cows and a billion sheep in the world. If they are no longer going to be used much for meat, the need for those animals will decline very sharply. It's not going to be a happy time to be a domesticated animal.
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.
A high proportion of agrarian industrial monoculture is for production of cattle feed. The days of romantic cowboys cattleherding are gone. Those cattle are in vast feedlots and being fed on soybeans etc.
An adult human needs about 50g or 2 Oz of protein per day, and of course there is plenty of high quality protein in plants. Cattle in particular are poor converters of feed to animal protein.
The world would be both healthier and environmentally improved by lower meat consumption.
I think a balanced diet should be the aspiration and people should have a choice. In extremis grazing and production could be ecologically limited (as fish catches are) and market forces can do the rest. But I’d start with engineering feeding solutions that limit emissions first.
Cattle certainly aren’t raised in the way you describe in western Canada, which I’ve been to and seen with my own eyes.
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.
Millions of years?????? Was this when we were killing dinosaurs?
Dinosaurs became extinct c.65 million years ago.
Proto-Humans have been around (homo erectus) for up to 2 million years, and Australopithecus even before that.
See previous post. A poor joke by me. Surprising how many people do think people and dinosaurs were around at the same time sadly.
On that subject, an interesting quirk of time is that Tyrannosaurus Rex is closer in time to Marc Bolan and T Rex than it is to Stegosaurus
Humanity has a way to go if it is to match the long term staying power of the dinosaurs.
And worth noting that the Govt. managed the largest peace-time movement of people back home without a hitch.
It is one of those things where the government can never win. If they mess up slightly, the news is filled with maureen from margate go ape shit, if it all works nobody says anything.
The worst example of that was the evacuation from Libya. Hague / government got shit left right and centre, but actually had planned it out weeks in advance and pulled off an incredibly difficult and dangerous mission for which no media outlet and turned round and said actually we were wrong, the government done good.
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.
A high proportion of agrarian industrial monoculture is for production of cattle feed. The days of romantic cowboys cattleherding are gone. Those cattle are in vast feedlots and being fed on soybeans etc.
An adult human needs about 50g or 2 Oz of protein per day, and of course there is plenty of high quality protein in plants. Cattle in particular are poor converters of feed to animal protein.
The world would be both healthier and environmentally improved by lower meat consumption.
The question I wonder about is the transition. There are currently something like 2 billion pigs, 1.5 billion cows and a billion sheep in the world. If they are no longer going to be used much for meat, the need for those animals will decline very sharply. It's not going to be a happy time to be a domesticated animal.
You're saying that instead of being slaughtered they're going to be killed??
You forgot (1a) Priority to stop a Conservative government. I think this would be at least as large a group as your (2).
Yes there must be people so appalled by this Johnson manifestation of the Cons that purely their defeat is the priority. But I reckon almost all of them will also be appalled by the prospect of No Deal Brexit, so kind of covered.
Anyway, I shouldn't have included category (2). Only did it because it includes me. But, no, cluttering things up unnecessarily.
Back to the FT article -
Stop Brexit so swallow Jez as PM. or Stop Jez so swallow PM Boz and Hard Brexit.
Which group is the biggest and by how much? - This is the Big Picture.
(According to that) Taoiseach is the official title in both English and Irish and is not used in Irish when referring to prime ministers of other countries - "Príomh Aire".
So, it seems reasonable to me to use Taoiseach in English, just as we refer to Angela Merkel as Chancellor (the English official title?). If Taoiseach was the generic Irish term for prime minister then using prime minister would be reasonable.
But no, I think, cause for outrage whether Taoiseach or prime minister (or leader) is used in good faith. I've not heard Simon Coveney referred to as Tánaiste on these shores.
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.
Millions of years?????? Was this when we were killing dinosaurs?
Dinosaurs became extinct c.65 million years ago.
Proto-Humans have been around (homo erectus) for up to 2 million years, and Australopithecus even before that.
See previous post. A poor joke by me. Surprising how many people do think people and dinosaurs were around at the same time sadly.
On that subject, an interesting quirk of time is that Tyrannosaurus Rex is closer in time to Marc Bolan and T Rex than it is to Stegosaurus
Humanity has a way to go if it is to match the long term staying power of the dinosaurs.
About 250 million years or so. I.e. until the day before NI gets out of the backstop
(According to that) Taoiseach is the official title in both English and Irish and is not used in Irish when referring to prime ministers of other countries - "Príomh Aire".
So, it seems reasonable to me to use Taoiseach in English, just as we refer to Angela Merkel as Chancellor (the English official title?). If Taoiseach was the generic Irish term for prime minister then using prime minister would be reasonable.
But no, I think, cause for outrage whether Taoiseach or prime minister (or leader) is used in good faith. I've not heard Simon Coveney referred to as Tánaiste on these shores.
I think PM is fine for Leo - best not to encourage the use of twee dead languages.
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.
Millions of years?????? Was this when we were killing dinosaurs?
Dinosaurs became extinct c.65 million years ago.
Proto-Humans have been around (homo erectus) for up to 2 million years, and Australopithecus even before that.
See previous post. A poor joke by me. Surprising how many people do think people and dinosaurs were around at the same time sadly.
On that subject, an interesting quirk of time is that Tyrannosaurus Rex is closer in time to Marc Bolan and T Rex than it is to Stegosaurus
I heard that on a very recent R4 programme that was talking about a discovery made in Africa recently. It is an amazing fact. Almost as amazing as the fact that one of their discoveries was from eBay. The seller having no idea how important the stuff they were selling was.
You forgot (1a) Priority to stop a Conservative government. I think this would be at least as large a group as your (2).
Yes there must be people so appalled by this Johnson manifestation of the Cons that purely their defeat is the priority. But I reckon almost all of them will also be appalled by the prospect of No Deal Brexit, so kind of covered.
Anyway, I shouldn't have included category (2). Only did it because it includes me. But, no, cluttering things up unnecessarily.
Back to the FT article -
Stop Brexit so swallow Jez as PM. or Stop Jez so swallow PM Boz and Hard Brexit.
Which group is the biggest and by how much? - This is the Big Picture.
Stop Brexit and stop Johnson vote lib dem problem solved
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.
I (and I presume Philip T) can at least agree with your point that the EU has given absolutely nothing in negotiations since day 1, including a failure to offer anything in return for the latest compromise put forward by the UK (notwithstanding our disagreement with you about the impact of the Benn Act on negotiations.)
I trust therefore that you also agree that it is perfectly reasonable for the UK government to blame such continued EU intransigence for the failure of the latest set of negotiations.
Come the GE, people will fall into one of the following categories -
1. Priority stop Brexit therefore must swallow PM Corbyn. 2. Priority PM Corbyn therefore must swallow a 2nd EU Referendum. 3. Priority avoid PM Corbyn therefore must swallow PM Johnson and Hard Brexit.
Tough choices but them's the rules on this one.
I am in (2). I want a Labour government more than I do not want Ref2.
But that's me. I'm a bit niche, I think. (2) will be the smallest group.
By contrast (1) and (3) will describe many millions and their relative size will determine the election result.
If (1) is bigger than (3) - it's Lab minority govt. If (3) is bigger than (1) - it's Con majority.
This is simplifying, obviously, but IMO in a useful way.
4. Priority avoid PM Corbyn therefore must swallow PM Johnson and reckon he tilts to a deal post election with a good majority.
That's quite a leap though! I remember in 2017 ideas that May would pivot to soft Brexit with a good majority, we never got to test that as she remained an ERG hostage. The same could happen to Johnson (if he just scraped a majority, say) even if his wish would be to switch to a deal.
Given the choice, I'd take Corbyn. The parliamentary labour party may or may not have the balls to rein in a majority Corbyn government, but there are still sensible people in the PLP; what remains of the parliamentary Conservative party seems fully signed up to follow Johnson over any cliff he likes.
And worth noting that the Govt. managed the largest peace-time movement of people back home without a hitch.
It is one of those things where the government can never win. If they mess up slightly, the news is filled with maureen from margate go ape shit, if it all works nobody says anything.
The worst example of that was the evacuation from Libya. Hague / government got shit left right and centre, but actually had planned it out weeks in advance and pulled off an incredibly difficult and dangerous mission for which no media outlet and turned round and said actually we were wrong, the government done good.
That's a great example. I recall the news being filled with people complaining that the government weren't sending planes out, and Hague got sent on to the news to take the flak - the reality was that the planes needed to fly out with a few dozen members of the Hereford Branch of the Diplomatic Service, and it took them a few hours to get assembled and readied. It wasn't until a few days later that the plan became clear, as said 'diplomats' had managed to get themselves 300km into the desert and were calling in C130s to pick up stranded oil workers.
And worth noting that the Govt. managed the largest peace-time movement of people back home without a hitch.
It is one of those things where the government can never win. If they mess up slightly, the news is filled with maureen from margate go ape shit, if it all works nobody says anything.
And to be on the safe side, the government spin beforehand was that it was all down to the travel industry, paid for by insurance companies.
Come the GE, people will fall into one of the following categories -
1. Priority stop Brexit therefore must swallow PM Corbyn. 2. Priority PM Corbyn therefore must swallow a 2nd EU Referendum. 3. Priority avoid PM Corbyn therefore must swallow PM Johnson and Hard Brexit.
Tough choices but them's the rules on this one.
I am in (2). I want a Labour government more than I do not want Ref2.
But that's me. I'm a bit niche, I think. (2) will be the smallest group.
By contrast (1) and (3) will describe many millions and their relative size will determine the election result.
If (1) is bigger than (3) - it's Lab minority govt. If (3) is bigger than (1) - it's Con majority.
This is simplifying, obviously, but IMO in a useful way.
4. Priority avoid PM Corbyn therefore must swallow PM Johnson and reckon he tilts to a deal post election with a good majority.
This is the crux for many Cons voters. Corbo is the ultimate backstop guiding the pencil away from the LDs if it means such a vote would or could enable a Lab victory.
Corbyn may or may not implement much of what he has announced but the threat remains.
Cons voters have to answer the simple question - would they prefer Corbyn's Lab or a continued attempt at a deal with the EU with Boris. If we have left without a deal then who would be in the best position to get a deal.
I continue to think that we won't/can't no deal (for all that it is looking likely) and that we will get something that looks very much like Tezza's WA but for the GE, the fear of what Corbyn will do to the country is to me greater than the fear of no deal.
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
We should eat some meat and we should do it sustainably, sensibly and without needless cruelty but the rest is ideology.
A high proportion of agrarian industrial monoculture is for production of cattle feed. The days of romantic cowboys cattleherding are gone. Those cattle are in vast feedlots and being fed on soybeans etc.
An adult human needs about 50g or 2 Oz of protein per day, and of course there is plenty of high quality protein in plants. Cattle in particular are poor converters of feed to animal protein.
The world would be both healthier and environmentally improved by lower meat consumption.
I think a balanced diet should be the aspiration and people should have a choice. In extremis grazing and production could be ecologically limited (as fish catches are) and market forces can do the rest. But I’d start with engineering feeding solutions that limit emissions first.
Cattle certainly aren’t raised in the way you describe in western Canada, which I’ve been to and seen with my own eyes.
There is massive variety in environmental impact of different ways of farming even within one industry such as cattle.
By eliminating the worst farming practices, we can still eat high quality meat, and benefit the planet.
One of the problems of Capitalism is that the producers do not pay for their externalities, they leave them for the general public to pick up the tab while the capitalists trouser the profit.
Global climate change is really the Tragedy of the Commons writ very large.
(According to that) Taoiseach is the official title in both English and Irish and is not used in Irish when referring to prime ministers of other countries - "Príomh Aire".
So, it seems reasonable to me to use Taoiseach in English, just as we refer to Angela Merkel as Chancellor (the English official title?). If Taoiseach was the generic Irish term for prime minister then using prime minister would be reasonable.
But no, I think, cause for outrage whether Taoiseach or prime minister (or leader) is used in good faith. I've not heard Simon Coveney referred to as Tánaiste on these shores.
I think PM is fine for Leo - best not to encourage the use of twee dead languages.
D'ye want to let the members of the world's biggest Rangers supporters' club know that they speak a twee dead language?
Just because the Irish Head of Government performs the same role in a very similar system to our Head of Government doesn’t mean we should use our term for the post. The Irish Head of State is in a similarly ceremonial, symbolic position to our own, but we don’t call him or her the King or Queen of Ireland.
And worth noting that the Govt. managed the largest peace-time movement of people back home without a hitch.
It is one of those things where the government can never win. If they mess up slightly, the news is filled with maureen from margate go ape shit, if it all works nobody says anything.
And to be on the safe side, the government spin beforehand was that it was all down to the travel industry, paid for by insurance companies.
The CAA should get the credit they did the work fronted the cameras and were the people on the ground. And has cost 100m most of which won’t be recovered.
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.
I (and I presume Philip T) can at least agree with your point that the EU has given absolutely nothing in negotiations since day 1, including a failure to offer anything in return for the latest compromise put forward by the UK (notwithstanding our disagreement with you about the impact of the Benn Act on negotiations.)
I trust therefore that you also agree that it is perfectly reasonable for the UK government to blame such continued EU intransigence for the failure of the latest set of negotiations.
All UK backstop? Not a concession? The EU wanted NI only, May doesn't get the credit she deserves for making it whole UK, though she did a terrible job of selling it.
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.
A high proportion of agrarian industrial monoculture is for production of cattle feed. The days of romantic cowboys cattleherding are gone. Those cattle are in vast feedlots and being fed on soybeans etc.
An adult human needs about 50g or 2 Oz of protein per day, and of course there is plenty of high quality protein in plants. Cattle in particular are poor converters of feed to animal protein.
The world would be both healthier and environmentally improved by lower meat consumption.
So you are both a vegetarian and don't use motorised transport. Next off it's self-sufficiency in heat and power and you will then only need to convince the rest of the medical community to follow your lead and we will have made a huge leap forward.
(According to that) Taoiseach is the official title in both English and Irish and is not used in Irish when referring to prime ministers of other countries - "Príomh Aire".
So, it seems reasonable to me to use Taoiseach in English, just as we refer to Angela Merkel as Chancellor (the English official title?). If Taoiseach was the generic Irish term for prime minister then using prime minister would be reasonable.
But no, I think, cause for outrage whether Taoiseach or prime minister (or leader) is used in good faith. I've not heard Simon Coveney referred to as Tánaiste on these shores.
I think PM is fine for Leo - best not to encourage the use of twee dead languages.
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.
Millions of years?????? Was this when we were killing dinosaurs?
Of course. What do you think humans ate back then?
Even though lamb apparently has a high carbon impact I think sheep have a place to stay in Britain. They've been here since roman times and can graze far sparser vegetation than beef cattle or swine. In lowland areas they tend to be part of arable rotations. The welfare standards implicit in the farming methods necessary are probably the highest for any farm animal. If we leave the EU without a deal, lamb should (ceteris paribus) be selling at a low price on the shelves so plenty of lamb sunday roasts methinks.
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.
A high proportion of agrarian industrial monoculture is for production of cattle feed. The days of romantic cowboys cattleherding are gone. Those cattle are in vast feedlots and being fed on soybeans etc.
An adult human needs about 50g or 2 Oz of protein per day, and of course there is plenty of high quality protein in plants. Cattle in particular are poor converters of feed to animal protein.
The world would be both healthier and environmentally improved by lower meat consumption.
The question I wonder about is the transition. There are currently something like 2 billion pigs, 1.5 billion cows and a billion sheep in the world. If they are no longer going to be used much for meat, the need for those animals will decline very sharply. It's not going to be a happy time to be a domesticated animal.
Compared with the lap of luxury they currently enjoy?
Come the GE, people will fall into one of the following categories -
1. Priority stop Brexit therefore must swallow PM Corbyn. 2. Priority PM Corbyn therefore must swallow a 2nd EU Referendum. 3. Priority avoid PM Corbyn therefore must swallow PM Johnson and Hard Brexit.
Tough choices but them's the rules on this one.
I am in (2). I want a Labour government more than I do not want Ref2.
But that's me. I'm a bit niche, I think. (2) will be the smallest group.
By contrast (1) and (3) will describe many millions and their relative size will determine the election result.
If (1) is bigger than (3) - it's Lab minority govt. If (3) is bigger than (1) - it's Con majority.
This is simplifying, obviously, but IMO in a useful way.
4. Priority avoid PM Corbyn therefore must swallow PM Johnson and reckon he tilts to a deal post election with a good majority.
Your group 4 is simply a subset of group 3 with an enhanced capacity for self-delusion.
Taoiseach or not? If referring to him directly then yes, if reporting about him in the UK to a UK audience, PM is fine, it isn't incumbent on British citizens to know what the Irish Gaelic term for their chief minister is, but it is useful for the press to refer to him by terms their readership are most likely to understand
And worth noting that the Govt. managed the largest peace-time movement of people back home without a hitch.
It is one of those things where the government can never win. If they mess up slightly, the news is filled with maureen from margate go ape shit, if it all works nobody says anything.
And to be on the safe side, the government spin beforehand was that it was all down to the travel industry, paid for by insurance companies.
The CAA should get the credit they did the work fronted the cameras and were the people on the ground. And has cost 100m most of which won’t be recovered.
Around 80% of Thomas Cook airline passengers were covered by ATOL insurance. The cost to the government will be closer to 10m when it all washes out.
Even though lamb apparently has a high carbon impact I think sheep have a place to stay in Britain. They've been here since roman times and can graze far sparser vegetation than beef cattle or swine. In lowland areas they tend to be part of arable rotations. The welfare standards implicit in the farming methods necessary are probably the highest for any farm animal. If we leave the EU without a deal, lamb should (ceteris paribus) be selling at a low price on the shelves so plenty of lamb sunday roasts methinks.
If we leave the EU without a deal it's curtains for the UK sheep herd.
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.
A high proportion of agrarian industrial monoculture is for production of cattle feed. The days of romantic cowboys cattleherding are gone. Those cattle are in vast feedlots and being fed on soybeans etc.
An adult human needs about 50g or 2 Oz of protein per day, and of course there is plenty of high quality protein in plants. Cattle in particular are poor converters of feed to animal protein.
The world would be both healthier and environmentally improved by lower meat consumption.
The question I wonder about is the transition. There are currently something like 2 billion pigs, 1.5 billion cows and a billion sheep in the world. If they are no longer going to be used much for meat, the need for those animals will decline very sharply. It's not going to be a happy time to be a domesticated animal.
Surely they will be eaten during the transition, as they are now? Domestic animals are mostly slaughtered at a young age and assuming people don't all turn vegan overnight I think the transition period will be a fairly gradual affair. FWIW I have been vegetarian for over 30 years. I have never regretted it, am in good health and feel like it was the right choice for me, for animals and for the planet.
(According to that) Taoiseach is the official title in both English and Irish and is not used in Irish when referring to prime ministers of other countries - "Príomh Aire".
So, it seems reasonable to me to use Taoiseach in English, just as we refer to Angela Merkel as Chancellor (the English official title?). If Taoiseach was the generic Irish term for prime minister then using prime minister would be reasonable.
But no, I think, cause for outrage whether Taoiseach or prime minister (or leader) is used in good faith. I've not heard Simon Coveney referred to as Tánaiste on these shores.
I think to prove how respectful we are, we should all learn the plural 'taoisigh' just in case. Then it's also important to know whether you're talking to a mainly northern and western Irish audience (and so pronounce it "Teeshee"), or a southern Irish one (for "Teesheeg")
(According to that) Taoiseach is the official title in both English and Irish and is not used in Irish when referring to prime ministers of other countries - "Príomh Aire".
So, it seems reasonable to me to use Taoiseach in English, just as we refer to Angela Merkel as Chancellor (the English official title?). If Taoiseach was the generic Irish term for prime minister then using prime minister would be reasonable.
But no, I think, cause for outrage whether Taoiseach or prime minister (or leader) is used in good faith. I've not heard Simon Coveney referred to as Tánaiste on these shores.
I think PM is fine for Leo - best not to encourage the use of twee dead languages.
English is a twee dead language?
Use of English is cultural appropriation by the Irish - they should be cancelled.
And worth noting that the Govt. managed the largest peace-time movement of people back home without a hitch.
It is one of those things where the government can never win. If they mess up slightly, the news is filled with maureen from margate go ape shit, if it all works nobody says anything.
And to be on the safe side, the government spin beforehand was that it was all down to the travel industry, paid for by insurance companies.
The CAA should get the credit they did the work fronted the cameras and were the people on the ground. And has cost 100m most of which won’t be recovered.
Around 80% of Thomas Cook airline passengers were covered by ATOL insurance. The cost to the government will be closer to 10m when it all washes out.
The recovery rates from the monarch repatriation were quite low but that may be because they were not mainly package tour passengers.
And worth noting that the Govt. managed the largest peace-time movement of people back home without a hitch.
It is one of those things where the government can never win. If they mess up slightly, the news is filled with maureen from margate go ape shit, if it all works nobody says anything.
And to be on the safe side, the government spin beforehand was that it was all down to the travel industry, paid for by insurance companies.
The CAA should get the credit they did the work fronted the cameras and were the people on the ground. And has cost 100m most of which won’t be recovered.
Around 80% of Thomas Cook airline passengers were covered by ATOL insurance. The cost to the government will be closer to 10m when it all washes out.
The cost of the previous bail out was reported to be 10m and turned out to be 100m.
Come the GE, people will fall into one of the following categories -
1. Priority stop Brexit therefore must swallow PM Corbyn. 2. Priority PM Corbyn therefore must swallow a 2nd EU Referendum. 3. Priority avoid PM Corbyn therefore must swallow PM Johnson and Hard Brexit.
Tough choices but them's the rules on this one.
I am in (2). I want a Labour government more than I do not want Ref2.
But that's me. I'm a bit niche, I think. (2) will be the smallest group.
By contrast (1) and (3) will describe many millions and their relative size will determine the election result.
If (1) is bigger than (3) - it's Lab minority govt. If (3) is bigger than (1) - it's Con majority.
This is simplifying, obviously, but IMO in a useful way.
4. Priority avoid PM Corbyn therefore must swallow PM Johnson and reckon he tilts to a deal post election with a good majority.
Your group 4 is simply a subset of group 3 with an enhanced capacity for self-delusion.
If we're still in the EU AND Johnson gets a majority do you honestly think he'll charge headlong to the WTO exits ?
We'll be out with something like the May deal. Clearly the pivot toward "No deal" is needed right now to try and get Brexiteer votes onside. Why do you think he wanted an election on 14th October. So he could extend after gaining a majority. That was an optimistic plan A; he wants to leave with a deal and post election he can give away far more than he can pre-election.
(According to that) Taoiseach is the official title in both English and Irish and is not used in Irish when referring to prime ministers of other countries - "Príomh Aire".
So, it seems reasonable to me to use Taoiseach in English, just as we refer to Angela Merkel as Chancellor (the English official title?). If Taoiseach was the generic Irish term for prime minister then using prime minister would be reasonable.
But no, I think, cause for outrage whether Taoiseach or prime minister (or leader) is used in good faith. I've not heard Simon Coveney referred to as Tánaiste on these shores.
I think PM is fine for Leo - best not to encourage the use of twee dead languages.
English is a twee dead language?
Use of English is cultural appropriation by the Irish - they should be cancelled.
In other news - Rooney vs Vardy - lol.
You'd probably not enjoy the play Translations by Brian Friel
(According to that) Taoiseach is the official title in both English and Irish and is not used in Irish when referring to prime ministers of other countries - "Príomh Aire".
So, it seems reasonable to me to use Taoiseach in English, just as we refer to Angela Merkel as Chancellor (the English official title?). If Taoiseach was the generic Irish term for prime minister then using prime minister would be reasonable.
But no, I think, cause for outrage whether Taoiseach or prime minister (or leader) is used in good faith. I've not heard Simon Coveney referred to as Tánaiste on these shores.
I think to prove how respectful we are, we should all learn the plural 'taoisigh' just in case. Then it's also important to know whether you're talking to a mainly northern and western Irish audience (and so pronounce it "Teeshee"), or a southern Irish one (for "Teesheeg")
Taoiseach or not? If referring to him directly then yes, if reporting about him in the UK to a UK audience, PM is fine, it isn't incumbent on British citizens to know what the Irish Gaelic term for their chief minister is, but it is useful for the press to refer to him by terms their readership are most likely to understand
I think you missed the link earlier saying that it's his title in English too. Ireland is an English speaking country. It's of no consequence that the word has entered the English language from Gaelic. We use words from French like parliament or representative, or from Latin like congress and senate. Now we have one from Gaelic.
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.
A high proportion of agrarian industrial monoculture is for production of cattle feed. The days of romantic cowboys cattleherding are gone. Those cattle are in vast feedlots and being fed on soybeans etc.
An adult human needs about 50g or 2 Oz of protein per day, and of course there is plenty of high quality protein in plants. Cattle in particular are poor converters of feed to animal protein.
The world would be both healthier and environmentally improved by lower meat consumption.
I think a balanced diet should be the aspiration and people should have a choice. In extremis grazing and production could be ecologically limited (as fish catches are) and market forces can do the rest. But I’d start with engineering feeding solutions that limit emissions first.
Cattle certainly aren’t raised in the way you describe in western Canada, which I’ve been to and seen with my own eyes.
97% of US beef is from feedlots. The cattle are on pasture for around six months, then grain fed in feedlots for a further six months. Grain fed cattle put on weight faster and produce fattier meat. It also enables hormone treatment so added weight gain and profit. The overcrowding does lead to more use of antibiotics.
That's quite a leap though! I remember in 2017 ideas that May would pivot to soft Brexit with a good majority, we never got to test that as she remained an ERG hostage. The same could happen to Johnson (if he just scraped a majority, say) even if his wish would be to switch to a deal.
Given the choice, I'd take Corbyn. The parliamentary labour party may or may not have the balls to rein in a majority Corbyn government, but there are still sensible people in the PLP; what remains of the parliamentary Conservative party seems fully signed up to follow Johnson over any cliff he likes.
So that's another (1).
Making 2 of those (you, noo) and 2 x (3)s (pulp, topping).
I intend having a pig and chickens when I finally retire. Fresh eggs - mmmmm! And the pig can eat all the kitchen scraps.
And a beehive too. Not for the honey which I can't stand and will sell but because they are wonderful in gardens.
It will be the Mrs Tiggywinkle phase of my life and far better than dribbling in a chair in a home.
I already have a half share in a marsh fed lamb.
Occasionally the wireless will be turned on and there will be reports of the 197th Article 50 extension. But it will be swiftly turned off again on the grounds of being the most colossal bore.
And worth noting that the Govt. managed the largest peace-time movement of people back home without a hitch.
It is one of those things where the government can never win. If they mess up slightly, the news is filled with maureen from margate go ape shit, if it all works nobody says anything.
And to be on the safe side, the government spin beforehand was that it was all down to the travel industry, paid for by insurance companies.
The CAA should get the credit they did the work fronted the cameras and were the people on the ground. And has cost 100m most of which won’t be recovered.
Around 80% of Thomas Cook airline passengers were covered by ATOL insurance. The cost to the government will be closer to 10m when it all washes out.
The recovery rates from the monarch repatriation were quite low but that may be because they were not mainly package tour passengers.
Monarch was only 20% ATOL, and the CAA have spent the past two years trying to extract payments from various travel insurance and credit card companies, with varying degrees of success and a lot of costs run up in court cases etc.
Thomas Cook will be more straightforward in that regard, but there will still be some costs they don’t get back.
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.
Millions of years?????? Was this when we were killing dinosaurs?
Of course. What do you think humans ate back then?
Sorry to be a pedant, but dinosaurs predated homo sapiens. On the subject of meat being un-environmental, this is partly misleading as many ecologies would cease to exist if meat production stopped, and many grass habitats would be replaced by cereal production. As with all things, it is all a bit more complex than vegan eco-warriors with their own political agendas would have us believe.
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?
Well said.
There is a relevance to knowing the history, long and short term, but people pick and choose when to make it ok to focus so heavily on it, usually for political advantage.
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?
How do you go about laying for decent dough that the GE won’t take place this year?
If you hit the bids, there isn’t much money there and you’re giving away a few %, but if you leave an offer up and something happens that makes a GE more likely while you’re not monitoring Betfair, you get hoovered
Johnson's current plan is to seemingly push as hard as he can for "No deal" with the hope that in extremis the 'remain forces' in parliament together with the EU can and will prevent the UK leaving on October 31st. It makes him look a touch foolish heading into a GE campaign but can be spun as THEY won't let us leave which keeps the Brexit party at a manageable slice of the 47% the Tories + Brexit I reckon are heading for. He must be sweating slightly given the lack of remain organisation right now but they should come good in the end.
I suspect Dominic Cummings would be a strong Diplomacy player.
Meanwhile, the Times reported on Wednesday that the EU could throw Johnson a last minute time-limited Northern Ireland-only backstop. Senior EU officials said that such a proposal was not being discussed.
Stop Brexit and stop Johnson vote lib dem problem solved
Yes, but the hard choice comes in seats where Lab is best placed to gain from Con or where Lab is defending from Con.
Voting LD there is fine - it's always fine to vote your 1st pref - but it would be abdicating from the tactical battle.
If you want to join that battle (in those seats) you will need to ask yourself which prospect upsets you the most - PM Corbyn or Brexit?
Labour spin teams will be broadcasting that even the City prefers Corbyn to Boris and Brexit. Conservative spin teams will send pictures of closed Venezuelan jam factories. SNP spin teams will likely spend the entire campaign in bed, so confident are they.
I intend having a pig and chickens when I finally retire. Fresh eggs - mmmmm! And the pig can eat all the kitchen scraps.
And a beehive too. Not for the honey which I can't stand and will sell but because they are wonderful in gardens.
It will be the Mrs Tiggywinkle phase of my life and far better than dribbling in a chair in a home.
I already have a half share in a marsh fed lamb.
Occasionally the wireless will be turned on and there will be reports of the 197th Article 50 extension. But it will be swiftly turned off again on the grounds of being the most colossal bore.
Your chickens will finish all your kitchen scraps not sure what you'll do with the pig (singular).
Comments
https://twitter.com/UKDefJournal/status/1181852801477021696
A Boris majority would be another story.
If No 10 rowed back, they might regain about 11 of those original 21 rebels. To take their minority from -45 to about -23. Good job guys!
Of course, Corbyn should take the election. He should've took it on 3rd September. But he's a muppet.
If he has a majority he'd have no reason to reneg on NI.
Scotland 61-0 Russia
This is the fifth time Scotland have kept a clean sheet in a world cup match, more than any other team in world cup history.
Scotland 5
South Africa 4
New Zealand 2
Australia 1
Georgia 1
Wales 1
Ireland 1
I agree with this article.
Come the GE, people will fall into one of the following categories -
1. Priority stop Brexit therefore must swallow PM Corbyn.
2. Priority PM Corbyn therefore must swallow a 2nd EU Referendum.
3. Priority avoid PM Corbyn therefore must swallow PM Johnson and Hard Brexit.
Tough choices but them's the rules on this one.
I am in (2). I want a Labour government more than I do not want Ref2.
But that's me. I'm a bit niche, I think. (2) will be the smallest group.
By contrast (1) and (3) will describe many millions and their relative size will determine the election result.
If (1) is bigger than (3) - it's Lab minority govt.
If (3) is bigger than (1) - it's Con majority.
This is simplifying, obviously, but IMO in a useful way.
1. After a decade causing a mess in health, education, policing, housing, they now trump Labour, in Labour heartlands, promising the same level of spending and same investment priority policies as Labour. yes to the genius of Cummings crouched in a broom cupboard copying the strategy out of Mein Kampf This will work LOL
2. When it comes to the election there is no such thing as deal minus a backstop anymore, Tories have to campaign on no deal. it’s not that Britain tried to get a deal and failed it will be Tories with their red lines failed, staying in custom union Labour would get a deal with EU in weeks if not days.
3. Labour’s brexit position too complicated? All voters will get a vote on the brexit deal v remain. Not too complicated for you to understand is it 😃
4. By the end of the campaign the GE is this bottom line. No deal brexit v Jeremy corbyn.
No deal, destruction of manufacturing industry, destruction of farming industry, doubling of debt and trashing of economy
Corbyn, all the investment borrowing the Tories are promising plus everyone gets vote on whether to proceed with customs deal brexit or remain.
Good luck when it comes. 🙂
I am never going to use Rhineland Palitinate for Rheinland-Pfalz because the English name just sounds silly to me. If you want to use the English translation one, fine by me. Anyway I reckon that almost everyone who knows what and where Rhineland Palitinate is would understand the German name anyway.
There are plenty of fires elsewhere in the world. Indonesia and Russia being particularly bad this year, but it does vary very much with where the dry season falls.
The rainy season has been late and light in Angola this year.This means fires break out more readily, but is in part due to climate change in Southern Africa, so the result of environmental damage as much as the cause.
Fundamentally there are no ethical issues.
I think this would be at least as large a group as your (2).
Proto-Humans have been around (homo erectus) for up to 2 million years, and Australopithecus even before that.
1. Choosing a plant-based diet is not the same as choosing monoculture.
2. Farming for plant-based diets is more space intensive, meaning less incursion into wild land.
I'm not advocating any particular choice, and I eat meat, but there's no doubt at all that livestock farming has greater environmental impacts than arable.
Bodes well for other contingency planning that may be in the works.
It may reduce CO2 in totality, and it will also do a lot of other things. Many of them ecologically negative.
But let's say that is (3) with slight rewording -
3. Priority avoid PM Corbyn therefore must swallow PM Johnson and the GRAVE RISK of Hard Brexit.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7515601/Groom-called-Thomas-Cook-extremely-relieved-wedding-Greece-went-ahead.html
But that was happy news.
Try reading and re-reading my original post until your limited brain understand it.
An adult human needs about 50g or 2 Oz of protein per day, and of course there is plenty of high quality protein in plants. Cattle in particular are poor converters of feed to animal protein.
The world would be both healthier and environmentally improved by lower meat consumption.
You may argue, as I do, that it's ethically sound, that my particular religion has nothing to say about it, that it's healthy to consume some meat, and that it's environmentally sustainable for people who choose to eat /some/ meat to do so. But those are stances within ethical, religious, health, and environmental debates.
Cattle certainly aren’t raised in the way you describe in western Canada, which I’ve been to and seen with my own eyes.
The worst example of that was the evacuation from Libya. Hague / government got shit left right and centre, but actually had planned it out weeks in advance and pulled off an incredibly difficult and dangerous mission for which no media outlet and turned round and said actually we were wrong, the government done good.
Anyway, I shouldn't have included category (2). Only did it because it includes me. But, no, cluttering things up unnecessarily.
Back to the FT article -
Stop Brexit so swallow Jez as PM.
or
Stop Jez so swallow PM Boz and Hard Brexit.
Which group is the biggest and by how much? - This is the Big Picture.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taoiseach
(According to that) Taoiseach is the official title in both English and Irish and is not used in Irish when referring to prime ministers of other countries - "Príomh Aire".
So, it seems reasonable to me to use Taoiseach in English, just as we refer to Angela Merkel as Chancellor (the English official title?). If Taoiseach was the generic Irish term for prime minister then using prime minister would be reasonable.
But no, I think, cause for outrage whether Taoiseach or prime minister (or leader) is used in good faith. I've not heard Simon Coveney referred to as Tánaiste on these shores.
I trust therefore that you also agree that it is perfectly reasonable for the UK government to blame such continued EU intransigence for the failure of the latest set of negotiations.
Given the choice, I'd take Corbyn. The parliamentary labour party may or may not have the balls to rein in a majority Corbyn government, but there are still sensible people in the PLP; what remains of the parliamentary Conservative party seems fully signed up to follow Johnson over any cliff he likes.
Lol starve the decrepit future Bercow
Corbyn may or may not implement much of what he has announced but the threat remains.
Cons voters have to answer the simple question - would they prefer Corbyn's Lab or a continued attempt at a deal with the EU with Boris. If we have left without a deal then who would be in the best position to get a deal.
I continue to think that we won't/can't no deal (for all that it is looking likely) and that we will get something that looks very much like Tezza's WA but for the GE, the fear of what Corbyn will do to the country is to me greater than the fear of no deal.
http://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2018-06-01-new-estimates-environmental-cost-food#
By eliminating the worst farming practices, we can still eat high quality meat, and benefit the planet.
One of the problems of Capitalism is that the producers do not pay for their externalities, they leave them for the general public to pick up the tab while the capitalists trouser the profit.
Global climate change is really the Tragedy of the Commons writ very large.
The media is pretty damn poor, by and large, when it comes to politics.
https://tinyurl.com/y4vr52n9
Also lots of (3)s on here.
So just like in the country at large.
If we could do our own poll with 100% response we could probably call the election to +/- 5 seats!
If we leave the EU without a deal, lamb should (ceteris paribus) be selling at a low price on the shelves so plenty of lamb sunday roasts methinks.
FWIW I have been vegetarian for over 30 years. I have never regretted it, am in good health and feel like it was the right choice for me, for animals and for the planet.
In other news - Rooney vs Vardy - lol.
https://youtu.be/CL5htSOieRI
https://twitter.com/ColeenRoo/status/1181864136155828224
I suspect Thomas Cook will be the same.
We'll be out with something like the May deal. Clearly the pivot toward "No deal" is needed right now to try and get Brexiteer votes onside.
Why do you think he wanted an election on 14th October. So he could extend after gaining a majority. That was an optimistic plan A; he wants to leave with a deal and post election he can give away far more than he can pre-election.
Ireland is an English speaking country. It's of no consequence that the word has entered the English language from Gaelic. We use words from French like parliament or representative, or from Latin like congress and senate. Now we have one from Gaelic.
Voting LD there is fine - it's always fine to vote your 1st pref - but it would be abdicating from the tactical battle.
If you want to join that battle (in those seats) you will need to ask yourself which prospect upsets you the most - PM Corbyn or Brexit?
Making 2 of those (you, noo) and 2 x (3)s (pulp, topping).
Dead heat. Hung Parliament.
And a beehive too. Not for the honey which I can't stand and will sell but because they are wonderful in gardens.
It will be the Mrs Tiggywinkle phase of my life and far better than dribbling in a chair in a home.
I already have a half share in a marsh fed lamb.
Occasionally the wireless will be turned on and there will be reports of the 197th Article 50 extension. But it will be swiftly turned off again on the grounds of being the most colossal bore.
Thomas Cook will be more straightforward in that regard, but there will still be some costs they don’t get back.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/oct/09/brexit-talks-in-brussels-between-eu-and-the-uk-come-to-a-halt
There is a relevance to knowing the history, long and short term, but people pick and choose when to make it ok to focus so heavily on it, usually for political advantage.
If you hit the bids, there isn’t much money there and you’re giving away a few %, but if you leave an offer up and something happens that makes a GE more likely while you’re not monitoring Betfair, you get hoovered
It makes him look a touch foolish heading into a GE campaign but can be spun as THEY won't let us leave which keeps the Brexit party at a manageable slice of the 47% the Tories + Brexit I reckon are heading for.
He must be sweating slightly given the lack of remain organisation right now but they should come good in the end.
I suspect Dominic Cummings would be a strong Diplomacy player.
Meanwhile, the Times reported on Wednesday that the EU could throw Johnson a last minute time-limited Northern Ireland-only backstop. Senior EU officials said that such a proposal was not being discussed.