Labour are slightly or further down in all these most recent polls, and the only thing that's really changed obviously in their public profile recently is the Corbyn suspension. If I was Starmer I would be very wary of it, and trying to think of a way to patch things up, before the "Labour splits" narrative really takes hold.
Some movement Labour to Green certainly and a bit from Tories to Farage, little movement recently between the 2 main parties who are about neck and neck with most of the Labour gains since 2019 still coming from the LDs
Hm, yup. Without wanting to say 'I told you so' , some slippage to the Greens and others was what I predicted the day after the Corbyn suspension.
The Greens really should have become a proper party in the UK years ago. Their only 'leading light' is Lucas and even with the best will in the world she's pretty average. I can't remember the name of the half-leader with the Aussie accent, but she did them a dis-service.
Their main issue though is that they actually don't know what they're talking about - sure they know the green bit, but they don't have a clue about the non-green bit, even if that is what they're trying to argue against.
Nuclear energy is the easiest example - none of the Greens have a clue about it, and yet they're absolutely sure that it's a bad option. I'd not make the case for nuclear being super-green, but perhaps you could, and the greens haven't even wondered about that. UK greens at least are just de-industrialists, anti-economists, and without sense.
Nuclear power is an issue that has overtaken the Greens. The climate emergency is so acute now that we positively need nuclear power because the ecology needs drastic intervention. If action on carbon emissions had happened a lot earlier, nuclear power might not have been necessary. The Green objections to nuclear power are solid and sensible; there is a legacy of pollution that will outlast the next thousand generations, and inflicting the risks on future generations is selfish and irresponsible. But in the short term, we now need it along with every other measure you can think of, just to get carbon emissions down to a sensible level. I changed my mind on nuclear power some years ago, and I'm strongly in favour of it, and the reasons for that change are entirely in the "green" policy sphere. It baffles me that many Greens haven't caught up, but their objections are merely outdated, not senseless.
Yep - I'd agree, and thanks for making a clearer case.
There is some small hope with nuclear power that fusion energy might suddenly work. Admittedly some small risk too that half the country might disappear in a crater - when there was talk of creating a mini-black-hole at Cern you have to start to worry.
To my mind the future is technology and we should see where it takes us. We should also make sure that the 'us' bit is as rich as it can be - the future should be better for all the species of the Earth (not wasps or crocodiles though).
Wasps are hellbeasts and should be exterminated without pity
I am not going to click that link, but point one it isn't easy to know anyone's net worth unless you actually know it, in which case you are almost certainly professionally obliged not to disclose it, and point two $4m is not retirement money for a 42 year old, esp if most of it is a London house which he wants to actually live in.
On what planet is 4m not retirement money? That's 100k a year for the next 40 years, and that's assuming he just keeps it all in a bank and draws out a hundred grand each year, rather than invests it and takes money from dividends etc.
Most people would be extremely lucky to retire on such terms!
Inflation.
If he lives in London, a lot of it is tied up in a house.
Gin & lime is a Gimlet IIRC. Or maybe I am confusing it with that Dwarf that run's Gimlet's Hole Food Delicatessen in Cable Street. The one who buys his rats from Wee Mad Arthur
For some reason, the mention of Downing St brings rats to mind
I seemed to remember 100,000s of people in 2016 not agreeing with such a flow chart, claiming Trump wasn't their president.
Ditto Brexit.
I presume rachel maddow, without a hint of self awareness or irony, is banging on about how outrageous these conspiracy theories about election rigging are.
Labour are slightly or further down in all these most recent polls, and the only thing that's really changed obviously in their public profile recently is the Corbyn suspension. If I was Starmer I would be very wary of it, and trying to think of a way to patch things up, before the "Labour splits" narrative really takes hold.
Some movement Labour to Green certainly and a bit from Tories to Farage, little movement recently between the 2 main parties who are about neck and neck with most of the Labour gains since 2019 still coming from the LDs
Hm, yup. Without wanting to say 'I told you so' , some slippage to the Greens and others was what I predicted the day after the Corbyn suspension.
The Greens really should have become a proper party in the UK years ago. Their only 'leading light' is Lucas and even with the best will in the world she's pretty average. I can't remember the name of the half-leader with the Aussie accent, but she did them a dis-service.
Their main issue though is that they actually don't know what they're talking about - sure they know the green bit, but they don't have a clue about the non-green bit, even if that is what they're trying to argue against.
Nuclear energy is the easiest example - none of the Greens have a clue about it, and yet they're absolutely sure that it's a bad option. I'd not make the case for nuclear being super-green, but perhaps you could, and the greens haven't even wondered about that. UK greens at least are just de-industrialists, anti-economists, and without sense.
I'm honestly surprised they continue to poll as high as they do, since to a greater or lesser degree most of the parties engage with Green issues, sometimes very strongly, and so they don't appear necessary to focus attention on the subject, and even if they would claim to be the most committed to it 'We are a bit more Green than X' is not much of a pitch compated to 'We're the only ones who care about Green issues' (and if they do try the latter, it is not believable).
So they don't have that much resonance even on Green issues, and what else do they have? Well, more people are talking about Universal Basic Income now, but since they lack even the LDs slim chances in most seats, and not much of a local presence in most places, it's hard for them.
As I arguably lost my seat because of Green intervention (to a candidate (who then decided to join Labour, not that it rankles or anything ) you'd expect me to be pretty anti-Green, but I think they're in general a fairly reasonable repository for the counter-culture left-wing vote, people who want out of capitalism but don't fancy the harsh tones of the SWP and other far-left groups. Their policies were extremely similar to Labour under Corbyn but their conference has a totally different feel - a movement uninterested in conventional politics (you'll see more about organic farming at their events than about, say, housing benefit) rather than a party hoping to form government. In practice they usually don't compete in Con-Lab marginals.
Voting Green or Brexit is much more popular where there is a chance of victory, see elections via PR such as the Euros in 2019. Otherwise it can be a good nudge in our many safe seats. Indeed much of the reason that the major parties have started to take these issues seriously is from that nudging. These are not wasted votes.
Labour are slightly or further down in all these most recent polls, and the only thing that's really changed obviously in their public profile recently is the Corbyn suspension. If I was Starmer I would be very wary of it, and trying to think of a way to patch things up, before the "Labour splits" narrative really takes hold.
Some movement Labour to Green certainly and a bit from Tories to Farage, little movement recently between the 2 main parties who are about neck and neck with most of the Labour gains since 2019 still coming from the LDs
Hm, yup. Without wanting to say 'I told you so' , some slippage to the Greens and others was what I predicted the day after the Corbyn suspension.
The Greens really should have become a proper party in the UK years ago. Their only 'leading light' is Lucas and even with the best will in the world she's pretty average. I can't remember the name of the half-leader with the Aussie accent, but she did them a dis-service.
Their main issue though is that they actually don't know what they're talking about - sure they know the green bit, but they don't have a clue about the non-green bit, even if that is what they're trying to argue against.
Nuclear energy is the easiest example - none of the Greens have a clue about it, and yet they're absolutely sure that it's a bad option. I'd not make the case for nuclear being super-green, but perhaps you could, and the greens haven't even wondered about that. UK greens at least are just de-industrialists, anti-economists, and without sense.
Nuclear power is an issue that has overtaken the Greens. The climate emergency is so acute now that we positively need nuclear power because the ecology needs drastic intervention. If action on carbon emissions had happened a lot earlier, nuclear power might not have been necessary. The Green objections to nuclear power are solid and sensible; there is a legacy of pollution that will outlast the next thousand generations, and inflicting the risks on future generations is selfish and irresponsible. But in the short term, we now need it along with every other measure you can think of, just to get carbon emissions down to a sensible level. I changed my mind on nuclear power some years ago, and I'm strongly in favour of it, and the reasons for that change are entirely in the "green" policy sphere. It baffles me that many Greens haven't caught up, but their objections are merely outdated, not senseless.
Yep - I'd agree, and thanks for making a clearer case.
There is some small hope with nuclear power that fusion energy might suddenly work. Admittedly some small risk too that half the country might disappear in a crater - when there was talk of creating a mini-black-hole at Cern you have to start to worry.
To my mind the future is technology and we should see where it takes us. We should also make sure that the 'us' bit is as rich as it can be - the future should be better for all the species of the Earth (not wasps or crocodiles though).
Wasps are hellbeasts and should be exterminated without pity
Yeah - some family history of extreme reactions to their stings. I can't recall when if ever I was stung, but I didn't like them anyway, and when they might kill you that impression isn't going to improve.
Crocs I'm just damned scared of. (Thunderbirds episode when I was young)
Labour are slightly or further down in all these most recent polls, and the only thing that's really changed obviously in their public profile recently is the Corbyn suspension. If I was Starmer I would be very wary of it, and trying to think of a way to patch things up, before the "Labour splits" narrative really takes hold.
Some movement Labour to Green certainly and a bit from Tories to Farage, little movement recently between the 2 main parties who are about neck and neck with most of the Labour gains since 2019 still coming from the LDs
Hm, yup. Without wanting to say 'I told you so' , some slippage to the Greens and others was what I predicted the day after the Corbyn suspension.
The Greens really should have become a proper party in the UK years ago. Their only 'leading light' is Lucas and even with the best will in the world she's pretty average. I can't remember the name of the half-leader with the Aussie accent, but she did them a dis-service.
Their main issue though is that they actually don't know what they're talking about - sure they know the green bit, but they don't have a clue about the non-green bit, even if that is what they're trying to argue against.
Nuclear energy is the easiest example - none of the Greens have a clue about it, and yet they're absolutely sure that it's a bad option. I'd not make the case for nuclear being super-green, but perhaps you could, and the greens haven't even wondered about that. UK greens at least are just de-industrialists, anti-economists, and without sense.
I'm honestly surprised they continue to poll as high as they do, since to a greater or lesser degree most of the parties engage with Green issues, sometimes very strongly, and so they don't appear necessary to focus attention on the subject, and even if they would claim to be the most committed to it 'We are a bit more Green than X' is not much of a pitch compated to 'We're the only ones who care about Green issues' (and if they do try the latter, it is not believable).
So they don't have that much resonance even on Green issues, and what else do they have? Well, more people are talking about Universal Basic Income now, but since they lack even the LDs slim chances in most seats, and not much of a local presence in most places, it's hard for them.
Labour are slightly or further down in all these most recent polls, and the only thing that's really changed obviously in their public profile recently is the Corbyn suspension. If I was Starmer I would be very wary of it, and trying to think of a way to patch things up, before the "Labour splits" narrative really takes hold.
Some movement Labour to Green certainly and a bit from Tories to Farage, little movement recently between the 2 main parties who are about neck and neck with most of the Labour gains since 2019 still coming from the LDs
Hm, yup. Without wanting to say 'I told you so' , some slippage to the Greens and others was what I predicted the day after the Corbyn suspension.
The Greens really should have become a proper party in the UK years ago. Their only 'leading light' is Lucas and even with the best will in the world she's pretty average. I can't remember the name of the half-leader with the Aussie accent, but she did them a dis-service.
Their main issue though is that they actually don't know what they're talking about - sure they know the green bit, but they don't have a clue about the non-green bit, even if that is what they're trying to argue against.
Nuclear energy is the easiest example - none of the Greens have a clue about it, and yet they're absolutely sure that it's a bad option. I'd not make the case for nuclear being super-green, but perhaps you could, and the greens haven't even wondered about that. UK greens at least are just de-industrialists, anti-economists, and without sense.
I'm honestly surprised they continue to poll as high as they do, since to a greater or lesser degree most of the parties engage with Green issues, sometimes very strongly, and so they don't appear necessary to focus attention on the subject, and even if they would claim to be the most committed to it 'We are a bit more Green than X' is not much of a pitch compated to 'We're the only ones who care about Green issues' (and if they do try the latter, it is not believable).
So they don't have that much resonance even on Green issues, and what else do they have? Well, more people are talking about Universal Basic Income now, but since they lack even the LDs slim chances in most seats, and not much of a local presence in most places, it's hard for them.
An Indy vote for people who can’t bring themselves to vote SNP
Under either No Deal or a UK/EU FTA the vaccine supply chain would be disrupted by the complete incompetence of Gove and Johnson in allowing no proper planning in the imposition of a hard border between the UK and the EU.
When that just meant total New Year chaos for Spanish red peppers or Turkish-made clothing, the "Fuck Business" party could just laugh it off. Now God has ensured that the vaccine will be turning up just as Gove's borders are supposed to stop lorries, there's a real likelihood of riots outside Downing St if the plan goes ahead.
And it doesn't help that Biden's told Johnson not to be a prat. So No 10 is now dreaming up some way of telling Tory Kippers they're going to have to fuck themselves.
There isn't going to be a hard border on Jan 1. How Johnson avoids being torn apart by the Spartans is up to him.
Labour are slightly or further down in all these most recent polls, and the only thing that's really changed obviously in their public profile recently is the Corbyn suspension. If I was Starmer I would be very wary of it, and trying to think of a way to patch things up, before the "Labour splits" narrative really takes hold.
Some movement Labour to Green certainly and a bit from Tories to Farage, little movement recently between the 2 main parties who are about neck and neck with most of the Labour gains since 2019 still coming from the LDs
Hm, yup. Without wanting to say 'I told you so' , some slippage to the Greens and others was what I predicted the day after the Corbyn suspension.
The Greens really should have become a proper party in the UK years ago. Their only 'leading light' is Lucas and even with the best will in the world she's pretty average. I can't remember the name of the half-leader with the Aussie accent, but she did them a dis-service.
Their main issue though is that they actually don't know what they're talking about - sure they know the green bit, but they don't have a clue about the non-green bit, even if that is what they're trying to argue against.
Nuclear energy is the easiest example - none of the Greens have a clue about it, and yet they're absolutely sure that it's a bad option. I'd not make the case for nuclear being super-green, but perhaps you could, and the greens haven't even wondered about that. UK greens at least are just de-industrialists, anti-economists, and without sense.
Nuclear power is an issue that has overtaken the Greens. The climate emergency is so acute now that we positively need nuclear power because the ecology needs drastic intervention. If action on carbon emissions had happened a lot earlier, nuclear power might not have been necessary. The Green objections to nuclear power are solid and sensible; there is a legacy of pollution that will outlast the next thousand generations, and inflicting the risks on future generations is selfish and irresponsible. But in the short term, we now need it along with every other measure you can think of, just to get carbon emissions down to a sensible level. I changed my mind on nuclear power some years ago, and I'm strongly in favour of it, and the reasons for that change are entirely in the "green" policy sphere. It baffles me that many Greens haven't caught up, but their objections are merely outdated, not senseless.
No, the UK does not need need nuclear energy. Tidal lagoon power could be in place WAY before the replacements for current nuclear that is going to be decommissioned. Both planning and construction are far quicker. Construction is also far, far cheaper. 2030 would see planning met and construction largely completed - if we started now. Paid for by the private sector - locking in the current very cheap money and Green Bonds. With 80,000 jobs created during the process. And power close to half the cost per unit of nuclear. With plants lasting a minimum vast amount of money to of 120 years, compared to 60 - tops - for a nuclear plant. That then costs a vast amount to abandon.
One day, people will realise that they have been duped on a grand scale by the nuclear industry. As they pay hugely over the odds for their electricity for many decades. But you really aren't to be allowed to know this. Government is so far up the nuclear rectum, they make it their business to close down competition.
There's a great political story for Labour to exploit here.
Under either No Deal or a UK/EU FTA the vaccine supply chain would be disrupted by the complete incompetence of Gove and Johnson in allowing no proper planning in the imposition of a hard border between the UK and the EU.
When that just meant total New Year chaos for Spanish red peppers or Turkish-made clothing, the "Fuck Business" party could just laugh it off. Now God has ensured that the vaccine will be turning up just as Gove's borders are supposed to stop lorries, there's a real likelihood of riots outside Downing St if the plan goes ahead.
And it doesn't help that Biden's told Johnson not to be a prat. So No 10 is now dreaming up some way of telling Tory Kippers they're going to have to fuck themselves.
There isn't going to be a hard border on Jan 1. How Johnson avoids being torn apart by the Spartans is up to him.
To avoid that you have to grind Spartans into dust. Can't see that he'd be keen to try.
Under either No Deal or a UK/EU FTA the vaccine supply chain would be disrupted by the complete incompetence of Gove and Johnson in allowing no proper planning in the imposition of a hard border between the UK and the EU.
When that just meant total New Year chaos for Spanish red peppers or Turkish-made clothing, the "Fuck Business" party could just laugh it off. Now God has ensured that the vaccine will be turning up just as Gove's borders are supposed to stop lorries, there's a real likelihood of riots outside Downing St if the plan goes ahead.
And it doesn't help that Biden's told Johnson not to be a prat. So No 10 is now dreaming up some way of telling Tory Kippers they're going to have to fuck themselves.
There isn't going to be a hard border on Jan 1. How Johnson avoids being torn apart by the Spartans is up to him.
There was never going to be a hard border for imports, if only because the government is totally unable or at least unwilling to organise and fund one.
The question isn’t so much what happens on January 1st as how things develop over the following twelve months.
Labour are slightly or further down in all these most recent polls, and the only thing that's really changed very obviously in their public profile recently is the Corbyn suspension. If I was Starmer I would be very wary of it, and trying to think of a way to patch things up, before the "Labour splits" narrative becomes more entrenched.
Generally, though, left-wingers are sticking with the party - we've lost one member out of 700 in my CLP, and I gather the picture is similar elsewhere. .
Nothing remotely similar here. 20 resignations. Told majority are long standing members who joined before the Corbyn era
They're not, in fairness, the only lawyers to have had to present an extremely weak case to the best of their ability. That's in the nature of being a lawyer - you can advise the client all you like that their argument has no chance of success, but they can require you to present it nonetheless.
The important limitation is that you must not mislead the court. But, from what I've seen, they are being clear to the judges what the "evidence" they are presenting is, and are being shot down accordingly.
I doubt they'll lead with it on their CVs, but it's hardly their fault their client is determined to run with this, and it won't harm their careers really.
Under either No Deal or a UK/EU FTA the vaccine supply chain would be disrupted by the complete incompetence of Gove and Johnson in allowing no proper planning in the imposition of a hard border between the UK and the EU.
When that just meant total New Year chaos for Spanish red peppers or Turkish-made clothing, the "Fuck Business" party could just laugh it off. Now God has ensured that the vaccine will be turning up just as Gove's borders are supposed to stop lorries, there's a real likelihood of riots outside Downing St if the plan goes ahead.
And it doesn't help that Biden's told Johnson not to be a prat. So No 10 is now dreaming up some way of telling Tory Kippers they're going to have to fuck themselves.
There isn't going to be a hard border on Jan 1. How Johnson avoids being torn apart by the Spartans is up to him.
There was never going to be a hard border for imports, if only because the government is totally unable or at least unwilling to organise and fund one.
The question isn’t so much what happens on January 1st as how things develop over the following twelve months.
Exports now - that’s different.
Don't lorries that import into the UK have to go back into France before being able to return?
Surely if that return into France is disrupted then rather rapidly the import that lorry was meant to carry back is disrupted?
Under either No Deal or a UK/EU FTA the vaccine supply chain would be disrupted by the complete incompetence of Gove and Johnson in allowing no proper planning in the imposition of a hard border between the UK and the EU.
When that just meant total New Year chaos for Spanish red peppers or Turkish-made clothing, the "Fuck Business" party could just laugh it off. Now God has ensured that the vaccine will be turning up just as Gove's borders are supposed to stop lorries, there's a real likelihood of riots outside Downing St if the plan goes ahead.
And it doesn't help that Biden's told Johnson not to be a prat. So No 10 is now dreaming up some way of telling Tory Kippers they're going to have to fuck themselves.
There isn't going to be a hard border on Jan 1. How Johnson avoids being torn apart by the Spartans is up to him.
There was never going to be a hard border for imports, if only because the government is totally unable or at least unwilling to organise and fund one.
The question isn’t so much what happens on January 1st as how things develop over the following twelve months.
Exports now - that’s different.
Don't lorries that import into the UK have to go back into France before being able to return?
Surely if that return into France is disrupted then rather rapidly the import that lorry was meant to carry back is disrupted?
Yes - if there is significant disruption then the lorries would stop being sent.
They're not, in fairness, the only lawyers to have had to present an extremely weak case to the best of their ability. That's in the nature of being a lawyer - you can advise the client all you like that their argument has no chance of success, but they can require you to present it nonetheless.
The important limitation is that you must not mislead the court. But, from what I've seen, they are being clear to the judges what the "evidence" they are presenting is, and are being shot down accordingly.
I doubt they'll lead with it on their CVs, but it's hardly their fault their client is determined to run with this, and it won't harm their careers really.
And of course what they are actually arguing in court need bear little relation to what Trump will claim is being argued.
There was a conversation a bit earlier about another Scotland vote.
Unlike many on here I don’t take the view that on such critical matters (see also Brexit) one can just decide things with a simple, one-off majority vote. To take the point to absurdity, what if the 2014 referendum had been carried by just one vote?
Nor do I think that, having voted in 2014, it is appropriate to be having another vote any time soon. Although “once every generation” carries no legal weight, ever twenty years does not seem unreasonable for a question of this magnitude.
Extending the franchise to 16+ was worth about 0.5% in favour of Indy and I’ve no idea why this was granted.
I do also think it is worth looking at granting a vote to anyone born in Scotland who wishes to register as such. I do not know whether this would help or hinder independence, but I often wonder how I’d feel if my homeland (NZ) voted for some irrevocable break-up. I would certainly want a say in that, despite not living there for 20 years.
Quite entitled to hold the views you do: but just one small point: the Scottish franchise has generally been extennded to 16+ as a wider point of public principle - crossparty approval (including Smith Commission). It's Westminster is the holdout here.
Yes, am aware of that. I am personally against votes at 16 on principle, and don’t understand why it seems to have gained traction in parts of this country. Outside of Scotland (and now Wales), is there any country on earth that has votes at 16?
And then, again, I can see in the Scottish context that it aids the independence movement.
I think it is constitutionally iffy to allow it for an independence vote.
I'm also opposed to it on principle, and many of the arguments used to argue in favour of it I find far from convincing. It's well known we are inconsistent in how we set rules of adulthood for various things, and in fairness there may be scope for some inconsistency, but I do think our general approach to young people argues against giving 16 year olds the vote.
However, I think the battle has already been lost. If you have it for some votes for some parts of the country, I think it is pretty hard to resist the argument for another vote or other parts of the country.
TBF, politicians having to explain policies to 16 year olds will probably pay dividends with their relationship with three quarters of the rest of the electorate.
Labour are slightly or further down in all these most recent polls, and the only thing that's really changed obviously in their public profile recently is the Corbyn suspension. If I was Starmer I would be very wary of it, and trying to think of a way to patch things up, before the "Labour splits" narrative really takes hold.
Some movement Labour to Green certainly and a bit from Tories to Farage, little movement recently between the 2 main parties who are about neck and neck with most of the Labour gains since 2019 still coming from the LDs
Hm, yup. Without wanting to say 'I told you so' , some slippage to the Greens and others was what I predicted the day after the Corbyn suspension.
The Greens really should have become a proper party in the UK years ago. Their only 'leading light' is Lucas and even with the best will in the world she's pretty average. I can't remember the name of the half-leader with the Aussie accent, but she did them a dis-service.
Their main issue though is that they actually don't know what they're talking about - sure they know the green bit, but they don't have a clue about the non-green bit, even if that is what they're trying to argue against.
Nuclear energy is the easiest example - none of the Greens have a clue about it, and yet they're absolutely sure that it's a bad option. I'd not make the case for nuclear being super-green, but perhaps you could, and the greens haven't even wondered about that. UK greens at least are just de-industrialists, anti-economists, and without sense.
Nuclear power is an issue that has overtaken the Greens. The climate emergency is so acute now that we positively need nuclear power because the ecology needs drastic intervention. If action on carbon emissions had happened a lot earlier, nuclear power might not have been necessary. The Green objections to nuclear power are solid and sensible; there is a legacy of pollution that will outlast the next thousand generations, and inflicting the risks on future generations is selfish and irresponsible. But in the short term, we now need it along with every other measure you can think of, just to get carbon emissions down to a sensible level. I changed my mind on nuclear power some years ago, and I'm strongly in favour of it, and the reasons for that change are entirely in the "green" policy sphere. It baffles me that many Greens haven't caught up, but their objections are merely outdated, not senseless.
Yep - I'd agree, and thanks for making a clearer case.
There is some small hope with nuclear power that fusion energy might suddenly work. Admittedly some small risk too that half the country might disappear in a crater - when there was talk of creating a mini-black-hole at Cern you have to start to worry.
To my mind the future is technology and we should see where it takes us. We should also make sure that the 'us' bit is as rich as it can be - the future should be better for all the species of the Earth (not wasps or crocodiles though).
Wasps are hellbeasts and should be exterminated without pity
Wrong. Wasps deserve to live. They don’t bother us much till the sweet poo dries up.
Labour are slightly or further down in all these most recent polls, and the only thing that's really changed obviously in their public profile recently is the Corbyn suspension. If I was Starmer I would be very wary of it, and trying to think of a way to patch things up, before the "Labour splits" narrative really takes hold.
Some movement Labour to Green certainly and a bit from Tories to Farage, little movement recently between the 2 main parties who are about neck and neck with most of the Labour gains since 2019 still coming from the LDs
Hm, yup. Without wanting to say 'I told you so' , some slippage to the Greens and others was what I predicted the day after the Corbyn suspension.
The Greens really should have become a proper party in the UK years ago. Their only 'leading light' is Lucas and even with the best will in the world she's pretty average. I can't remember the name of the half-leader with the Aussie accent, but she did them a dis-service.
Their main issue though is that they actually don't know what they're talking about - sure they know the green bit, but they don't have a clue about the non-green bit, even if that is what they're trying to argue against.
Nuclear energy is the easiest example - none of the Greens have a clue about it, and yet they're absolutely sure that it's a bad option. I'd not make the case for nuclear being super-green, but perhaps you could, and the greens haven't even wondered about that. UK greens at least are just de-industrialists, anti-economists, and without sense.
Nuclear power is an issue that has overtaken the Greens. The climate emergency is so acute now that we positively need nuclear power because the ecology needs drastic intervention. If action on carbon emissions had happened a lot earlier, nuclear power might not have been necessary. The Green objections to nuclear power are solid and sensible; there is a legacy of pollution that will outlast the next thousand generations, and inflicting the risks on future generations is selfish and irresponsible. But in the short term, we now need it along with every other measure you can think of, just to get carbon emissions down to a sensible level. I changed my mind on nuclear power some years ago, and I'm strongly in favour of it, and the reasons for that change are entirely in the "green" policy sphere. It baffles me that many Greens haven't caught up, but their objections are merely outdated, not senseless.
No, the UK does not need need nuclear energy. Tidal lagoon power could be in place WAY before the replacements for current nuclear that is going to be decommissioned. Both planning and construction are far quicker. Construction is also far, far cheaper. 2030 would see planning met and construction largely completed - if we started now. Paid for by the private sector - locking in the current very cheap money and Green Bonds. With 80,000 jobs created during the process. And power close to half the cost per unit of nuclear. With plants lasting a minimum vast amount of money to of 120 years, compared to 60 - tops - for a nuclear plant. That then costs a vast amount to abandon.
One day, people will realise that they have been duped on a grand scale by the nuclear industry. As they pay hugely over the odds for their electricity for many decades. But you really aren't to be allowed to know this. Government is so far up the nuclear rectum, they make it their business to close down competition.
There's a great political story for Labour to exploit here.
If you're saying there are better alternatives than new nuclear power, then ok, I'll look into it to satisfy curiosity. But I wasn't only talking about new nuclear. I used to be of the opinion that nuclear power stations should be shut down, and some people are still of that opinion. We cannot do that, and for that reason alone, I'm certain that we need existing nuclear power at least in the medium term, because renewables are not yet meeting our needs.
There was a conversation a bit earlier about another Scotland vote.
Unlike many on here I don’t take the view that on such critical matters (see also Brexit) one can just decide things with a simple, one-off majority vote. To take the point to absurdity, what if the 2014 referendum had been carried by just one vote?
Nor do I think that, having voted in 2014, it is appropriate to be having another vote any time soon. Although “once every generation” carries no legal weight, ever twenty years does not seem unreasonable for a question of this magnitude.
Extending the franchise to 16+ was worth about 0.5% in favour of Indy and I’ve no idea why this was granted.
I do also think it is worth looking at granting a vote to anyone born in Scotland who wishes to register as such. I do not know whether this would help or hinder independence, but I often wonder how I’d feel if my homeland (NZ) voted for some irrevocable break-up. I would certainly want a say in that, despite not living there for 20 years.
Quite entitled to hold the views you do: but just one small point: the Scottish franchise has generally been extennded to 16+ as a wider point of public principle - crossparty approval (including Smith Commission). It's Westminster is the holdout here.
Yes, am aware of that. I am personally against votes at 16 on principle, and don’t understand why it seems to have gained traction in parts of this country. Outside of Scotland (and now Wales), is there any country on earth that has votes at 16?
And then, again, I can see in the Scottish context that it aids the independence movement.
I think it is constitutionally iffy to allow it for an independence vote.
I'm also opposed to it on principle, and many of the arguments used to argue in favour of it I find far from convincing. It's well known we are inconsistent in how we set rules of adulthood for various things, and in fairness there may be scope for some inconsistency, but I do think our general approach to young people argues against giving 16 year olds the vote.
However, I think the battle has already been lost. If you have it for some votes for some parts of the country, I think it is pretty hard to resist the argument for another vote or other parts of the country.
TBF, politicians having to explain policies to 16 year olds will probably pay dividends with their relationship with three quarters of the rest of the electorate.
I don't think understanding policies has ever really been the problem. I don't think there is much desire among the electorate or the politicians to really get into such things.
I am not going to click that link, but point one it isn't easy to know anyone's net worth unless you actually know it, in which case you are almost certainly professionally obliged not to disclose it, and point two $4m is not retirement money for a 42 year old, esp if most of it is a London house which he wants to actually live in.
On what planet is 4m not retirement money? That's 100k a year for the next 40 years, and that's assuming he just keeps it all in a bank and draws out a hundred grand each year, rather than invests it and takes money from dividends etc.
Most people would be extremely lucky to retire on such terms!
Inflation.
If he lives in London, a lot of it is tied up in a house.
If he's retiring, why can't he move to Eastbourne?
But seriously. A million will still buy you a luxury 2 bed in Zone 1, and quite a bit more if you're prepared to go a couple of tube stops further out.
By my reckoning he's not going to be hard up for a while. Either way I won't be shedding a tear...
Labour are slightly or further down in all these most recent polls, and the only thing that's really changed obviously in their public profile recently is the Corbyn suspension. If I was Starmer I would be very wary of it, and trying to think of a way to patch things up, before the "Labour splits" narrative really takes hold.
Some movement Labour to Green certainly and a bit from Tories to Farage, little movement recently between the 2 main parties who are about neck and neck with most of the Labour gains since 2019 still coming from the LDs
Hm, yup. Without wanting to say 'I told you so' , some slippage to the Greens and others was what I predicted the day after the Corbyn suspension.
The Greens really should have become a proper party in the UK years ago. Their only 'leading light' is Lucas and even with the best will in the world she's pretty average. I can't remember the name of the half-leader with the Aussie accent, but she did them a dis-service.
Their main issue though is that they actually don't know what they're talking about - sure they know the green bit, but they don't have a clue about the non-green bit, even if that is what they're trying to argue against.
Nuclear energy is the easiest example - none of the Greens have a clue about it, and yet they're absolutely sure that it's a bad option. I'd not make the case for nuclear being super-green, but perhaps you could, and the greens haven't even wondered about that. UK greens at least are just de-industrialists, anti-economists, and without sense.
Nuclear power is an issue that has overtaken the Greens. The climate emergency is so acute now that we positively need nuclear power because the ecology needs drastic intervention. If action on carbon emissions had happened a lot earlier, nuclear power might not have been necessary. The Green objections to nuclear power are solid and sensible; there is a legacy of pollution that will outlast the next thousand generations, and inflicting the risks on future generations is selfish and irresponsible. But in the short term, we now need it along with every other measure you can think of, just to get carbon emissions down to a sensible level. I changed my mind on nuclear power some years ago, and I'm strongly in favour of it, and the reasons for that change are entirely in the "green" policy sphere. It baffles me that many Greens haven't caught up, but their objections are merely outdated, not senseless.
Yep - I'd agree, and thanks for making a clearer case.
There is some small hope with nuclear power that fusion energy might suddenly work. Admittedly some small risk too that half the country might disappear in a crater - when there was talk of creating a mini-black-hole at Cern you have to start to worry.
To my mind the future is technology and we should see where it takes us. We should also make sure that the 'us' bit is as rich as it can be - the future should be better for all the species of the Earth (not wasps or crocodiles though).
Wasps are hellbeasts and should be exterminated without pity
Labour are slightly or further down in all these most recent polls, and the only thing that's really changed obviously in their public profile recently is the Corbyn suspension. If I was Starmer I would be very wary of it, and trying to think of a way to patch things up, before the "Labour splits" narrative really takes hold.
Some movement Labour to Green certainly and a bit from Tories to Farage, little movement recently between the 2 main parties who are about neck and neck with most of the Labour gains since 2019 still coming from the LDs
Hm, yup. Without wanting to say 'I told you so' , some slippage to the Greens and others was what I predicted the day after the Corbyn suspension.
The Greens really should have become a proper party in the UK years ago. Their only 'leading light' is Lucas and even with the best will in the world she's pretty average. I can't remember the name of the half-leader with the Aussie accent, but she did them a dis-service.
Their main issue though is that they actually don't know what they're talking about - sure they know the green bit, but they don't have a clue about the non-green bit, even if that is what they're trying to argue against.
Nuclear energy is the easiest example - none of the Greens have a clue about it, and yet they're absolutely sure that it's a bad option. I'd not make the case for nuclear being super-green, but perhaps you could, and the greens haven't even wondered about that. UK greens at least are just de-industrialists, anti-economists, and without sense.
Nuclear power is an issue that has overtaken the Greens. The climate emergency is so acute now that we positively need nuclear power because the ecology needs drastic intervention. If action on carbon emissions had happened a lot earlier, nuclear power might not have been necessary. The Green objections to nuclear power are solid and sensible; there is a legacy of pollution that will outlast the next thousand generations, and inflicting the risks on future generations is selfish and irresponsible. But in the short term, we now need it along with every other measure you can think of, just to get carbon emissions down to a sensible level. I changed my mind on nuclear power some years ago, and I'm strongly in favour of it, and the reasons for that change are entirely in the "green" policy sphere. It baffles me that many Greens haven't caught up, but their objections are merely outdated, not senseless.
No, the UK does not need need nuclear energy. Tidal lagoon power could be in place WAY before the replacements for current nuclear that is going to be decommissioned. Both planning and construction are far quicker. Construction is also far, far cheaper. 2030 would see planning met and construction largely completed - if we started now. Paid for by the private sector - locking in the current very cheap money and Green Bonds. With 80,000 jobs created during the process. And power close to half the cost per unit of nuclear. With plants lasting a minimum vast amount of money to of 120 years, compared to 60 - tops - for a nuclear plant. That then costs a vast amount to abandon.
One day, people will realise that they have been duped on a grand scale by the nuclear industry. As they pay hugely over the odds for their electricity for many decades. But you really aren't to be allowed to know this. Government is so far up the nuclear rectum, they make it their business to close down competition.
There's a great political story for Labour to exploit here.
If you're saying there are better alternatives than new nuclear power, then ok, I'll look into it to satisfy curiosity. But I wasn't only talking about new nuclear. I used to be of the opinion that nuclear power stations should be shut down, and some people are still of that opinion. We cannot do that, and for that reason alone, I'm certain that we need existing nuclear power at least in the medium term, because renewables are not yet meeting our needs.
Surely the issue with nuclear power is dealing with the waste that lasts for ever and ever.
If a country already has a load of nuclear waste then they already have a problem to deal with all that waste that they already have, adding more waste probably adds little extra risk, cost or complexity, especially since modern nuclear power plants create far less waste compared to earlier ones.
If a country does not have a nuclear waste problem is may well make sense to avoid the problem of dealing with the waste.
Given we already have a nuclear waste issue in the UK, I see no problem whatsoever with going big on nuclear as we need to deal with the waste anyway, some more really does not make that challenge any harder.
AOC kicking off the Democrat civil war with Joe Mancin before sleepy Joe heads into office. The whole defund the police stuff probably costs them GA senate seats.
Just seen Jon Ossof on a Channel 4 news feature: comes across as a pretty impressive candidate. Republicans have to hope that Q Anon sympathisers account for 50% of voters, because I don’t see who else they appeal to these days.
“The view from a lot of colleagues today is that we are witnessing the end of hope in Boris as a second-term PM,” they said. “He has left a vacuum at the centre of government and that is being filled by Cummings, who does not like the Conservative party, and his fiancee, who lives above the shop. It’s like the script from a bad soap opera.”
“The view from a lot of colleagues today is that we are witnessing the end of hope in Boris as a second-term PM,” they said. “He has left a vacuum at the centre of government and that is being filled by Cummings, who does not like the Conservative party, and his fiancee, who lives above the shop. It’s like the script from a bad soap opera.”
1. It's really expensive. The government has had to guarantee a price almost 3x the current baseload rate to get Sizewell C built. This means everyone's electricity bills will be higher in the future, because the grid has to buy the power - irrespective of whether they need it or not - according to contract. Oh yes, and the price is on an escalator.
2. It' not well suited for a world with lots of renewables. What the grid needs is flexible power sources that can come on quickly if the sun isn't shining or the wind isn't blowing. That's natural gas. Which also happens to be a third of the price of nuclear.
There was a conversation a bit earlier about another Scotland vote.
Unlike many on here I don’t take the view that on such critical matters (see also Brexit) one can just decide things with a simple, one-off majority vote. To take the point to absurdity, what if the 2014 referendum had been carried by just one vote?
Nor do I think that, having voted in 2014, it is appropriate to be having another vote any time soon. Although “once every generation” carries no legal weight, ever twenty years does not seem unreasonable for a question of this magnitude.
Extending the franchise to 16+ was worth about 0.5% in favour of Indy and I’ve no idea why this was granted.
I do also think it is worth looking at granting a vote to anyone born in Scotland who wishes to register as such. I do not know whether this would help or hinder independence, but I often wonder how I’d feel if my homeland (NZ) voted for some irrevocable break-up. I would certainly want a say in that, despite not living there for 20 years.
Quite entitled to hold the views you do: but just one small point: the Scottish franchise has generally been extennded to 16+ as a wider point of public principle - crossparty approval (including Smith Commission). It's Westminster is the holdout here.
Yes, am aware of that. I am personally against votes at 16 on principle, and don’t understand why it seems to have gained traction in parts of this country. Outside of Scotland (and now Wales), is there any country on earth that has votes at 16?
And then, again, I can see in the Scottish context that it aids the independence movement.
I think it is constitutionally iffy to allow it for an independence vote.
I'm also opposed to it on principle, and many of the arguments used to argue in favour of it I find far from convincing. It's well known we are inconsistent in how we set rules of adulthood for various things, and in fairness there may be scope for some inconsistency, but I do think our general approach to young people argues against giving 16 year olds the vote.
However, I think the battle has already been lost. If you have it for some votes for some parts of the country, I think it is pretty hard to resist the argument for another vote or other parts of the country.
One argument I'm surprised not to see more often is this: if you don't get the right to vote until you are 18, you might not get a chance until you are 23.
Indeed, I didn't get a chance to vote in a general election until I was 22.
Are the number 10 team trying to out-shenanigan the Trump White House?
Neat synthesis of two stories in the New Scientist
"A bit like vote counting in the US presidential election, the case numbers in the [Pfizer] placebo group have already reached a level that cannot be surpassed by the vaccine group, and are approaching the threshold needed to “win”..."
“The view from a lot of colleagues today is that we are witnessing the end of hope in Boris as a second-term PM,” they said. “He has left a vacuum at the centre of government and that is being filled by Cummings, who does not like the Conservative party, and his fiancee, who lives above the shop. It’s like the script from a bad soap opera.”
Labour are slightly or further down in all these most recent polls, and the only thing that's really changed obviously in their public profile recently is the Corbyn suspension. If I was Starmer I would be very wary of it, and trying to think of a way to patch things up, before the "Labour splits" narrative really takes hold.
Some movement Labour to Green certainly and a bit from Tories to Farage, little movement recently between the 2 main parties who are about neck and neck with most of the Labour gains since 2019 still coming from the LDs
Hm, yup. Without wanting to say 'I told you so' , some slippage to the Greens and others was what I predicted the day after the Corbyn suspension.
The Greens really should have become a proper party in the UK years ago. Their only 'leading light' is Lucas and even with the best will in the world she's pretty average. I can't remember the name of the half-leader with the Aussie accent, but she did them a dis-service.
Their main issue though is that they actually don't know what they're talking about - sure they know the green bit, but they don't have a clue about the non-green bit, even if that is what they're trying to argue against.
Nuclear energy is the easiest example - none of the Greens have a clue about it, and yet they're absolutely sure that it's a bad option. I'd not make the case for nuclear being super-green, but perhaps you could, and the greens haven't even wondered about that. UK greens at least are just de-industrialists, anti-economists, and without sense.
Nuclear power is an issue that has overtaken the Greens. The climate emergency is so acute now that we positively need nuclear power because the ecology needs drastic intervention. If action on carbon emissions had happened a lot earlier, nuclear power might not have been necessary. The Green objections to nuclear power are solid and sensible; there is a legacy of pollution that will outlast the next thousand generations, and inflicting the risks on future generations is selfish and irresponsible. But in the short term, we now need it along with every other measure you can think of, just to get carbon emissions down to a sensible level. I changed my mind on nuclear power some years ago, and I'm strongly in favour of it, and the reasons for that change are entirely in the "green" policy sphere. It baffles me that many Greens haven't caught up, but their objections are merely outdated, not senseless.
No, the UK does not need need nuclear energy. Tidal lagoon power could be in place WAY before the replacements for current nuclear that is going to be decommissioned. Both planning and construction are far quicker. Construction is also far, far cheaper. 2030 would see planning met and construction largely completed - if we started now. Paid for by the private sector - locking in the current very cheap money and Green Bonds. With 80,000 jobs created during the process. And power close to half the cost per unit of nuclear. With plants lasting a minimum vast amount of money to of 120 years, compared to 60 - tops - for a nuclear plant. That then costs a vast amount to abandon.
One day, people will realise that they have been duped on a grand scale by the nuclear industry. As they pay hugely over the odds for their electricity for many decades. But you really aren't to be allowed to know this. Government is so far up the nuclear rectum, they make it their business to close down competition.
There's a great political story for Labour to exploit here.
If you're saying there are better alternatives than new nuclear power, then ok, I'll look into it to satisfy curiosity. But I wasn't only talking about new nuclear. I used to be of the opinion that nuclear power stations should be shut down, and some people are still of that opinion. We cannot do that, and for that reason alone, I'm certain that we need existing nuclear power at least in the medium term, because renewables are not yet meeting our needs.
Surely the issue with nuclear power is dealing with the waste that lasts for ever and ever.
...
You're right. But at least you can keep nuclear waste very localised. Where as fossil fuel waste is causing a global problem, which despite lots of good ideas does not seem to be abating on a global scale.
I think it's quite likely there will be a deal agreed, and then a quick two month standstill transition extension to dot all the i's and cross all the t's.
IIRC any extension to the transition period requires sign-off by all the EU27 parliaments though, as the window for the UK to request an extension and just have the EC approve it closed back in July. And Bozza had previously legislated to deny himself the option to show how well 'ard he is.
AOC kicking off the Democrat civil war with Joe Mancin before sleepy Joe heads into office. The whole defund the police stuff probably costs them GA senate seats.
AOC has picked a battle where she has sufficient ammo to survive - with demonstrations of crap campaigning and crap community involvement with voters that would probably have carried those Democrats across the line.
It would be interesting to compare lost Democrat senate seats with Presidential votes as I suspect all the lost seats will be in places where Biden fell short of expectations..
Campaigning has started to be the Labour candidate for West Yorkshire mayor. I've had emails from 3 candidates today.
The safe pair of hands would be Susan Hinchcliffe, leader of Bradford council and chair of the combined authority. Basically, she's sort of doing the job already.
However, if we are looking for someone to be the face of the county, then Tracy Brabin has the public recognition and ability to project herself. She's got a shed load of endorsements.
I'll make up my mind when I've heard from all of the candidates, and I'll let you all know who gets my vote.
The point was they were the first I remember talking about it, I think it was in their last manifesto, rather thanit being inherently left wing. But how many ideas, left or right, do they have to differentiate themselves?
One Green policy that I like is an alternative to air passenger tax - they propose as I recall that you can have one flight per year to wherever you like free of tax, and each flight thereafter attracts an increasing tax. That gets round the "you're trying to tax ordinary people's annual holiday" argument, but it curbs the habit of routinely flying everywhere, and in particular encourages businesses to do more meetings by video conference - which we've all got used to anyway.
Personally I like flying, and one of my most enjoyable jobs involved flying to 25 different countries to lobby Ministers and MPs. But even then I felt that this probably wasn't the ideal way to help the environmment.
AOC kicking off the Democrat civil war with Joe Mancin before sleepy Joe heads into office. The whole defund the police stuff probably costs them GA senate seats.
'Defund the Police' must be the worst, most alienating political slogan that the left has ever come up with.
And it's a shame really, because there's a debate to be had about how best to tackle crime in USA cities, and the role of the police in this. There's a serious argument to be had that, if budgets are limited, diverting some funds currently spent on 'law and order' to community projects, mental health and social services and so on may be more effective in tackling the social problems that underpin crime than police action. Then obviously if crime reduces the police need less money. The same sort of thinking could well be applied to tackling the opioid crisis, which is more a mental health crisis than a normal 'health' or law and order crisis.
Thanks all for your comments on my header yesterday and especially to those who understood it. 😁
I am delighted that (a) Pfizer has developed what appears to be an effective vaccine; and (b) the British government has bought 10 million doses of it and is scheduled to buy more.
But can someone answer these two questions which are still puzzling me:-
1. Why is it that the UK government - a government of a country with a large and well-regarded pharmaceutical sector - a government which every year manages all by itself to buy flu vaccines for its population, not to mention lots of other drugs and medicines - is so apparently incapable of picking up the phone to Pfizer to place an order for the COVID vaccines it is developing that it needs to appoint an intermediary with no vaccines experience to do so?
2. Why did the government invest £49 million in a fund managed by the said intermediary, announced at the same time as the intermediary’s appointment?
Genuine questions btw. Mock me if you will but if it’s all clear, obvious and tickety boo, they’ll be easy to answer, won’t they.
I am a tad sceptical because some of the facts which have come out are remarkably similar to cases in the same sector which have attracted the interest of enforcement authorities. I may well be wrong of course and it’s all a fuss about nothing which the government is incapable of explaining properly.
At any event, let’s hope we do get these vaccines soon and they do work, not least because I am in one of the vulnerable groups which will get it earlier than others. And it would be nice to have some cause for hope after 11 bloody miserable months.
AOC kicking off the Democrat civil war with Joe Mancin before sleepy Joe heads into office. The whole defund the police stuff probably costs them GA senate seats.
'Defund the Police' must be the worst, most alienating political slogan that the left has ever come up with.
And it's a shame really, because there's a debate to be had about how best to tackle crime in USA cities, and the role of the police in this. There's a serious argument to be had that, if budgets are limited, diverting some funds currently spent on 'law and order' to community projects, mental health and social services and so on may be more effective in tackling the social problems that underpin crime than police action. Then obviously if crime reduces the police need less money. The same sort of thinking could well be applied to tackling the opioid crisis, which is more a mental health crisis than a normal 'health' or law and order crisis.
Yeah, it instantly puts me off and if there's one thing I've realised from this election it's that I'm way to the left of the median US voter.
OTOH GOP gains/new seats in the House are a whole bunch of QAnon nutters.
AOC kicking off the Democrat civil war with Joe Mancin before sleepy Joe heads into office. The whole defund the police stuff probably costs them GA senate seats.
'Defund the Police' must be the worst, most alienating political slogan that the left has ever come up with.
And it's a shame really, because there's a debate to be had about how best to tackle crime in USA cities, and the role of the police in this. There's a serious argument to be had that, if budgets are limited, diverting some funds currently spent on 'law and order' to community projects, mental health and social services and so on may be more effective in tackling the social problems that underpin crime than police action. Then obviously if crime reduces the police need less money. The same sort of thinking could well be applied to tackling the opioid crisis, which is more a mental health crisis than a normal 'health' or law and order crisis.
We live in the UK, the Police in the US is a very different beast (with very different funding and recruitment practices) than this country.
AOC kicking off the Democrat civil war with Joe Mancin before sleepy Joe heads into office. The whole defund the police stuff probably costs them GA senate seats.
'Defund the Police' must be the worst, most alienating political slogan that the left has ever come up with.
And it's a shame really, because there's a debate to be had about how best to tackle crime in USA cities, and the role of the police in this. There's a serious argument to be had that, if budgets are limited, diverting some funds currently spent on 'law and order' to community projects, mental health and social services and so on may be more effective in tackling the social problems that underpin crime than police action. Then obviously if crime reduces the police need less money. The same sort of thinking could well be applied to tackling the opioid crisis, which is more a mental health crisis than a normal 'health' or law and order crisis.
We live in the UK, the Police in the US is a very different beast (with very different funding and recruitment practices) than this country.
My comment was only about the USA - no mention of the UK.
“The view from a lot of colleagues today is that we are witnessing the end of hope in Boris as a second-term PM,” they said. “He has left a vacuum at the centre of government and that is being filled by Cummings, who does not like the Conservative party, and his fiancee, who lives above the shop. It’s like the script from a bad soap opera.”
The bumbling old Etonian PM The 'evil genius' adviser who'll stop at nothing The fruity girlfriend The former Guardian/BBC journalist brought in as a counterpoint The scheming husband and wife power couple
The point was they were the first I remember talking about it, I think it was in their last manifesto, rather thanit being inherently left wing. But how many ideas, left or right, do they have to differentiate themselves?
One Green policy that I like is an alternative to air passenger tax - they propose as I recall that you can have one flight per year to wherever you like free of tax, and each flight thereafter attracts an increasing tax. That gets round the "you're trying to tax ordinary people's annual holiday" argument, but it curbs the habit of routinely flying everywhere, and in particular encourages businesses to do more meetings by video conference - which we've all got used to anyway.
Personally I like flying, and one of my most enjoyable jobs involved flying to 25 different countries to lobby Ministers and MPs. But even then I felt that this probably wasn't the ideal way to help the environment.
I'm not averse to that but where does that, so to speak, take us? P&O offer a few cruises in the winter which sail from the UK to the Caribbean and back without flying so that's a 28-35 day cruise on a very nice ship and there's a lot to be said about the central Atlantic if you want it peaceful.
So we've got 4000 people on a ship cruising at 20mph across the Atlantic Ocean - is that worse for the environment than the same number flying to the Caribbean and back? I genuinely don't know,
1. It's really expensive. The government has had to guarantee a price almost 3x the current baseload rate to get Sizewell C built. This means everyone's electricity bills will be higher in the future, because the grid has to buy the power - irrespective of whether they need it or not - according to contract. Oh yes, and the price is on an escalator.
2. It' not well suited for a world with lots of renewables. What the grid needs is flexible power sources that can come on quickly if the sun isn't shining or the wind isn't blowing. That's natural gas. Which also happens to be a third of the price of nuclear.
3. You need to store the radioactive waste somewhere.
Not sure why this needed pointing out to them, but then a lot of the 'just asking questions' school of Trump defence seems to take it as read that an unsupported allegation should be believed until it is disproved, rather than proved. https://twitter.com/KlasfeldReports/status/1326934324831281152
Your honor, between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit.
Do we know what Elon Musk put in the boot or that Roadster?
AOC kicking off the Democrat civil war with Joe Mancin before sleepy Joe heads into office. The whole defund the police stuff probably costs them GA senate seats.
'Defund the Police' must be the worst, most alienating political slogan that the left has ever come up with.
And it's a shame really, because there's a debate to be had about how best to tackle crime in USA cities, and the role of the police in this. There's a serious argument to be had that, if budgets are limited, diverting some funds currently spent on 'law and order' to community projects, mental health and social services and so on may be more effective in tackling the social problems that underpin crime than police action. Then obviously if crime reduces the police need less money. The same sort of thinking could well be applied to tackling the opioid crisis, which is more a mental health crisis than a normal 'health' or law and order crisis.
We live in the UK, the Police in the US is a very different beast (with very different funding and recruitment practices) than this country.
My comment was only about the USA - no mention of the UK.
Well it didn't exactly work for Theresa May in 2017 either
AOC kicking off the Democrat civil war with Joe Mancin before sleepy Joe heads into office. The whole defund the police stuff probably costs them GA senate seats.
'Defund the Police' must be the worst, most alienating political slogan that the left has ever come up with.
And it's a shame really, because there's a debate to be had about how best to tackle crime in USA cities, and the role of the police in this. There's a serious argument to be had that, if budgets are limited, diverting some funds currently spent on 'law and order' to community projects, mental health and social services and so on may be more effective in tackling the social problems that underpin crime than police action. Then obviously if crime reduces the police need less money. The same sort of thinking could well be applied to tackling the opioid crisis, which is more a mental health crisis than a normal 'health' or law and order crisis.
Yeah, it instantly puts me off and if there's one thing I've realised from this election it's that I'm way to the left of the median US voter.
OTOH GOP gains/new seats in the House are a whole bunch of QAnon nutters.
Yeh, given the choice between QAnon and their paranoia and obsession with cannibalistic paedophiles, and BLM/Defund the Police, I'd go for the latter.
AOC kicking off the Democrat civil war with Joe Mancin before sleepy Joe heads into office. The whole defund the police stuff probably costs them GA senate seats.
'Defund the Police' must be the worst, most alienating political slogan that the left has ever come up with.
And it's a shame really, because there's a debate to be had about how best to tackle crime in USA cities, and the role of the police in this. There's a serious argument to be had that, if budgets are limited, diverting some funds currently spent on 'law and order' to community projects, mental health and social services and so on may be more effective in tackling the social problems that underpin crime than police action. Then obviously if crime reduces the police need less money. The same sort of thinking could well be applied to tackling the opioid crisis, which is more a mental health crisis than a normal 'health' or law and order crisis.
We live in the UK, the Police in the US is a very different beast (with very different funding and recruitment practices) than this country.
My comment was only about the USA - no mention of the UK.
The thing is that we are sat in the UK - which means that while we may think we know the nuances we actually don't.
Portland is a great example, when I read up on the protests there I eventually discovered (but only after reading multiple articles and this was almost an aside) that the police aren't recruited from within Portland but actually come from the very white suburbs around it.
Yet once you discovered that single fact everything else which previously made little sense suddenly fell into place.
The bumbling old Etonian PM The 'evil genius' adviser who'll stop at nothing The fruity girlfriend The former Guardian/BBC journalist brought in as a counterpoint The scheming husband and wife power couple
“The view from a lot of colleagues today is that we are witnessing the end of hope in Boris as a second-term PM,” they said. “He has left a vacuum at the centre of government and that is being filled by Cummings, who does not like the Conservative party, and his fiancee, who lives above the shop. It’s like the script from a bad soap opera.”
There was a conversation a bit earlier about another Scotland vote.
Unlike many on here I don’t take the view that on such critical matters (see also Brexit) one can just decide things with a simple, one-off majority vote. To take the point to absurdity, what if the 2014 referendum had been carried by just one vote?
Nor do I think that, having voted in 2014, it is appropriate to be having another vote any time soon. Although “once every generation” carries no legal weight, ever twenty years does not seem unreasonable for a question of this magnitude.
Extending the franchise to 16+ was worth about 0.5% in favour of Indy and I’ve no idea why this was granted.
I do also think it is worth looking at granting a vote to anyone born in Scotland who wishes to register as such. I do not know whether this would help or hinder independence, but I often wonder how I’d feel if my homeland (NZ) voted for some irrevocable break-up. I would certainly want a say in that, despite not living there for 20 years.
Quite entitled to hold the views you do: but just one small point: the Scottish franchise has generally been extennded to 16+ as a wider point of public principle - crossparty approval (including Smith Commission). It's Westminster is the holdout here.
Yes, am aware of that. I am personally against votes at 16 on principle, and don’t understand why it seems to have gained traction in parts of this country. Outside of Scotland (and now Wales), is there any country on earth that has votes at 16?
And then, again, I can see in the Scottish context that it aids the independence movement.
I think it is constitutionally iffy to allow it for an independence vote.
I'm also opposed to it on principle, and many of the arguments used to argue in favour of it I find far from convincing. It's well known we are inconsistent in how we set rules of adulthood for various things, and in fairness there may be scope for some inconsistency, but I do think our general approach to young people argues against giving 16 year olds the vote.
However, I think the battle has already been lost. If you have it for some votes for some parts of the country, I think it is pretty hard to resist the argument for another vote or other parts of the country.
One argument I'm surprised not to see more often is this: if you don't get the right to vote until you are 18, you might not get a chance until you are 23.
Indeed, I didn't get a chance to vote in a general election until I was 22.
I'm not sure that's much of an argument one way or another. By the same logic if you do get the right to vote at 16 you might not get to do so until you are 21. Unless you're proposing annual elections how would we guarantee people get to vote shortly after getting the right to do so?
States (hope I get the abbreviations right) AZ Dem 1.09 GA Dem 1.12 MI Dem 1.06 NV Dem 1.05 NC Rep 1.01 PA Dem 1.09 WI Dem 1.09
Most markets are fairly thin, except the main next president market. Note that some markets by definition cannot be settled until the counting stops; others might not be according to Betfair's whim.
The point was they were the first I remember talking about it, I think it was in their last manifesto, rather thanit being inherently left wing. But how many ideas, left or right, do they have to differentiate themselves?
One Green policy that I like is an alternative to air passenger tax - they propose as I recall that you can have one flight per year to wherever you like free of tax, and each flight thereafter attracts an increasing tax. That gets round the "you're trying to tax ordinary people's annual holiday" argument, but it curbs the habit of routinely flying everywhere, and in particular encourages businesses to do more meetings by video conference - which we've all got used to anyway.
Personally I like flying, and one of my most enjoyable jobs involved flying to 25 different countries to lobby Ministers and MPs. But even then I felt that this probably wasn't the ideal way to help the environment.
I'm not averse to that but where does that, so to speak, take us? P&O offer a few cruises in the winter which sail from the UK to the Caribbean and back without flying so that's a 28-35 day cruise on a very nice ship and there's a lot to be said about the central Atlantic if you want it peaceful.
So we've got 4000 people on a ship cruising at 20mph across the Atlantic Ocean - is that worse for the environment than the same number flying to the Caribbean and back? I genuinely don't know,
Allegedly yes, and intuitively the plane isn't flying the hotel around (so to speak).
The bumbling old Etonian PM The 'evil genius' adviser who'll stop at nothing The fruity girlfriend The former Guardian/BBC journalist brought in as a counterpoint The scheming husband and wife power couple
After he embarrassed himself talking about how the UK needed to 'earn that call' with the President elect in the most regregiously cringy and needy way I find myself less inclined to listen to him, even when he may talk sense.
The bumbling old Etonian PM The 'evil genius' adviser who'll stop at nothing The fruity girlfriend The former Guardian/BBC journalist brought in as a counterpoint The scheming husband and wife power couple
The West Wing is the bloody problem. It's about America being run by a bunch of unelected speech writers and spin doctors, and our lot (both parties) take it as a model of democracy.
AOC kicking off the Democrat civil war with Joe Mancin before sleepy Joe heads into office. The whole defund the police stuff probably costs them GA senate seats.
'Defund the Police' must be the worst, most alienating political slogan that the left has ever come up with.
And it's a shame really, because there's a debate to be had about how best to tackle crime in USA cities, and the role of the police in this. There's a serious argument to be had that, if budgets are limited, diverting some funds currently spent on 'law and order' to community projects, mental health and social services and so on may be more effective in tackling the social problems that underpin crime than police action. Then obviously if crime reduces the police need less money. The same sort of thinking could well be applied to tackling the opioid crisis, which is more a mental health crisis than a normal 'health' or law and order crisis.
We live in the UK, the Police in the US is a very different beast (with very different funding and recruitment practices) than this country.
My comment was only about the USA - no mention of the UK.
The thing is that we are sat in the UK - which means that while we may think we know the nuances we actually don't.
Portland is a great example, when I read up on the protests there I eventually discovered (but only after reading multiple articles and this was almost an aside) that the police aren't recruited from within Portland but actually come from the very white suburbs around it.
Yet once you discovered that single fact everything else which previously made little sense suddenly fell into place.
That's fascinating and useful to know, but I don't really see what it has to do with generic criticism of a slogan which from all accounts does not mean what it sounds like it means, and thus diverts from the topic at hand rather than illuminates it. It may well be that it is not as damaging a cry as others may imagine, but even with zero knowledge of the intricacies of the US police, or even if one agrees with the aims of the people behind the slogan 100%, it still appears to be a terrible slogan given it still doesn't mean what it sounds like it means. We don't need to know the nuances there, because it's not about the nuances, its an argument about general presentation.
States (hope I get the abbreviations right) AZ Dem 1.09 GA Dem 1.12 MI Dem 1.06 NV Dem 1.05 NC Rep 1.01 PA Dem 1.09 WI Dem 1.09
Most markets are fairly thin, except the main next president market. Note that some markets by definition cannot be settled until the counting stops; others might not be according to Betfair's whim.
In extremis only the AZ and PA prices vaguely make sense, and they don't make sense. But PA has the ballot splitting lawsuit over it and whilst AZ is unlikely there ARE still ballots to count. Michigan is bizzare - the victory margin pushes it well out of recount reach and we've seen the lawsuits there, they're a nonsense. Same for Nevada, though that IS still counting I think.
AOC kicking off the Democrat civil war with Joe Mancin before sleepy Joe heads into office. The whole defund the police stuff probably costs them GA senate seats.
'Defund the Police' must be the worst, most alienating political slogan that the left has ever come up with.
And it's a shame really, because there's a debate to be had about how best to tackle crime in USA cities, and the role of the police in this. There's a serious argument to be had that, if budgets are limited, diverting some funds currently spent on 'law and order' to community projects, mental health and social services and so on may be more effective in tackling the social problems that underpin crime than police action. Then obviously if crime reduces the police need less money. The same sort of thinking could well be applied to tackling the opioid crisis, which is more a mental health crisis than a normal 'health' or law and order crisis.
We live in the UK, the Police in the US is a very different beast (with very different funding and recruitment practices) than this country.
Demilitarise the Police would be better, but hard to beat "Tough on the causes of crime".
“The view from a lot of colleagues today is that we are witnessing the end of hope in Boris as a second-term PM,” they said. “He has left a vacuum at the centre of government and that is being filled by Cummings, who does not like the Conservative party, and his fiancee, who lives above the shop. It’s like the script from a bad soap opera.”
“The view from a lot of colleagues today is that we are witnessing the end of hope in Boris as a second-term PM,” they said. “He has left a vacuum at the centre of government and that is being filled by Cummings, who does not like the Conservative party, and his fiancee, who lives above the shop. It’s like the script from a bad soap opera.”
Labour are slightly or further down in all these most recent polls, and the only thing that's really changed obviously in their public profile recently is the Corbyn suspension. If I was Starmer I would be very wary of it, and trying to think of a way to patch things up, before the "Labour splits" narrative really takes hold.
Some movement Labour to Green certainly and a bit from Tories to Farage, little movement recently between the 2 main parties who are about neck and neck with most of the Labour gains since 2019 still coming from the LDs
Hm, yup. Without wanting to say 'I told you so' , some slippage to the Greens and others was what I predicted the day after the Corbyn suspension.
The Greens really should have become a proper party in the UK years ago. Their only 'leading light' is Lucas and even with the best will in the world she's pretty average. I can't remember the name of the half-leader with the Aussie accent, but she did them a dis-service.
Their main issue though is that they actually don't know what they're talking about - sure they know the green bit, but they don't have a clue about the non-green bit, even if that is what they're trying to argue against.
Nuclear energy is the easiest example - none of the Greens have a clue about it, and yet they're absolutely sure that it's a bad option. I'd not make the case for nuclear being super-green, but perhaps you could, and the greens haven't even wondered about that. UK greens at least are just de-industrialists, anti-economists, and without sense.
Nuclear power is an issue that has overtaken the Greens. The climate emergency is so acute now that we positively need nuclear power because the ecology needs drastic intervention. If action on carbon emissions had happened a lot earlier, nuclear power might not have been necessary. The Green objections to nuclear power are solid and sensible; there is a legacy of pollution that will outlast the next thousand generations, and inflicting the risks on future generations is selfish and irresponsible. But in the short term, we now need it along with every other measure you can think of, just to get carbon emissions down to a sensible level. I changed my mind on nuclear power some years ago, and I'm strongly in favour of it, and the reasons for that change are entirely in the "green" policy sphere. It baffles me that many Greens haven't caught up, but their objections are merely outdated, not senseless.
No, the UK does not need need nuclear energy. Tidal lagoon power could be in place WAY before the replacements for current nuclear that is going to be decommissioned. Both planning and construction are far quicker. Construction is also far, far cheaper. 2030 would see planning met and construction largely completed - if we started now. Paid for by the private sector - locking in the current very cheap money and Green Bonds. With 80,000 jobs created during the process. And power close to half the cost per unit of nuclear. With plants lasting a minimum vast amount of money to of 120 years, compared to 60 - tops - for a nuclear plant. That then costs a vast amount to abandon.
One day, people will realise that they have been duped on a grand scale by the nuclear industry. As they pay hugely over the odds for their electricity for many decades. But you really aren't to be allowed to know this. Government is so far up the nuclear rectum, they make it their business to close down competition.
There's a great political story for Labour to exploit here.
If you're saying there are better alternatives than new nuclear power, then ok, I'll look into it to satisfy curiosity. But I wasn't only talking about new nuclear. I used to be of the opinion that nuclear power stations should be shut down, and some people are still of that opinion. We cannot do that, and for that reason alone, I'm certain that we need existing nuclear power at least in the medium term, because renewables are not yet meeting our needs.
Surely the issue with nuclear power is dealing with the waste that lasts for ever and ever.
...
You're right. But at least you can keep nuclear waste very localised. Where as fossil fuel waste is causing a global problem, which despite lots of good ideas does not seem to be abating on a global scale.
AOC kicking off the Democrat civil war with Joe Mancin before sleepy Joe heads into office. The whole defund the police stuff probably costs them GA senate seats.
'Defund the Police' must be the worst, most alienating political slogan that the left has ever come up with.
And it's a shame really, because there's a debate to be had about how best to tackle crime in USA cities, and the role of the police in this. There's a serious argument to be had that, if budgets are limited, diverting some funds currently spent on 'law and order' to community projects, mental health and social services and so on may be more effective in tackling the social problems that underpin crime than police action. Then obviously if crime reduces the police need less money. The same sort of thinking could well be applied to tackling the opioid crisis, which is more a mental health crisis than a normal 'health' or law and order crisis.
We live in the UK, the Police in the US is a very different beast (with very different funding and recruitment practices) than this country.
Demilitarise the Police would be better, but hard to beat "Tough on the causes of crime".
Simply "Reform the Police" would have been the best slogan for BLM and the left-wing Dems - reform can cover a multitude of things, and few could object to it and argue that the USA police didn't need reforming following Floyd and countless other incidents.
AOC kicking off the Democrat civil war with Joe Mancin before sleepy Joe heads into office. The whole defund the police stuff probably costs them GA senate seats.
'Defund the Police' must be the worst, most alienating political slogan that the left has ever come up with.
And it's a shame really, because there's a debate to be had about how best to tackle crime in USA cities, and the role of the police in this. There's a serious argument to be had that, if budgets are limited, diverting some funds currently spent on 'law and order' to community projects, mental health and social services and so on may be more effective in tackling the social problems that underpin crime than police action. Then obviously if crime reduces the police need less money. The same sort of thinking could well be applied to tackling the opioid crisis, which is more a mental health crisis than a normal 'health' or law and order crisis.
We live in the UK, the Police in the US is a very different beast (with very different funding and recruitment practices) than this country.
Demilitarise the Police would be better, but hard to beat "Tough on the causes of crime".
If only the Americans could find a President willing to blatantly plagiarise a former Labour leaders slogans.
AOC kicking off the Democrat civil war with Joe Mancin before sleepy Joe heads into office. The whole defund the police stuff probably costs them GA senate seats.
'Defund the Police' must be the worst, most alienating political slogan that the left has ever come up with.
And it's a shame really, because there's a debate to be had about how best to tackle crime in USA cities, and the role of the police in this. There's a serious argument to be had that, if budgets are limited, diverting some funds currently spent on 'law and order' to community projects, mental health and social services and so on may be more effective in tackling the social problems that underpin crime than police action. Then obviously if crime reduces the police need less money. The same sort of thinking could well be applied to tackling the opioid crisis, which is more a mental health crisis than a normal 'health' or law and order crisis.
We live in the UK, the Police in the US is a very different beast (with very different funding and recruitment practices) than this country.
My comment was only about the USA - no mention of the UK.
The thing is that we are sat in the UK - which means that while we may think we know the nuances we actually don't.
Portland is a great example, when I read up on the protests there I eventually discovered (but only after reading multiple articles and this was almost an aside) that the police aren't recruited from within Portland but actually come from the very white suburbs around it.
Yet once you discovered that single fact everything else which previously made little sense suddenly fell into place.
Although police in the US can make very good money after a long enough time in service (and the pension schemes are often platinum-plated), the starting salaries tend not be so good, especially for the mandatory time spent as cadets at academy. A lot of cities do have a rule that LEOs have to live within the city limits, but as soon as your city starts becoming high-cost-of-living, that becomes untenable. NYC used to have such a rule, but had to relax it to also allow residence in the nearest suburban counties (Rockland, Westchester, Nassau and Suffolk) and they aren't cheap places to live either!
AOC kicking off the Democrat civil war with Joe Mancin before sleepy Joe heads into office. The whole defund the police stuff probably costs them GA senate seats.
'Defund the Police' must be the worst, most alienating political slogan that the left has ever come up with.
And it's a shame really, because there's a debate to be had about how best to tackle crime in USA cities, and the role of the police in this. There's a serious argument to be had that, if budgets are limited, diverting some funds currently spent on 'law and order' to community projects, mental health and social services and so on may be more effective in tackling the social problems that underpin crime than police action. Then obviously if crime reduces the police need less money. The same sort of thinking could well be applied to tackling the opioid crisis, which is more a mental health crisis than a normal 'health' or law and order crisis.
We live in the UK, the Police in the US is a very different beast (with very different funding and recruitment practices) than this country.
My comment was only about the USA - no mention of the UK.
The thing is that we are sat in the UK - which means that while we may think we know the nuances we actually don't.
Portland is a great example, when I read up on the protests there I eventually discovered (but only after reading multiple articles and this was almost an aside) that the police aren't recruited from within Portland but actually come from the very white suburbs around it.
Yet once you discovered that single fact everything else which previously made little sense suddenly fell into place.
But it is not just one single fact. Another fact that starts to make sense of it is that, in many parts of many cities, the police go in afraid. So they militarize. And then they are asked to do the job of social services, and sort out domestic disputes, and they go in afraid and militarized. And then they are asked to deal with the homeless and the mentally unwell, and they are afraid and militarized and trained to react to threats with force, rather than to focus on situational awareness and deescalation.
There is so much wrong with the policing situation in the US. And many of the ideas of "Defund the Police" are great - such as a major rethink of what we are asking our police forces to do. But it has to be the absolute worst political slogan ever if you are actually trying to achieve something, as it alienates not just the right, but the entire middle ground (at least until they understand that it does not actually mean 'defund policing').
The point was they were the first I remember talking about it, I think it was in their last manifesto, rather thanit being inherently left wing. But how many ideas, left or right, do they have to differentiate themselves?
One Green policy that I like is an alternative to air passenger tax - they propose as I recall that you can have one flight per year to wherever you like free of tax, and each flight thereafter attracts an increasing tax. That gets round the "you're trying to tax ordinary people's annual holiday" argument, but it curbs the habit of routinely flying everywhere, and in particular encourages businesses to do more meetings by video conference - which we've all got used to anyway.
Personally I like flying, and one of my most enjoyable jobs involved flying to 25 different countries to lobby Ministers and MPs. But even then I felt that this probably wasn't the ideal way to help the environment.
I'm not averse to that but where does that, so to speak, take us? P&O offer a few cruises in the winter which sail from the UK to the Caribbean and back without flying so that's a 28-35 day cruise on a very nice ship and there's a lot to be said about the central Atlantic if you want it peaceful.
So we've got 4000 people on a ship cruising at 20mph across the Atlantic Ocean - is that worse for the environment than the same number flying to the Caribbean and back? I genuinely don't know,
Allegedly yes, and intuitively the plane isn't flying the hotel around (so to speak).
Comments
If he lives in London, a lot of it is tied up in a house.
For some reason, the mention of Downing St brings rats to mind
Crocs I'm just damned scared of. (Thunderbirds episode when I was young)
Under either No Deal or a UK/EU FTA the vaccine supply chain would be disrupted by the complete incompetence of Gove and Johnson in allowing no proper planning in the imposition of a hard border between the UK and the EU.
When that just meant total New Year chaos for Spanish red peppers or Turkish-made clothing, the "Fuck Business" party could just laugh it off. Now God has ensured that the vaccine will be turning up just as Gove's borders are supposed to stop lorries, there's a real likelihood of riots outside Downing St if the plan goes ahead.
And it doesn't help that Biden's told Johnson not to be a prat. So No 10 is now dreaming up some way of telling Tory Kippers they're going to have to fuck themselves.
There isn't going to be a hard border on Jan 1. How Johnson avoids being torn apart by the Spartans is up to him.
One day, people will realise that they have been duped on a grand scale by the nuclear industry. As they pay hugely over the odds for their electricity for many decades. But you really aren't to be allowed to know this. Government is so far up the nuclear rectum, they make it their business to close down competition.
There's a great political story for Labour to exploit here.
The question isn’t so much what happens on January 1st as how things develop over the following twelve months.
Exports now - that’s different.
If Cummings is leaving, she has an excellent chance of filling the void. And with her own regular public channel, too.
The important limitation is that you must not mislead the court. But, from what I've seen, they are being clear to the judges what the "evidence" they are presenting is, and are being shot down accordingly.
I doubt they'll lead with it on their CVs, but it's hardly their fault their client is determined to run with this, and it won't harm their careers really.
Surely if that return into France is disrupted then rather rapidly the import that lorry was meant to carry back is disrupted?
But seriously. A million will still buy you a luxury 2 bed in Zone 1, and quite a bit more if you're prepared to go a couple of tube stops further out.
By my reckoning he's not going to be hard up for a while. Either way I won't be shedding a tear...
If a country already has a load of nuclear waste then they already have a problem to deal with all that waste that they already have, adding more waste probably adds little extra risk, cost or complexity, especially since modern nuclear power plants create far less waste compared to earlier ones.
If a country does not have a nuclear waste problem is may well make sense to avoid the problem of dealing with the waste.
Given we already have a nuclear waste issue in the UK, I see no problem whatsoever with going big on nuclear as we need to deal with the waste anyway, some more really does not make that challenge any harder.
And the departure of Lee Cain adds credence to that.
The whole defund the police stuff probably costs them GA senate seats.
“The view from a lot of colleagues today is that we are witnessing the end of hope in Boris as a second-term PM,” they said. “He has left a vacuum at the centre of government and that is being filled by Cummings, who does not like the Conservative party, and his fiancee, who lives above the shop. It’s like the script from a bad soap opera.”
1. It's really expensive. The government has had to guarantee a price almost 3x the current baseload rate to get Sizewell C built. This means everyone's electricity bills will be higher in the future, because the grid has to buy the power - irrespective of whether they need it or not - according to contract. Oh yes, and the price is on an escalator.
2. It' not well suited for a world with lots of renewables. What the grid needs is flexible power sources that can come on quickly if the sun isn't shining or the wind isn't blowing. That's natural gas. Which also happens to be a third of the price of nuclear.
if you don't get the right to vote until you are 18, you might not get a chance until you are 23.
Indeed, I didn't get a chance to vote in a general election until I was 22.
https://apnews.com/article/money-donald-trump-election-defense-flow-d533491164bd4cae7ac47392ca740c7d
"A bit like vote counting in the US presidential election, the case numbers in the [Pfizer] placebo group have already reached a level that cannot be surpassed by the vaccine group, and are approaching the threshold needed to “win”..."
Read more: https://www.newscientist.com/article/2259306-pfizer-covid-19-vaccine-is-it-the-breakthrough-weve-been-hoping-for/#ixzz6dc3PDIZX
But at least you can keep nuclear waste very localised. Where as fossil fuel waste is causing a global problem, which despite lots of good ideas does not seem to be abating on a global scale.
It would be interesting to compare lost Democrat senate seats with Presidential votes as I suspect all the lost seats will be in places where Biden fell short of expectations..
The safe pair of hands would be Susan Hinchcliffe, leader of Bradford council and chair of the combined authority. Basically, she's sort of doing the job already.
However, if we are looking for someone to be the face of the county, then Tracy Brabin has the public recognition and ability to project herself. She's got a shed load of endorsements.
I'll make up my mind when I've heard from all of the candidates, and I'll let you all know who gets my vote.
Personally I like flying, and one of my most enjoyable jobs involved flying to 25 different countries to lobby Ministers and MPs. But even then I felt that this probably wasn't the ideal way to help the environmment.
And it's a shame really, because there's a debate to be had about how best to tackle crime in USA cities, and the role of the police in this. There's a serious argument to be had that, if budgets are limited, diverting some funds currently spent on 'law and order' to community projects, mental health and social services and so on may be more effective in tackling the social problems that underpin crime than police action. Then obviously if crime reduces the police need less money. The same sort of thinking could well be applied to tackling the opioid crisis, which is more a mental health crisis than a normal 'health' or law and order crisis.
I am delighted that (a) Pfizer has developed what appears to be an effective vaccine; and (b) the British government has bought 10 million doses of it and is scheduled to buy more.
But can someone answer these two questions which are still puzzling me:-
1. Why is it that the UK government - a government of a country with a large and well-regarded pharmaceutical sector - a government which every year manages all by itself to buy flu vaccines for its population, not to mention lots of other drugs and medicines - is so apparently incapable of picking up the phone to Pfizer to place an order for the COVID vaccines it is developing that it needs to appoint an intermediary with no vaccines experience to do so?
2. Why did the government invest £49 million in a fund managed by the said intermediary, announced at the same time as the intermediary’s appointment?
Genuine questions btw. Mock me if you will but if it’s all clear, obvious and tickety boo, they’ll be easy to answer, won’t they.
I am a tad sceptical because some of the facts which have come out are remarkably similar to cases in the same sector which have attracted the interest of enforcement authorities. I may well be wrong of course and it’s all a fuss about nothing which the government is incapable of explaining properly.
At any event, let’s hope we do get these vaccines soon and they do work, not least because I am in one of the vulnerable groups which will get it earlier than others. And it would be nice to have some cause for hope after 11 bloody miserable months.
OTOH GOP gains/new seats in the House are a whole bunch of QAnon nutters.
'After Sunday night’s bombshell phone call, Şahin and Türeci, BioNTech’s chief medical officer, “celebrated a little”.
“My wife and I sat down, talked to each other and made cups of tea. The relief was a very good feeling.”'
"https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/nov/12/scientist-behind-biontech-pfizer-coronavirus-vaccine-says-it-can-end-pandemic
https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsCo/status/1326976810660204544?s=19
The bumbling old Etonian PM
The 'evil genius' adviser who'll stop at nothing
The fruity girlfriend
The former Guardian/BBC journalist brought in as a counterpoint
The scheming husband and wife power couple
So we've got 4000 people on a ship cruising at 20mph across the Atlantic Ocean - is that worse for the environment than the same number flying to the Caribbean and back? I genuinely don't know,
Portland is a great example, when I read up on the protests there I eventually discovered (but only after reading multiple articles and this was almost an aside) that the police aren't recruited from within Portland but actually come from the very white suburbs around it.
Yet once you discovered that single fact everything else which previously made little sense suddenly fell into place.
Just a thought.
Biden 1.08
Democrats 1.08
Biden PV 1.04
Biden 49-51.9% 1.08
Trump 210-239 ECVs 1.11
Biden 300-329 ECVs 1.13
Biden ECV hcap -48.5 1.09
Biden ECV hcap -63.5 1.11
Trump ECV hcap +81.5 1.03
States (hope I get the abbreviations right)
AZ Dem 1.09
GA Dem 1.12
MI Dem 1.06
NV Dem 1.05
NC Rep 1.01
PA Dem 1.09
WI Dem 1.09
Most markets are fairly thin, except the main next president market. Note that some markets by definition cannot be settled until the counting stops; others might not be according to Betfair's whim.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/03/travel/traveling-climate-change.html
But I'd like to see a modern comparator too.
Biden in from 1.10 to 1.08
Trump out from 10.0 to 13.5
Free money for another 24 hrs then it will be gone methinks
See, for instance - https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/practice/breaking-ireland-closes-eu-door-to-uk-solicitors/5106387.article?utm_source=gazette_newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Ireland+shuns+UK+solicitors+|+City+firms+'intimidate+SRA'+|+Retainers+and+line+of+duty_11/12/2020.
Going Going ..........
Michigan is bizzare - the victory margin pushes it well out of recount reach and we've seen the lawsuits there, they're a nonsense. Same for Nevada, though that IS still counting I think.
Its all about vanity now.
https://twitter.com/murad_ismael/status/1326697236542132224
There is so much wrong with the policing situation in the US. And many of the ideas of "Defund the Police" are great - such as a major rethink of what we are asking our police forces to do. But it has to be the absolute worst political slogan ever if you are actually trying to achieve something, as it alienates not just the right, but the entire middle ground (at least until they understand that it does not actually mean 'defund policing').
It's hard to solve unless we accept that passenger transport should be slower than its predecessor.
That's never happened, except that Concorde was a commercial failure and so we went back to subsonic flight.