politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Farage against the machine. Why the Brexit party’s chances are
Options
Comments
-
Surely the 1922 will change the leadership rules tomorrow so the PCP can get rid of Theresa without it ever having to go to a national membership ballot?TGOHF said:0 -
That would require a 60%+ threshold of Tory MPs being passed and handing the Tory leadership almost certainly to Boris or Raab based on the latest Tory membership pollingGIN1138 said:
Surely the 1922 will change the leadership rules tomorrow so the PCP can get rid of Theresa without it ever having to go to a national membership ballot?TGOHF said:0 -
I thought the vote of this Tory voluntary party convention had no formal legal effect. It’s more about embarrassing May into resigning - but then most PMs given what she has faced would have quit a long time ago and she is still there. They will probably have to send in the bailiffs to get her and Phillip out of No 10!GIN1138 said:
Surely the 1922 will change the leadership rules tomorrow so the PCP can get rid of Theresa without it ever having to go to a national membership ballot?TGOHF said:
0 -
No. A typical Labour MP in a marginalish pro-Leave seat will have a predominantly Remain voter bloc and is mainly at threat from the Tories, who will be overwhelmingly Leavers. Someone coming along to split the Leave vote is excellent news (just as a Green intervention would be bad news).HYUFD said:
The prospect of the Brexit Party topping the poll in their constituencies could focus a few wavering Labour MPs minds in favour of the WA which is all it would need to scrape home0 -
On topic, I expect Farage to do very well in the Euros, as it's a painless way for Leavers to protest. But in the longer term I agree he'll struggle to get a meaningful party together without finding that lots of recruits have dodgy views and/or want more say than he wants to give them, just as Alastair says. He'd do well in a direct election focused on personality, but I doubt if he wants to be a provincial Mayor or a Crime Commissioner. In the end, I think he'll get bored.0
-
I find this kind of argument so strange. To take one example, Gloria De Piero -- it might be true (though not entirely certain, IMO) that the vast majority of Labour voters in Ashfield voted Remain, but just holding onto the majority of Labour voters isn't enough for her to hold the seat - she needs virtually all of them.NickPalmer said:
No. A typical Labour MP in a marginalish pro-Leave seat will have a predominantly Remain voter bloc and is mainly at threat from the Tories, who will be overwhelmingly Leavers. Someone coming along to split the Leave vote is excellent news (just as a Green intervention would be bad news).HYUFD said:
The prospect of the Brexit Party topping the poll in their constituencies could focus a few wavering Labour MPs minds in favour of the WA which is all it would need to scrape home0 -
The fact most Labour voters are Remainers is of little use in winning a seat where most voters are Leavers if we are still in the EU at the next general election and those Leavers use that vote to protest. In that case they may well vote Brexit Party, especially if the Tories are not led by a hard Brexiteer at that stage.NickPalmer said:
No. A typical Labour MP in a marginalish pro-Leave seat will have a predominantly Remain voter bloc and is mainly at threat from the Tories, who will be overwhelmingly Leavers. Someone coming along to split the Leave vote is excellent news (just as a Green intervention would be bad news).HYUFD said:
The prospect of the Brexit Party topping the poll in their constituencies could focus a few wavering Labour MPs minds in favour of the WA which is all it would need to scrape home
I would have thought Scotland 2015 would have been a clear lesson to Labour MPs not to take their voters for granted and the dangers of insurgent parties if the voters are in an anti establishment mood
0 -
Surely that ought to be a lesson to the Tories ,as they would be wiped out in the scenario you paint .HYUFD said:
The fact most Labour voters are Remainers is of little use in winning a seat where most voters are Leavers if we are still in the EU at the next general election and those Leavers use that vote to protest. In that case they may well vote Brexit Party, especially if the Tories are not led by a hard Brexiteer at that stage.NickPalmer said:
No. A typical Labour MP in a marginalish pro-Leave seat will have a predominantly Remain voter bloc and is mainly at threat from the Tories, who will be overwhelmingly Leavers. Someone coming along to split the Leave vote is excellent news (just as a Green intervention would be bad news).HYUFD said:
The prospect of the Brexit Party topping the poll in their constituencies could focus a few wavering Labour MPs minds in favour of the WA which is all it would need to scrape home
I would have though Scotland 2015 would have been a clear lesson to Labour MPs not to take their voters for granted and the dangers of insurgent parties if the voters are in an anti establishment mood0 -
There's also the risk, in a heavily Leave seat, that Leave voters will unite behind one candidate.Danny565 said:
I find this kind of argument so strange. To take one example, Gloria De Piero -- it might be true (though not entirely certain, IMO) that the vast majority of Labour voters in Ashfield voted Remain, but just holding onto the majority of Labour voters isn't enough for her to hold the seat - she needs virtually all of them.NickPalmer said:
No. A typical Labour MP in a marginalish pro-Leave seat will have a predominantly Remain voter bloc and is mainly at threat from the Tories, who will be overwhelmingly Leavers. Someone coming along to split the Leave vote is excellent news (just as a Green intervention would be bad news).HYUFD said:
The prospect of the Brexit Party topping the poll in their constituencies could focus a few wavering Labour MPs minds in favour of the WA which is all it would need to scrape home0 -
ExactlyDanny565 said:
I find this kind of argument so strange. To take one example, Gloria De Piero -- it might be true (though not entirely certain, IMO) that the vast majority of Labour voters in Ashfield voted Remain, but just holding onto the majority of Labour voters isn't enough for her to hold the seat - she needs virtually all of them.NickPalmer said:
No. A typical Labour MP in a marginalish pro-Leave seat will have a predominantly Remain voter bloc and is mainly at threat from the Tories, who will be overwhelmingly Leavers. Someone coming along to split the Leave vote is excellent news (just as a Green intervention would be bad news).HYUFD said:
The prospect of the Brexit Party topping the poll in their constituencies could focus a few wavering Labour MPs minds in favour of the WA which is all it would need to scrape home0 -
That reasoning requires no Tories to scarper for the Brexit Party.Danny565 said:
I find this kind of argument so strange. To take one example, Gloria De Piero -- it might be true (though not entirely certain, IMO) that the vast majority of Labour voters in Ashfield voted Remain, but just holding onto the majority of Labour voters isn't enough for her to hold the seat - she needs virtually all of them.NickPalmer said:
No. A typical Labour MP in a marginalish pro-Leave seat will have a predominantly Remain voter bloc and is mainly at threat from the Tories, who will be overwhelmingly Leavers. Someone coming along to split the Leave vote is excellent news (just as a Green intervention would be bad news).HYUFD said:
The prospect of the Brexit Party topping the poll in their constituencies could focus a few wavering Labour MPs minds in favour of the WA which is all it would need to scrape home0 -
There is nothing at all misogynistic about the breastfeeding comments. My wife breastfed our kids and she would regularly do exactly what Farage suggested by finding a discreet place to do it. Most women are not right on activists that don't care about discretion at all. It's not like he was telling them they should go to the ladies. It was a manufactured outrage if ever I heard one.OblitusSumMe said:
Yes, Farage is two-faced in that he will tell one audience what it wants to hear and when other people complain about the misogyny, or the racism, he will then walk it back, claim to have had his words misconstrued and act the martyr when other people have the temerity to disagree with him.isam said:
OutrageousDanny565 said:
His comments about how women who breastfeed should "perhaps sit in the corner" were the worstTheuniondivvie said:I'd forgotten about his HIV bullshit. So much bile to keep tabs on.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/dec/05/nigel-farage-ukip-claridges-breastfeeding-mothers
“Let me get this clear, as I said on the radio and as I repeat now, I personally have no problem with mothers breastfeeding wherever they want”
Quite how he's managed to get away with the act repeatedly over the years is beyond me.0 -
True but we would probably end up with Farage as PM if all the Leave seats voted for the Brexit Partydixiedean said:
Surely that ought to be a lesson to the Tories ,as they would be wiped out in the scenario you paint .HYUFD said:
The fact most Labour voters are Remainers is of little use in winning a seat where most voters are Leavers if we are still in the EU at the next general election and those Leavers use that vote to protest. In that case they may well vote Brexit Party, especially if the Tories are not led by a hard Brexiteer at that stage.NickPalmer said:
No. A typical Labour MP in a marginalish pro-Leave seat will have a predominantly Remain voter bloc and is mainly at threat from the Tories, who will be overwhelmingly Leavers. Someone coming along to split the Leave vote is excellent news (just as a Green intervention would be bad news).HYUFD said:
The prospect of the Brexit Party topping the poll in their constituencies could focus a few wavering Labour MPs minds in favour of the WA which is all it would need to scrape home
I would have though Scotland 2015 would have been a clear lesson to Labour MPs not to take their voters for granted and the dangers of insurgent parties if the voters are in an anti establishment mood0 -
I don't think they are guaranteed a place in any election debates next time based on their poor performances at two consecutive general elections.GarethoftheVale2 said:
I saw a LD PPB broadcast the other day and even that was going on about Brexit! They have almost made themselves the anti-Brexit party.kle4 said:
Bit of both maybe. People still bring up tuition fees and the like, and they seem keen to repudiate their time in power and alienate anyone who did still vote for them back then like me. But also they do seem to have nothing of interest except Brexit. Didn't Lamb lament that fact recently?GarethoftheVale2 said:
Are the LDs still that toxic from the coalition? Personally, I think their problems are that they have given yup trying to appeal to the 52% of the country who voted for Brexit, and that their last 2 leaders have been poor.viewcode said:
It has the advantages of detoxifying the Libs.GarethoftheVale2 said:The suggestion earlier that the LDs should merge into them was ridiculous.
If they are going to make progress again, they need to change leader and try and put out some olive branches to Brexit voters. And come up with some other policies.
It's a shame Lamb isn't leader.
The advantages the LDs do have over CHUK are:
- 12 seats, of which maybe 8 are reasonably safe
- Large numbers of councillors and activists
- Large numbers of members
- A place in the election debates0 -
Indeed . But Labour would be a solid opposition ,and there would be nowt but a vestigial Tory Party a la Canada . Still don't see it tbh.HYUFD said:
True but we would probably end up with Farage as PM if all the Leave seats voted for the Brexit Partydixiedean said:
Surely that ought to be a lesson to the Tories ,as they would be wiped out in the scenario you paint .HYUFD said:
The fact most Labour voters are Remainers is of little use in winning a seat where most voters are Leavers if we are still in the EU at the next general election and those Leavers use that vote to protest. In that case they may well vote Brexit Party, especially if the Tories are not led by a hard Brexiteer at that stage.NickPalmer said:
No. A typical Labour MP in a marginalish pro-Leave seat will have a predominantly Remain voter bloc and is mainly at threat from the Tories, who will be overwhelmingly Leavers. Someone coming along to split the Leave vote is excellent news (just as a Green intervention would be bad news).HYUFD said:
The prospect of the Brexit Party topping the poll in their constituencies could focus a few wavering Labour MPs minds in favour of the WA which is all it would need to scrape home
I would have though Scotland 2015 would have been a clear lesson to Labour MPs not to take their voters for granted and the dangers of insurgent parties if the voters are in an anti establishment mood0 -
Welcome to PB, commissioner.thecommissioner said:The EU is likely to have a different balance to it at the end of May, irrespective of how we vote.
The centre right EPP is forecast to be the biggest party by Europe Elects with a total of 177 MEPs. The three eurosceptic reform, freedom of nations and direct democracy groups are forecast to have 166 between them.
However, those figures allow for Orban's Hungarian dozen to sit within the EPP, whereas they appear to be ideologically aligned to one of the latter groups. That is substantial drift from the 2014 europhile right to a 2019 eurosceptic one.
Those figures are also based on non participation by the UK.
As the UK right does not sit in the EPP it's probable that an election would send 30-40 Tory/Brexit Party MEPs into the reform, freedom and democracy grouping. This would be at the combined expense of countries gaining from the Brexit seat redistribution (Spain and France gain most) and the German led EPP on the right.
If the eurosceptics outnumber the europhile right, where does that leave the EPP on 27th May?
0 -
-
Given most Tories by that stage would be voting for the Brexit Party anyway does it really make much difference? In any Case the Canadian Tories eventually merged with the Reform Party as the Rump Tories most likely would do with the Brexit Partydixiedean said:
Indeed . But Labour would be a solid opposition ,and there would be nowt but a vestigial Tory Party a la Canada . Still don't see it tbh.HYUFD said:
True but we would probably end up with Farage as PM if all the Leave seats voted for the Brexit Partydixiedean said:
Surely that ought to be a lesson to the Tories ,as they would be wiped out in the scenario you paint .HYUFD said:
The fact most Labour voters are Remainers is of little use in winning a seat where most voters are Leavers if we are still in the EU at the next general election and those Leavers use that vote to protest. In that case they may well vote Brexit Party, especially if the Tories are not led by a hard Brexiteer at that stage.NickPalmer said:
No. A typical Labour MP in a marginalish pro-Leave seat will have a predominantly Remain voter bloc and is mainly at threat from the Tories, who will be overwhelmingly Leavers. Someone coming along to split the Leave vote is excellent news (just as a Green intervention would be bad news).HYUFD said:
The prospect of the Brexit Party topping the poll in their constituencies could focus a few wavering Labour MPs minds in favour of the WA which is all it would need to scrape home
I would have though Scotland 2015 would have been a clear lesson to Labour MPs not to take their voters for granted and the dangers of insurgent parties if the voters are in an anti establishment mood0 -
-
LOL!HYUFD said:
The US stock market is rising because GDP growth expectations are falling. Lower GDP growth, equals lower interest rates, equals lower discount rate, equals higher share valuations.
(Of course, there's a limit to this, but in the short term going from 3% expected GDP growth to 1.5% pushes stocks higher.)
I wonder if he'd be rushing to claim credit if the stockmarket was down 25%?0 -
Surely it'd be like last time where there's a "big boys debate" between Lab and Con, and then a "little boys debate" which added the Greens, LDs and AN Other.justin124 said:
I don't think they are guaranteed a place in any election debates next time based on their poor performances at two consecutive general elections.GarethoftheVale2 said:
I saw a LD PPB broadcast the other day and even that was going on about Brexit! They have almost made themselves the anti-Brexit party.kle4 said:
Bit of both maybe. People still bring up tuition fees and the like, and they seem keen to repudiate their time in power and alienate anyone who did still vote for them back then like me. But also they do seem to have nothing of interest except Brexit. Didn't Lamb lament that fact recently?GarethoftheVale2 said:
Are the LDs still that toxic from the coalition? Personally, I think their problems are that they have given yup trying to appeal to the 52% of the country who voted for Brexit, and that their last 2 leaders have been poor.viewcode said:
It has the advantages of detoxifying the Libs.GarethoftheVale2 said:The suggestion earlier that the LDs should merge into them was ridiculous.
If they are going to make progress again, they need to change leader and try and put out some olive branches to Brexit voters. And come up with some other policies.
It's a shame Lamb isn't leader.
The advantages the LDs do have over CHUK are:
- 12 seats, of which maybe 8 are reasonably safe
- Large numbers of councillors and activists
- Large numbers of members
- A place in the election debates
0 -
If there was an obvious candidate acceptable to 60%+ of the PCP, then yes.GIN1138 said:
Surely the 1922 will change the leadership rules tomorrow so the PCP can get rid of Theresa without it ever having to go to a national membership ballot?TGOHF said:
But there isn't. A large number of Conservative MPs are terrified of it being Boris. (And that includes, by the way, a whole bunch of Leavers.) And other than Boris, no one has thrown their hat into the ring at least partially because they don't actually want to deal with the messy business of compromise. The issue continues to be that the pretenders want the throne AFTER Brexit, not now.
Gove would be the ideal compromise candidate, in theory.
Only he believes in the WA.
So: here's the question.
If the ERG won't vote for the WA, and nor will Mr Grieve, and the Labour Party would rather watch the Conservatives tear themselves apart...
Then how does does this get resolved?0 -
WA plus CU in the PD eventually most likely, which remains the closest Brexit option to a majority in the Commons as the indicative votes showed and which May would likely accept then bow out shortly afterrcs1000 said:
If there was an obvious candidate acceptable to 60%+ of the PCP, then yes.GIN1138 said:
Surely the 1922 will change the leadership rules tomorrow so the PCP can get rid of Theresa without it ever having to go to a national membership ballot?TGOHF said:
But there isn't. A large number of Conservative MPs are terrified of it being Boris. (And that includes, by the way, a whole bunch of Leavers.) And other than Boris, no one has thrown their hat into the ring at least partially because they don't actually want to deal with the messy business of compromise. The issue continues to be that the pretenders want the throne AFTER Brexit, not now.
Gove would be the ideal compromise candidate, in theory.
Only he believes in the WA.
So: here's the question.
If the ERG won't vote for the WA, and nor will Mr Grieve, and the Labour Party would rather watch the Conservatives tear themselves apart...
Then how does does this get resolved?0 -
If the Remainers all vote for one party and the Leavers split into two parties then the fact that most Labour voters are Remainers is of a lot of use in winning the seat.HYUFD said:
The fact most Labour voters are Remainers is of little use in winning a seat where most voters are Leavers if we are still in the EU at the next general election and those Leavers use that vote to protest. In that case they may well vote Brexit Party, especially if the Tories are not led by a hard Brexiteer at that stage.
I would have thought Scotland 2015 would have been a clear lesson to Labour MPs not to take their voters for granted and the dangers of insurgent parties if the voters are in an anti establishment mood
The other angle to this is that IIUC Labour Leave voters tend to be less single-mindedly focused on Brexit than Tory ones, so they have a reasonable hope of losing fewer leavers to Farage than Con does if Brexit remains betreacled.0 -
Except they won't, if we are still in the EU by the next general election the Leavers in all parties will surge to the Brexit Party and Remainers will split between Labour, the LDs and the Tories with the likely result PM Farage.edmundintokyo said:
If the Remainers all vote for one party and the Leavers split into two parties then the fact that most Labour voters are Remainers is of a lot of use in winning the seat.HYUFD said:
The fact most Labour voters are Remainers is of little use in winning a seat where most voters are Leavers if we are still in the EU at the next general election and those Leavers use that vote to protest. In that case they may well vote Brexit Party, especially if the Tories are not led by a hard Brexiteer at that stage.
I would have thought Scotland 2015 would have been a clear lesson to Labour MPs not to take their voters for granted and the dangers of insurgent parties if the voters are in an anti establishment mood
The other angle to this is that IIUC Labour Leave voters tend to be less single-mindedly focused on Brexit than Tory ones, so they have a reasonable hope of losing fewer leavers to Farage than Con does if Brexit remains betreacled.
Much as in 2015 Nationalists all went SNP and Unionists split between Labour, the LDs and the Tories and the SNP swept the board0 -
No comments on the Toby Young tweet? I think he makes a pretty good point.0
-
If you think Brexit is that salient to people who voted Leave of all parties that they'll all virtually desert the party they've voted for to date, why are Brexit and UKIP combined polling under 20% now? Even in the Euro election polling they're under 30%, and that's a pure free hit, about Europe, with no need to worry about anything except sending a message about Brexit.HYUFD said:
Except they won't, if we are still in the EU by the next general election the Leavers in all parties will surge to the Brexit Party and Remainers will split between Labour, the LDs and the Tories with the likely result PM Farage.
Much as in 2015 Nationalists all went SNP and Unionists split between Labour, the LDs and the Tories and the SNP swept the board0 -
Those who wish to look at the link that @thecommissioner is referring to can find it here:thecommissioner said:The EU is likely to have a different balance to it at the end of May, irrespective of how we vote.
The centre right EPP is forecast to be the biggest party by Europe Elects with a total of 177 MEPs. The three eurosceptic reform, freedom of nations and direct democracy groups are forecast to have 166 between them.
However, those figures allow for Orban's Hungarian dozen to sit within the EPP, whereas they appear to be ideologically aligned to one of the latter groups. That is substantial drift from the 2014 europhile right to a 2019 eurosceptic one.
Those figures are also based on non participation by the UK.
As the UK right does not sit in the EPP it's probable that an election would send 30-40 Tory/Brexit Party MEPs into the reform, freedom and democracy grouping. This would be at the combined expense of countries gaining from the Brexit seat redistribution (Spain and France gain most) and the German led EPP on the right.
If the eurosceptics outnumber the europhile right, where does that leave the EPP on 27th May?
http://archive.is/Jo9RS or https://europeelects.eu/ep2019/
SCENARIO 0: CURRENT PREDICTION:
======================
GUE/NGL 55 +3
G/EFA___ 46 -4
S&D_____ 135 -56
ALDE____ 105 +38
EPP______ 177 -44
ECR______ 64 -6
EFDD_____40 -8
ENF______ 62 +25
NI________12 -3
Unaffiliated 11
It also goes thru four predictions:
https://europeelects.eu/2019/01/30/four-scenarios-for-the-european-election/
SCENARIO 1: PARTIES STAY IN THEIR EXISTING GROUPS
==================================
GUE/NGL 56 +4
G/EFA 47 -3
S&D 129 -62
ALDE 98 +31
EPP 177 -44
ECR 62 -8
EFDD 46 -2
ENF 62 +25
NI 12 -3
Unaffiliated 16
Scenario 2: EFDD breaks apart and affiliates with existing groups
========================================
GUE/NGL 56 +4
G/EFA 47 -3
S&D 129 -62
ALDE 98 +31
EPP 177 -44
ECR 93 +23
ENF 77 +40
NI 12 -3
Unaffiliated 16
Scenario 3: A United Right
================
GUE/NGL 56 +4
G/EFA 47 -3
S&D 129 -62
ALDE 98 +31
EPP 191 -30
United Right new +132
NI 12 -3
Unaffiliated 40
Scenario 4: Five Star form their own group
==========================
No breakdown provided
As pointed out above, each scenario assumes UK not included.
Runners and riders
============
GUE/NGL: deep greens/communists
G/EFA: greens and separatists (well, subnational identities, whatevs)
S&D: socialists (mostly)
ALDE: the Libs
EPP: Christian Democrats
ECR: Conservatives & Reformists: equivalent to UK Conservatives
EFDD: eurosceptics/Faragists
ENF: what we'd call the nationalist right, similar to the old BNP
United Right: a possible new group from ECR, EFDD, ENF0 -
What facts did she get wrong? (I ask because I missed it)AndyJS said:No comments on the Toby Young tweet? I think he makes a pretty good point.
0 -
So I take it he is right, if they can’t actually argue the point and instead are relying on name calling and abuse?Streeter said:0 -
O/T, a question for all PB'ers. I seem to remember there were concerns raised about Ladbrokes' online accounts where historic bets were being erased and Ladbrokes were denying there was a problem. Does anyone know (a) whether this problem still exists and (b) if it does, what should I do? I have a number of historic bets with them (mainly on next PM / Conservative leader)?
Apologies / thanks in advance if I do not answer straight away to anyone who answers - I am in LA at the moment and can only log in when I am at the home computer at my in-laws' home.0 -
Josephine Ellis sounds like a nice person doesn't she.0
-
I can't see the M5S joining "The United Right", what with them being Corbynites at heart.viewcode said:Those who wish to look at the link that @thecommissioner is referring to can find it here:
http://archive.is/Jo9RS or https://europeelects.eu/ep2019/
SCENARIO 0: CURRENT PREDICTION:
======================
GUE/NGL 55 +3
G/EFA___ 46 -4
S&D_____ 135 -56
ALDE____ 105 +38
EPP______ 177 -44
ECR______ 64 -6
EFDD_____40 -8
ENF______ 62 +25
NI________12 -3
Unaffiliated 11
It also goes thru four predictions:
https://europeelects.eu/2019/01/30/four-scenarios-for-the-european-election/
SCENARIO 1: PARTIES STAY IN THEIR EXISTING GROUPS
==================================
GUE/NGL 56 +4
G/EFA 47 -3
S&D 129 -62
ALDE 98 +31
EPP 177 -44
ECR 62 -8
EFDD 46 -2
ENF 62 +25
NI 12 -3
Unaffiliated 16
Scenario 2: EFDD breaks apart and affiliates with existing groups
========================================
GUE/NGL 56 +4
G/EFA 47 -3
S&D 129 -62
ALDE 98 +31
EPP 177 -44
ECR 93 +23
ENF 77 +40
NI 12 -3
Unaffiliated 16
Scenario 3: A United Right
================
GUE/NGL 56 +4
G/EFA 47 -3
S&D 129 -62
ALDE 98 +31
EPP 191 -30
United Right new +132
NI 12 -3
Unaffiliated 40
Scenario 4: Five Star form their own group
==========================
No breakdown provided
As pointed out above, each scenario assumes UK not included.
Runners and riders
============
GUE/NGL: deep greens/communists
G/EFA: greens and separatists (well, subnational identities, whatevs)
S&D: socialists (mostly)
ALDE: the Libs
EPP: Christian Democrats
ECR: Conservatives & Reformists: equivalent to UK Conservatives
EFDD: eurosceptics/Faragists
ENF: what we'd call the nationalist right, similar to the old BNP
United Right: a possible new group from ECR, EFDD, ENF0 -
Also, the ECR parties tend to hate the ENF parties - and they "need" the ENF so as to make the case that they're moderate parties.rcs1000 said:
I can't see the M5S joining "The United Right", what with them being Corbynites at heart.viewcode said:Those who wish to look at the link that @thecommissioner is referring to can find it here:
http://archive.is/Jo9RS or https://europeelects.eu/ep2019/
SCENARIO 0: CURRENT PREDICTION:
======================
GUE/NGL 55 +3
G/EFA___ 46 -4
S&D_____ 135 -56
ALDE____ 105 +38
EPP______ 177 -44
ECR______ 64 -6
EFDD_____40 -8
ENF______ 62 +25
NI________12 -3
Unaffiliated 11
It also goes thru four predictions:
https://europeelects.eu/2019/01/30/four-scenarios-for-the-european-election/
SCENARIO 1: PARTIES STAY IN THEIR EXISTING GROUPS
==================================
GUE/NGL 56 +4
G/EFA 47 -3
S&D 129 -62
ALDE 98 +31
EPP 177 -44
ECR 62 -8
EFDD 46 -2
ENF 62 +25
NI 12 -3
Unaffiliated 16
Scenario 2: EFDD breaks apart and affiliates with existing groups
========================================
GUE/NGL 56 +4
G/EFA 47 -3
S&D 129 -62
ALDE 98 +31
EPP 177 -44
ECR 93 +23
ENF 77 +40
NI 12 -3
Unaffiliated 16
Scenario 3: A United Right
================
GUE/NGL 56 +4
G/EFA 47 -3
S&D 129 -62
ALDE 98 +31
EPP 191 -30
United Right new +132
NI 12 -3
Unaffiliated 40
Scenario 4: Five Star form their own group
==========================
No breakdown provided
As pointed out above, each scenario assumes UK not included.
Runners and riders
============
GUE/NGL: deep greens/communists
G/EFA: greens and separatists (well, subnational identities, whatevs)
S&D: socialists (mostly)
ALDE: the Libs
EPP: Christian Democrats
ECR: Conservatives & Reformists: equivalent to UK Conservatives
EFDD: eurosceptics/Faragists
ENF: what we'd call the nationalist right, similar to the old BNP
United Right: a possible new group from ECR, EFDD, ENF
If you "united" the Conservative Party with the BNP, you'd lose half their votes.0 -
O/T
Interview with author Bret Easton Ellis on the new puritanism and his book White.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rH4cAZjicrg0 -
I don't know but checking just now finds the bet history date range covers only 2019, even worse than the six months which iirc previously showed. However, under 'my bets' I can see open bets from this time last year.TheKitchenCabinet said:O/T, a question for all PB'ers. I seem to remember there were concerns raised about Ladbrokes' online accounts where historic bets were being erased and Ladbrokes were denying there was a problem. Does anyone know (a) whether this problem still exists and (b) if it does, what should I do? I have a number of historic bets with them (mainly on next PM / Conservative leader)?
Apologies / thanks in advance if I do not answer straight away to anyone who answers - I am in LA at the moment and can only log in when I am at the home computer at my in-laws' home.0 -
Toby Young is a horrible person, the fact the furthest she seemed to go was to call him an utter toerag worthy of contempt reflects well on her.AndyJS said:Josephine Ellis sounds like a nice person doesn't she.
0 -
If Toby made it, perhaps, given that this was in reply to his tweet.DecrepitJohnL said:0 -
As the electoral pressure (TBP) on the tory party increases and increases, the unacceptable becomes acceptable.rcs1000 said:
If there was an obvious candidate acceptable to 60%+ of the PCP, then yes.GIN1138 said:
Surely the 1922 will change the leadership rules tomorrow so the PCP can get rid of Theresa without it ever having to go to a national membership ballot?TGOHF said:
But there isn't. A large number of Conservative MPs are terrified of it being Boris. (And that includes, by the way, a whole bunch of Leavers.) And other than Boris, no one has thrown their hat into the ring at least partially because they don't actually want to deal with the messy business of compromise. The issue continues to be that the pretenders want the throne AFTER Brexit, not now.
Gove would be the ideal compromise candidate, in theory.
Only he believes in the WA.
So: here's the question.
If the ERG won't vote for the WA, and nor will Mr Grieve, and the Labour Party would rather watch the Conservatives tear themselves apart...
Then how does does this get resolved?
Broadly speaking, passing the WA into an Act requires Corbyn.(which many, including Hague, thinks isn't happening) or backstop deactivation.
Revocation surely sees a mass exodus of the tory voluntary party (and the tory residual polling rating) to the TBP and, under FPTP almost inevitably, PM Corbyn;
Managed NoDeal surely requires complete EU backstop obduracy plus Emergency Regulations to de-SI the '29thMarch' plus a Leaver PM plus terminally low poll ratings. Conceivably under the right PM it could unite much of the Leave vote behind the torys.
Oh, and it'll all take much longer than anyone thinks.
Should be interesting..
0 -
Toby Young was right, and he was making a good point. It doesn't matter if he's a horrible person: the reply demeans Ellis and the cause.TheJezziah said:
Toby Young is a horrible person, the fact the furthest she seemed to go was to call him an utter toerag worthy of contempt reflects well on her.AndyJS said:Josephine Ellis sounds like a nice person doesn't she.
0 -
Yes, it is not great for sure. Ladbrokes needs to up their game a bit.DecrepitJohnL said:
I don't know but checking just now finds the bet history date range covers only 2019, even worse than the six months which iirc previously showed. However, under 'my bets' I can see open bets from this time last year.TheKitchenCabinet said:O/T, a question for all PB'ers. I seem to remember there were concerns raised about Ladbrokes' online accounts where historic bets were being erased and Ladbrokes were denying there was a problem. Does anyone know (a) whether this problem still exists and (b) if it does, what should I do? I have a number of historic bets with them (mainly on next PM / Conservative leader)?
Apologies / thanks in advance if I do not answer straight away to anyone who answers - I am in LA at the moment and can only log in when I am at the home computer at my in-laws' home.0 -
Ah yes, we're back onto this old misogynists line. Can we just cut to the chase and start comparing breastfeeding to having a pee, as that's where this argument always ends up...JackJack said:
There is nothing at all misogynistic about the breastfeeding comments. My wife breastfed our kids and she would regularly do exactly what Farage suggested by finding a discreet place to do it. Most women are not right on activists that don't care about discretion at all. It's not like he was telling them they should go to the ladies. It was a manufactured outrage if ever I heard one.OblitusSumMe said:
Yes, Farage is two-faced in that he will tell one audience what it wants to hear and when other people complain about the misogyny, or the racism, he will then walk it back, claim to have had his words misconstrued and act the martyr when other people have the temerity to disagree with him.isam said:
OutrageousDanny565 said:
His comments about how women who breastfeed should "perhaps sit in the corner" were the worstTheuniondivvie said:I'd forgotten about his HIV bullshit. So much bile to keep tabs on.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/dec/05/nigel-farage-ukip-claridges-breastfeeding-mothers
“Let me get this clear, as I said on the radio and as I repeat now, I personally have no problem with mothers breastfeeding wherever they want”
Quite how he's managed to get away with the act repeatedly over the years is beyond me.
0 -
0
-
I quite admire Thunberg for having the strength to stand up for what she believes, and for entering the bear-pit. However she's wrong on that point. Should we allow incorrect statements by a campaigner pass just because she is young?Nigelb said:
Fact checking teenagers his new job ?AndyJS said:
No. We should correct those statements, politely. As Young did.
She has put herself into a position where she should know (and hopefully be advised) that she would get challenged - both wrongly and rightly. And it is important for democracy that that happens.0 -
Welcome to twitter outrage, a great example of why civilised debate is at risk of dying out in the modern era.JosiasJessop said:
I quite admire Thunberg for having the strength to stand up for what she believes, and for entering the bear-pit. However she's wrong on that point. Should we allow incorrect statements by a campaigner pass just because she is young?Nigelb said:
Fact checking teenagers his new job ?AndyJS said:
No. We should correct those statements, politely. As Young did.
She has put herself into a position where she should know (and hopefully be advised) that she would get challenged - both wrongly and rightly. And it is important for democracy that that happens.0 -
I don’t think her entirely wrong in the point.JosiasJessop said:
I quite admire Thunberg for having the strength to stand up for what she believes, and for entering the bear-pit. However she's wrong on that point. Should we allow incorrect statements by a campaigner pass just because she is young?Nigelb said:
Fact checking teenagers his new job ?AndyJS said:
No. We should correct those statements, politely. As Young did.
She has put herself into a position where she should know (and hopefully be advised) that she would get challenged - both wrongly and rightly. And it is important for democracy that that happens.
If one accepts (and I’ll grant that there is hardly universal agreement on the point, though most climate scientists would be in accord) that we need to be at zero carbon emissions by 2050, then to say that the UK has done “nothing” is only mild hyperbole.
That other countries are even worse doesn’t invalidate it.
And it’s not as though hyperbole is something TY is unfamiliar with.
And again, that said, TY was entirely entitled to make the point, though his adoption of the persona of US style right wing provocateur understandably grates on a few.
0 -
Doing nothing implies that carbon emissions have not decreased whatsoever. That is not what has happened.Nigelb said:
I don’t think her entirely wrong in the point.JosiasJessop said:
I quite admire Thunberg for having the strength to stand up for what she believes, and for entering the bear-pit. However she's wrong on that point. Should we allow incorrect statements by a campaigner pass just because she is young?Nigelb said:
Fact checking teenagers his new job ?AndyJS said:
No. We should correct those statements, politely. As Young did.
She has put herself into a position where she should know (and hopefully be advised) that she would get challenged - both wrongly and rightly. And it is important for democracy that that happens.
If one accepts (and I’ll grant that there is hardly universal agreement on the point, though most climate scientists would be in accord) that we need to be at zero carbon emissions by 2050, then to say that the UK has done “nothing” is only mild hyperbole.
That other countries are even worse doesn’t invalidate it.
And it’s not as though hyperbole is something TY is unfamiliar with.0 -
That will be the obvious only way out with the big flashing arrow above it that reads “it’s a trap”?Benpointer said:
It's so obviously the only way out for the government. How long will it take them to realise?edmundintokyo said:
Whip for deal+referendum. It'll hurt but it's better than bleeding to death.kle4 said:
Theres nothing they can do. Baker et al and the DUP mean the WA wont pass. The EU would surely have bent on the backstop by now if they were going to. The members would love no deal but it costs the government its slender majority. Labour can provide the votes but they think power could be theirs, or remain, so have no incentive. Accepting a CU or referendum also splits them .williamglenn said:
The ministerial frustration is understandable but a fix is not within them. Not without a formal split.0 -
It is wrong, and this matters. It's not 'mild hyperbole'; we have had decades of legislation to improve the environment, from the clean air acts to the EU's large plant directive. We have just had the (longest?) period without any coal power generation in the UK. Solar and wind farms now enrich/scar (delete as applicable) our landscape.Nigelb said:
I don’t think her entirely wrong in the point.JosiasJessop said:
I quite admire Thunberg for having the strength to stand up for what she believes, and for entering the bear-pit. However she's wrong on that point. Should we allow incorrect statements by a campaigner pass just because she is young?Nigelb said:
Fact checking teenagers his new job ?AndyJS said:
No. We should correct those statements, politely. As Young did.
She has put herself into a position where she should know (and hopefully be advised) that she would get challenged - both wrongly and rightly. And it is important for democracy that that happens.
If one accepts (and I’ll grant that there is hardly universal agreement on the point, though most climate scientists would be in accord) that we need to be at zero carbon emissions by 2050, then to say that the UK has done “nothing” is only mild hyperbole.
That other countries are even worse doesn’t invalidate it.
And it’s not as though hyperbole is something TY is unfamiliar with.
And again, that said, TY was entirely entitled to make the point, though his adoption of the persona of US style right wing provocateur understandably grates on a few.
We are doing a massive amount, and have come a long way. We might not be doing enough, but that's a different matter.0 -
Yup, the extreme right tends to stay splintered, because nobody wants to be associated with someone more fascist than themselves.rcs1000 said:
Also, the ECR parties tend to hate the ENF parties - and they "need" the ENF so as to make the case that they're moderate parties.
If you "united" the Conservative Party with the BNP, you'd lose half their votes.0 -
What's the trap?Charles said:
That will be the obvious only way out with the big flashing arrow above it that reads “it’s a trap”?
The party is now pretty united in favour of Leave, and if they win the referendum it's a victory for TMay, the Conservatives and Brexit, and a devastating slap in the face for remoaners.
If they lose there will be an irreconcilable bunch of anti-EU people who will never forgive them, but those people have mostly been voting UKIP for years, and they were definitely never going to stick around after all the inevitable concessions in the negotiations to come. They'd have the wind taken out of their sails and the Tories could get back to doing Tory things like cutting taxes and promoting business investment and screwing over people on benefits. That's not an ideal place to be but it's way better than where they are now, no?0 -
Doesn’t seem like a constructive contribution to the discussionStreeter said:0 -
No point in running the old argumentedmundintokyo said:
What's the trap?Charles said:
That will be the obvious only way out with the big flashing arrow above it that reads “it’s a trap”?
The party is now pretty united in favour of Leave, and if they win the referendum it's a victory for TMay, the Conservatives and Brexit, and a devastating slap in the face for remoaners.
If they lose there will be an irreconcilable bunch of anti-EU people who will never forgive them, but those people have mostly been voting UKIP for years, and they were definitely never going to stick around after all the inevitable concessions in the negotiations to come. They'd have the wind taken out of their sails and the Tories could get back to doing Tory things like cutting taxes and promoting business investment and screwing over people on benefits. That's not an ideal place to be but it's way better than where they are now, no?
A second referendum with a Remain option is an affront to democracy IMV. I assume you disagree.
0 -
No, we (and everyone else) need to be doing a massive amount. We’re doing a moderate amount.JosiasJessop said:
It is wrong, and this matters. It's not 'mild hyperbole'; we have had decades of legislation to improve the environment, from the clean air acts to the EU's large plant directive. We have just had the (longest?) period without any coal power generation in the UK. Solar and wind farms now enrich/scar (delete as applicable) our landscape.Nigelb said:
I don’t think her entirely wrong in the point.JosiasJessop said:
I quite admire Thunberg for having the strength to stand up for what she believes, and for entering the bear-pit. However she's wrong on that point. Should we allow incorrect statements by a campaigner pass just because she is young?Nigelb said:
Fact checking teenagers his new job ?AndyJS said:
No. We should correct those statements, politely. As Young did.
She has put herself into a position where she should know (and hopefully be advised) that she would get challenged - both wrongly and rightly. And it is important for democracy that that happens.
If one accepts (and I’ll grant that there is hardly universal agreement on the point, though most climate scientists would be in accord) that we need to be at zero carbon emissions by 2050, then to say that the UK has done “nothing” is only mild hyperbole.
That other countries are even worse doesn’t invalidate it.
And it’s not as though hyperbole is something TY is unfamiliar with.
And again, that said, TY was entirely entitled to make the point, though his adoption of the persona of US style right wing provocateur understandably grates on a few.
We are doing a massive amount, and have come a long way. We might not be doing enough, but that's a different matter.
A reminder:
https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2019/04/16/1904242116
0 -
And a referendum without a Remain option would also be an affront to democracy, especially as polling appears to show a clear remain lead. People are allowed to change their minds.Charles said:
No point in running the old argumentedmundintokyo said:
What's the trap?Charles said:
That will be the obvious only way out with the big flashing arrow above it that reads “it’s a trap”?
The party is now pretty united in favour of Leave, and if they win the referendum it's a victory for TMay, the Conservatives and Brexit, and a devastating slap in the face for remoaners.
If they lose there will be an irreconcilable bunch of anti-EU people who will never forgive them, but those people have mostly been voting UKIP for years, and they were definitely never going to stick around after all the inevitable concessions in the negotiations to come. They'd have the wind taken out of their sails and the Tories could get back to doing Tory things like cutting taxes and promoting business investment and screwing over people on benefits. That's not an ideal place to be but it's way better than where they are now, no?
A second referendum with a Remain option is an affront to democracy IMV. I assume you disagree.
I can't see a good way to hold a second referendum that would not make the situation worse, whatever the result.0 -
Whether so or not - and giving people the chance to take it or leave it, now they see it, is more democratic than having MPs decide - that is a different point from it being a trap, which was the original suggestion. All ways from here are bad for the Tories, and I don’t see that putting the matter back to the people from whence it came is worse than any other choice for them.Charles said:
No point in running the old argumentedmundintokyo said:
What's the trap?Charles said:
That will be the obvious only way out with the big flashing arrow above it that reads “it’s a trap”?
The party is now pretty united in favour of Leave, and if they win the referendum it's a victory for TMay, the Conservatives and Brexit, and a devastating slap in the face for remoaners.
If they lose there will be an irreconcilable bunch of anti-EU people who will never forgive them, but those people have mostly been voting UKIP for years, and they were definitely never going to stick around after all the inevitable concessions in the negotiations to come. They'd have the wind taken out of their sails and the Tories could get back to doing Tory things like cutting taxes and promoting business investment and screwing over people on benefits. That's not an ideal place to be but it's way better than where they are now, no?
A second referendum with a Remain option is an affront to democracy IMV. I assume you disagree.0 -
More or less irrelevant, anyway, as it’s highly unlikely there’d be a parliamentary majority for a referendum which did not include remain.IanB2 said:
Whether so or not - and giving people the chance to take it or leave it, now they see it, is more democratic than having MPs decide - that is a different point from it being a trap, which was the original suggestion. All ways from here are bad for the Tories, and I don’t see that putting the matter back to the people from whence it came is worse than any other choice for them.Charles said:
No point in running the old argumentedmundintokyo said:
What's the trap?Charles said:
That will be the obvious only way out with the big flashing arrow above it that reads “it’s a trap”?
The party is now pretty united in favour of Leave, and if they win the referendum it's a victory for TMay, the Conservatives and Brexit, and a devastating slap in the face for remoaners.
If they lose there will be an irreconcilable bunch of anti-EU people who will never forgive them, but those people have mostly been voting UKIP for years, and they were definitely never going to stick around after all the inevitable concessions in the negotiations to come. They'd have the wind taken out of their sails and the Tories could get back to doing Tory things like cutting taxes and promoting business investment and screwing over people on benefits. That's not an ideal place to be but it's way better than where they are now, no?
A second referendum with a Remain option is an affront to democracy IMV. I assume you disagree.
0 -
There's no need to run that argument because it's nothing to do with the point at issue, which is whether letting parliamentary remainers force a referendum on the government as the price for letting brexit through is a trap for the government.Charles said:
No point in running the old argumentedmundintokyo said:
What's the trap?Charles said:
That will be the obvious only way out with the big flashing arrow above it that reads “it’s a trap”?
The party is now pretty united in favour of Leave, and if they win the referendum it's a victory for TMay, the Conservatives and Brexit, and a devastating slap in the face for remoaners.
If they lose there will be an irreconcilable bunch of anti-EU people who will never forgive them, but those people have mostly been voting UKIP for years, and they were definitely never going to stick around after all the inevitable concessions in the negotiations to come. They'd have the wind taken out of their sails and the Tories could get back to doing Tory things like cutting taxes and promoting business investment and screwing over people on benefits. That's not an ideal place to be but it's way better than where they are now, no?
A second referendum with a Remain option is an affront to democracy IMV. I assume you disagree.0 -
James Joyce and the battle for the Democratic nomination:
https://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/the-politicians-who-love-ulysses0 -
Firstly, a 'moderate amount' is not nothing.Nigelb said:
No, we (and everyone else) need to be doing a massive amount. We’re doing a moderate amount.
A reminder:
https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2019/04/16/1904242116
"The finalised official statistics show Britain’s GHG in 2017 were 2.7% lower than in 2016 - and 42.1% lower than in 1990." (1)
Secondly, I'd argue the UK is doing far more than a moderate amount; especially if you take the other consequences of action into account. We could get zero emissions (more or less) by killing everyone in the country off. The consequences of that are (ahem) somewhat severe. So it comes down to what we can do and how much we are willing to change our lifestyles and risk things like employment that, for some reason, also matter to people.
Thirdly, our effects on the climate are relatively small compared to that of the other major countries. We could get to zero emissions and it would have little effect on the Greenland icesheets. We could perform a massively useful leadership role, though.
(1): https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-471213990 -
I agree. I think that the people pushing a second referendum mostly wish to stay and are looking for a do-over.JosiasJessop said:
And a referendum without a Remain option would also be an affront to democracy, especially as polling appears to show a clear remain lead. People are allowed to change their minds.Charles said:
No point in running the old argumentedmundintokyo said:
What's the trap?Charles said:
That will be the obvious only way out with the big flashing arrow above it that reads “it’s a trap”?
The party is now pretty united in favour of Leave, and if they win the referendum it's a victory for TMay, the Conservatives and Brexit, and a devastating slap in the face for remoaners.
If they lose there will be an irreconcilable bunch of anti-EU people who will never forgive them, but those people have mostly been voting UKIP for years, and they were definitely never going to stick around after all the inevitable concessions in the negotiations to come. They'd have the wind taken out of their sails and the Tories could get back to doing Tory things like cutting taxes and promoting business investment and screwing over people on benefits. That's not an ideal place to be but it's way better than where they are now, no?
A second referendum with a Remain option is an affront to democracy IMV. I assume you disagree.
I can't see a good way to hold a second referendum that would not make the situation worse, whatever the result.
It would reward their poor behaviour over the last 3 years.
The voters instructed the executive to leave. The executive has come up with a plan. Parliament should allow that to be implemented or - as is their right - withdraw their confidence from the government.0 -
It’s designed to force the Tories to ignore the referendum (or to be perceived as doing so).IanB2 said:
Whether so or not - and giving people the chance to take it or leave it, now they see it, is more democratic than having MPs decide - that is a different point from it being a trap, which was the original suggestion. All ways from here are bad for the Tories, and I don’t see that putting the matter back to the people from whence it came is worse than any other choice for them.Charles said:
No point in running the old argumentedmundintokyo said:
What's the trap?Charles said:
That will be the obvious only way out with the big flashing arrow above it that reads “it’s a trap”?
The party is now pretty united in favour of Leave, and if they win the referendum it's a victory for TMay, the Conservatives and Brexit, and a devastating slap in the face for remoaners.
If they lose there will be an irreconcilable bunch of anti-EU people who will never forgive them, but those people have mostly been voting UKIP for years, and they were definitely never going to stick around after all the inevitable concessions in the negotiations to come. They'd have the wind taken out of their sails and the Tories could get back to doing Tory things like cutting taxes and promoting business investment and screwing over people on benefits. That's not an ideal place to be but it's way better than where they are now, no?
A second referendum with a Remain option is an affront to democracy IMV. I assume you disagree.0 -
If Remain wins the Tories will be blamed for failing to deliver Brexit and be destroyededmundintokyo said:
There's no need to run that argument because it's nothing to do with the point at issue, which is whether letting parliamentary remainers force a referendum on the government as the price for letting brexit through is a trap for the government.Charles said:
No point in running the old argumentedmundintokyo said:
What's the trap?Charles said:
That will be the obvious only way out with the big flashing arrow above it that reads “it’s a trap”?
The party is now pretty united in favour of Leave, and if they win the referendum it's a victory for TMay, the Conservatives and Brexit, and a devastating slap in the face for remoaners.
If they lose there will be an irreconcilable bunch of anti-EU people who will never forgive them, but those people have mostly been voting UKIP for years, and they were definitely never going to stick around after all the inevitable concessions in the negotiations to come. They'd have the wind taken out of their sails and the Tories could get back to doing Tory things like cutting taxes and promoting business investment and screwing over people on benefits. That's not an ideal place to be but it's way better than where they are now, no?
A second referendum with a Remain option is an affront to democracy IMV. I assume you disagree.
If Brexit wins the Tories will be blamed for a divisive campaign
Either way the Tories will have abandoned a fundamental point of principal0 -
May attempts indicative votes after labour talks collapse (what are they discussing that could not be done in an hour?), some MPs jump ship to Brexit party, government falls, GE, Labour go for referendum, alliance of that wins, remain win .rcs1000 said:
If there was an obvious candidate acceptable to 60%+ of the PCP, then yes.GIN1138 said:
Surely the 1922 will change the leadership rules tomorrow so the PCP can get rid of Theresa without it ever having to go to a national membership ballot?TGOHF said:
But there isn't. A large number of Conservative MPs are terrified of it being Boris. (And that includes, by the way, a whole bunch of Leavers.) And other than Boris, no one has thrown their hat into the ring at least partially because they don't actually want to deal with the messy business of compromise. The issue continues to be that the pretenders want the throne AFTER Brexit, not now.
Gove would be the ideal compromise candidate, in theory.
Only he believes in the WA.
So: here's the question.
If the ERG won't vote for the WA, and nor will Mr Grieve, and the Labour Party would rather watch the Conservatives tear themselves apart...
Then how does does this get resolved?0 -
That is a very good observation.Wulfrun_Phil said:
Agreed. Certainly the LDs have made very clear that they are appealing only to the votes of the 48% who voted for Remain. But on top of that, the majority of that 48% are people on the left who remember the fact that they facilitated 5 years of extreme austerity under Cameron and Osborne as well as the high tuition fees that a lot are now repaying. That toxicity may be wearing off a bit but it will take a decade to get it out of the system.kle4 said:
Bit of both maybe. People still bring up tuition fees and the like, and they seem keen to repudiate their time in power and alienate anyone who did still vote for them back then like me. But also they do seem to have nothing of interest except Brexit. Didn't Lamb lament that fact recently?GarethoftheVale2 said:
Are the LDs still that toxic from the coalition? Personally, I think their problems are that they have given yup trying to appeal to the 52% of the country who voted for Brexit, and that their last 2 leaders have been poor.viewcode said:
It has the advantages of detoxifying the Libs.GarethoftheVale2 said:The suggestion earlier that the LDs should merge into them was ridiculous.
At best I think that around 20% of the electorate* both like the EU and were reasonably content with the direction of the 2010-15 Government. The LDs are in a good position to compete for their vote. For the other 80%, they are in a very poor position to compete. Just to make matters worse, Change UK are also fishing in the same pool.
Compare and contrast with the 1980s, 1990s and 2000s, when the LDs very cleverly did not defined themselves and so could simultaneously appeal to left and right, whilst being the only 3rd party show in town.
*20% of the electorate, but 60%+ of PBers and 80%+ of PB thread authors.0 -
All seems very reasonable. Its never a good thing if people dismiss an incorrect or misleading point because they like the general point being made. If the facts speak in support of the point all the more reason there is no need to mislead and no harm in correcting a genuine mistake.JosiasJessop said:
I quite admire Thunberg for having the strength to stand up for what she believes, and for entering the bear-pit. However she's wrong on that point. Should we allow incorrect statements by a campaigner pass just because she is young?Nigelb said:
Fact checking teenagers his new job ?AndyJS said:
No. We should correct those statements, politely. As Young did.
She has put herself into a position where she should know (and hopefully be advised) that she would get challenged - both wrongly and rightly. And it is important for democracy that that happens.0 -
Alastair Meeks writes, “The party leader is chosen by a committee that is appointed by Nigel Farage. The party supporters get no say. Party democracy is evidently something that Nigel Farage has no time for.”
One wonders if this is such a bad thing if his supporters are the usual spittle-flecked Muslim-baiters, white-England nostalgists, the past is a better country geriatrics and simpletons that he seems most comfortable with.0 -
America's energy use is going up and up. Because news on climate related activity is so globalised, and in globalised news the actions of the US are first, 2nd fresh air with China and the EU in a photo for third... And if the US isn't doing much the rest of the west, particularly us, gets tarred with the ''nothing' brush.JosiasJessop said:
Firstly, a 'moderate amount' is not nothing.Nigelb said:
No, we (and everyone else) need to be doing a massive amount. We’re doing a moderate amount.
A reminder:
https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2019/04/16/1904242116
"The finalised official statistics show Britain’s GHG in 2017 were 2.7% lower than in 2016 - and 42.1% lower than in 1990." (1)
Secondly, I'd argue the UK is doing far more than a moderate amount; especially if you take the other consequences of action into account. We could get zero emissions (more or less) by killing everyone in the country off. The consequences of that are (ahem) somewhat severe. So it comes down to what we can do and how much we are willing to change our lifestyles and risk things like employment that, for some reason, also matter to people.
Thirdly, our effects on the climate are relatively small compared to that of the other major countries. We could get to zero emissions and it would have little effect on the Greenland icesheets. We could perform a massively useful leadership role, though.
(1): https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-471213990 -
Except the referendum was non-binding, and what the voters instructed the executive to do was exceptionally vague: thanks to the central lie at the heart of the leave campaigns.Charles said:
I agree. I think that the people pushing a second referendum mostly wish to stay and are looking for a do-over.JosiasJessop said:
And a referendum without a Remain option would also be an affront to democracy, especially as polling appears to show a clear remain lead. People are allowed to change their minds.Charles said:
No point in running the old argumentedmundintokyo said:
What's the trap?Charles said:
That will be the obvious only way out with the big flashing arrow above it that reads “it’s a trap”?
The party is now pretty united in favour of Leave, and if they win the referendum it's a victory for TMay, the Conservatives and Brexit, and a devastating slap in the face for remoaners.
If they lose there will be an irreconcilable bunch of anti-EU people who will never forgive them, but those people have mostly been voting UKIP for years, and they were definitely never going to stick around after all the inevitable concessions in the negotiations to come. They'd have the wind taken out of their sails and the Tories could get back to doing Tory things like cutting taxes and promoting business investment and screwing over people on benefits. That's not an ideal place to be but it's way better than where they are now, no?
A second referendum with a Remain option is an affront to democracy IMV. I assume you disagree.
I can't see a good way to hold a second referendum that would not make the situation worse, whatever the result.
It would reward their poor behaviour over the last 3 years.
The voters instructed the executive to leave. The executive has come up with a plan. Parliament should allow that to be implemented or - as is their right - withdraw their confidence from the government.0 -
Off-topic:
Over Easter I took my son to Ely Cathedral. Whilst there we talked about Easter, and he said: "It's where Jesus dies to give children chocolate."
Which he then extended into a dissertation on the nature of Jesus' relationship with the Easter Bunny.
I must admit that if he formed that into a religion, I'd probably be a follower... 0 -
Easter bunnies, I understand. How does he explain penguins on Christmas cards?JosiasJessop said:Off-topic:
Over Easter I took my son to Ely Cathedral. Whilst there we talked about Easter, and he said: "It's where Jesus dies to give children chocolate."
Which he then extended into a dissertation on the nature of Jesus' relationship with the Easter Bunny.
I must admit that if he formed that into a religion, I'd probably be a follower...0 -
That's a fair comment.Pulpstar said:
America's energy use is going up and up. Because news on climate related activity is so globalised, and in globalised news the actions of the US are first, 2nd fresh air with China and the EU in a photo for third... And if the US isn't doing much the rest of the west, particularly us, gets tarred with the ''nothing' brush.JosiasJessop said:
Firstly, a 'moderate amount' is not nothing.Nigelb said:
No, we (and everyone else) need to be doing a massive amount. We’re doing a moderate amount.
A reminder:
https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2019/04/16/1904242116
"The finalised official statistics show Britain’s GHG in 2017 were 2.7% lower than in 2016 - and 42.1% lower than in 1990." (1)
Secondly, I'd argue the UK is doing far more than a moderate amount; especially if you take the other consequences of action into account. We could get zero emissions (more or less) by killing everyone in the country off. The consequences of that are (ahem) somewhat severe. So it comes down to what we can do and how much we are willing to change our lifestyles and risk things like employment that, for some reason, also matter to people.
Thirdly, our effects on the climate are relatively small compared to that of the other major countries. We could get to zero emissions and it would have little effect on the Greenland icesheets. We could perform a massively useful leadership role, though.
(1): https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-47121399
Which is why it's important for these protesters to congratulate/commend countries and organisations that are doing the right thing, even whilst encouraging them to do more.
Although I'd say there's a certain naive hatred of 'big industry/business' going on with many of these protesters as well. Witness an ex-colleague who cries about the evils of big business whilst working for a company whose sole income comes from some big-name big businesses. But those businesses are different because, well, reasons ...0 -
I think too, there's a kind of romanticised view of what life was like in the pre-industrial world.JosiasJessop said:
That's a fair comment.Pulpstar said:
America's energy use is going up and up. Because news on climate related activity is so globalised, and in globalised news the actions of the US are first, 2nd fresh air with China and the EU in a photo for third... And if the US isn't doing much the rest of the west, particularly us, gets tarred with the ''nothing' brush.JosiasJessop said:
Firstly, a 'moderate amount' is not nothing.Nigelb said:
No, we (and everyone else) need to be doing a massive amount. We’re doing a moderate amount.
A reminder:
https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2019/04/16/1904242116
"The finalised official statistics show Britain’s GHG in 2017 were 2.7% lower than in 2016 - and 42.1% lower than in 1990." (1)
Secondly, I'd argue the UK is doing far more than a moderate amount; especially if you take the other consequences of action into account. We could get zero emissions (more or less) by killing everyone in the country off. The consequences of that are (ahem) somewhat severe. So it comes down to what we can do and how much we are willing to change our lifestyles and risk things like employment that, for some reason, also matter to people.
Thirdly, our effects on the climate are relatively small compared to that of the other major countries. We could get to zero emissions and it would have little effect on the Greenland icesheets. We could perform a massively useful leadership role, though.
(1): https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-47121399
Which is why it's important for these protesters to congratulate/commend countries and organisations that are doing the right thing, even whilst encouraging them to do more.
Although I'd say there's a certain naive hatred of 'big industry/business' going on with many of these protesters as well. Witness an ex-colleague who cries about the evils of big business whilst working for a company whose sole income comes from some big-name big businesses. But those businesses are different because, well, reasons ...0 -
He's got some brass to make a comeback https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0JrlKcoD1Qw0
-
Good morning, everyone.
Just seen the top story on the BBC news site (Five Eyes/Huawei). Looks increasingly bizarre the UK ever went for Huawei. Why jeopardise the Five Eyes arrangement when there are other telecoms technology firms available?0 -
We disagree on both those points.JosiasJessop said:
Except the referendum was non-binding, and what the voters instructed the executive to do was exceptionally vague: thanks to the central lie at the heart of the leave campaigns.Charles said:
I agree. I think that the people pushing a second referendum mostly wish to stay and are looking for a do-over.JosiasJessop said:
And a referendum without a Remain option would also be an affront to democracy, especially as polling appears to show a clear remain lead. People are allowed to change their minds.Charles said:
No point in running the old argumentedmundintokyo said:
What's the trap?Charles said:
That will be the obvious only way out with the big flashing arrow above it that reads “it’s a trap”?
The party is now pretty united in favour of Leave, and if they win the referendum it's a victory for TMay, the Conservatives and Brexit, and a devastating slap in the face for remoaners.
If they lose there will be an irreconcilable bunch of anti-EU people who will never forgive them, but those people have mostly been voting UKIP for years, and they were definitely never going to stick around after all the inevitable concessions in the negotiations to come. They'd have the wind taken out of their sails and the Tories could get back to doing Tory things like cutting taxes and promoting business investment and screwing over people on benefits. That's not an ideal place to be but it's way better than where they are now, no?
A second referendum with a Remain option is an affront to democracy IMV. I assume you disagree.
I can't see a good way to hold a second referendum that would not make the situation worse, whatever the result.
It would reward their poor behaviour over the last 3 years.
The voters instructed the executive to leave. The executive has come up with a plan. Parliament should allow that to be implemented or - as is their right - withdraw their confidence from the government.
The only instruction the voters gave the Executive was to leave the EU. Everything else is construction and assumption. Any deal (or no deal) which involves us leaving the EU satisfies that condition.
In terms of the referendum being binding legally it is not. However politically it is close to it (we can see there would be a high cost to overturning the result) and morally (can’t think of a better word at 7am) it should be - by that I mean politicians referred a difficult question to the electorate, the PM at the time pledged that the result would be implemented, the voters took it seriously and voted in record numbers. To ignore that fact pattern on a technicality would be a huge “fuck you” to the notion of democracy0 -
My aunt consults got charities. She was doing a long seminar fir the WWF and was tired and hungry by mid afternoon. Someone has helpfully put out a plate of her favourite biscuits. Said she: “great! I could murder a penguin”DecrepitJohnL said:
Easter bunnies, I understand. How does he explain penguins on Christmas cards?JosiasJessop said:Off-topic:
Over Easter I took my son to Ely Cathedral. Whilst there we talked about Easter, and he said: "It's where Jesus dies to give children chocolate."
Which he then extended into a dissertation on the nature of Jesus' relationship with the Easter Bunny.
I must admit that if he formed that into a religion, I'd probably be a follower...
You can imagine how that went down...0 -
I see Ann Widdecombe will be running for the Brexit Party.0
-
It was great 😆Sean_F said:
I think too, there's a kind of romanticised view of what life was like in the pre-industrial world.JosiasJessop said:
That's a fair comment.Pulpstar said:
America's energy use is going up and up. Because news on climate related activity is so globalised, and in globalised news the actions of the US are first, 2nd fresh air with China and the EU in a photo for third... And if the US isn't doing much the rest of the west, particularly us, gets tarred with the ''nothing' brush.JosiasJessop said:
Firstly, a 'moderate amount' is not nothing.Nigelb said:
No, we (and everyone else) need to be doing a massive amount. We’re doing a moderate amount.
A reminder:
https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2019/04/16/1904242116
"The finalised official statistics show Britain’s GHG in 2017 were 2.7% lower than in 2016 - and 42.1% lower than in 1990." (1)
Secondly, I'd argue the UK is doing far more than a moderate amount; especially if you take the other consequences of action into account. We could get zero emissions (more or less) by killing everyone in the country off. The consequences of that are (ahem) somewhat severe. So it comes down to what we can do and how much we are willing to change our lifestyles and risk things like employment that, for some reason, also matter to people.
Thirdly, our effects on the climate are relatively small compared to that of the other major countries. We could get to zero emissions and it would have little effect on the Greenland icesheets. We could perform a massively useful leadership role, though.
(1): https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-47121399
Which is why it's important for these protesters to congratulate/commend countries and organisations that are doing the right thing, even whilst encouraging them to do more.
Although I'd say there's a certain naive hatred of 'big industry/business' going on with many of these protesters as well. Witness an ex-colleague who cries about the evils of big business whilst working for a company whose sole income comes from some big-name big businesses. But those businesses are different because, well, reasons ...0 -
That's not really true though.HYUFD said:If we are still in the EU by the time of the next general election and the Tories have not replaced May by a hard Brexiteer there is a clear chance of an SNP 2015 style wave for the Brexit Party and Farage ends up PM
The Nats rode a wave of Nationalism against Unionist opponents.
Brexit candidates will be up against Tories, who are also pitching for the Little Englander vote
They could just end up splitting the vote in England and winning very little.0 -
https://mobile.twitter.com/helenmallam/status/1120929270279430144?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^tweetSean_F said:I see Ann Widdecombe will be running for the Brexit Party.
Nice to see that they are engaging with her arguments0 -
There are not many telecoms firms providing the scale and interoperability of Huawei at 5G. US firms in particular have been caught short by 5G, in the same way there were by the original mobile systems. Both were caused by a lack of strategy from the US government, and a belief in the markets that failed.Morris_Dancer said:Good morning, everyone.
Just seen the top story on the BBC news site (Five Eyes/Huawei). Looks increasingly bizarre the UK ever went for Huawei. Why jeopardise the Five Eyes arrangement when there are other telecoms technology firms available?
People (including myself) routinely underestimate the scale and complexity of the systems and technology that underlie the modern Internet. They are massively complex, and AIUI Huawei are the only providers of all the equipment. It's a one-stop shop.
Interestingly, Huawei are opening a new large base not far from me, and a stones throw (*) from one place I used to work:
https://www.businessweekly.co.uk/news/property-and-construction/huawei-pays-£375m-550-acre-cambridge-site-develop-r-d-superhub
(*) For a trebuchet ...0 -
"Blamed for a divisive campaign" - I dunno, but doesn't that seem better than being totally paralysed, polling in the 20s, unable to get anything done yet alone Brexit, and just sitting around waiting for the next election when voters will put them out of their misery?Charles said:
If Remain wins the Tories will be blamed for failing to deliver Brexit and be destroyed
If Brexit wins the Tories will be blamed for a divisive campaign
Either way the Tories will have abandoned a fundamental point of principal
As for being "destroyed" for failing to deliver Brexit... they're failing to deliver Brexit now, so if it's going to not happen, isn't it better for the voters to make it not happen instead of their over-enthusiastic backbenchers and their feckless PM?0 -
-
0
-
But those are just mirrors of the implications for the Tories if they either end up revoking without a referendum, create chaos by crashing out without a deal, or somehow thrust their deal through against the wishes of the ultra Brexiters and many of their members.Charles said:
If Remain wins the Tories will be blamed for failing to deliver Brexit and be destroyededmundintokyo said:
There's no need to run that argument because it's nothing to do with the point at issue, which is whether letting parliamentary remainers force a referendum on the government as the price for letting brexit through is a trap for the government.Charles said:
No point in running the old argumentedmundintokyo said:
What's the trap?Charles said:
That will be the obvious only way out with the big flashing arrow above it that reads “it’s a trap”?
The party is now pretty united in favour of Leave, and if they win the referendum it's a victory for TMay, the Conservatives and Brexit, and a devastating slap in the face for remoaners.
If they lose there will be an irreconcilable bunch of anti-EU people who will never forgive them, but those people have mostly been voting UKIP for years, and they were definitely never going to stick around after all the inevitable concessions in the negotiations to come. They'd have the wind taken out of their sails and the Tories could get back to doing Tory things like cutting taxes and promoting business investment and screwing over people on benefits. That's not an ideal place to be but it's way better than where they are now, no?
A second referendum with a Remain option is an affront to democracy IMV. I assume you disagree.
If Brexit wins the Tories will be blamed for a divisive campaign
Either way the Tories will have abandoned a fundamental point of principal
As I said, any way forward needs to be assessed against the likely others; taking any single way forward and concluding that it is damaging doesn't help much, since they all are.
At least with a vote it would be down to the voters, not the politicians.0 -
Danny Boyle exemplified that in his opening to the 2012 Olympics.Sean_F said:
I think too, there's a kind of romanticised view of what life was like in the pre-industrial world.JosiasJessop said:
That's a fair comment.Pulpstar said:
America's energy use is going up and up. Because news on climate related activity is so globalised, and in globalised news the actions of the US are first, 2nd fresh air with China and the EU in a photo for third... And if the US isn't doing much the rest of the west, particularly us, gets tarred with the ''nothing' brush.JosiasJessop said:
Firstly, a 'moderate amount' is not nothing.Nigelb said:
No, we (and everyone else) need to be doing a massive amount. We’re doing a moderate amount.
A reminder:
https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2019/04/16/1904242116
"The finalised official statistics show Britain’s GHG in 2017 were 2.7% lower than in 2016 - and 42.1% lower than in 1990." (1)
Secondly, I'd argue the UK is doing far more than a moderate amount; especially if you take the other consequences of action into account. We could get zero emissions (more or less) by killing everyone in the country off. The consequences of that are (ahem) somewhat severe. So it comes down to what we can do and how much we are willing to change our lifestyles and risk things like employment that, for some reason, also matter to people.
Thirdly, our effects on the climate are relatively small compared to that of the other major countries. We could get to zero emissions and it would have little effect on the Greenland icesheets. We could perform a massively useful leadership role, though.
(1): https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-47121399
Which is why it's important for these protesters to congratulate/commend countries and organisations that are doing the right thing, even whilst encouraging them to do more.
Although I'd say there's a certain naive hatred of 'big industry/business' going on with many of these protesters as well. Witness an ex-colleague who cries about the evils of big business whilst working for a company whose sole income comes from some big-name big businesses. But those businesses are different because, well, reasons ...
For the majority of the population it was pretty ghastly, tempered only by very strong religious belief.0 -
Sean_F said:
I see Ann Widdecombe will be running for the Brexit Party.
Is she still going?0 -
No: the background information in that instruction were the campaigns, and they were very, very contradictory. As I pointed out before the referendum, it is impossible to follow the instruction of the electorate as the electorate instructed different things. And the ERG winnets show that I was correct.Charles said:We disagree on both those points.
The only instruction the voters gave the Executive was to leave the EU. Everything else is construction and assumption. Any deal (or no deal) which involves us leaving the EU satisfies that condition.
In terms of the referendum being binding legally it is not. However politically it is close to it (we can see there would be a high cost to overturning the result) and morally (can’t think of a better word at 7am) it should be - by that I mean politicians referred a difficult question to the electorate, the PM at the time pledged that the result would be implemented, the voters took it seriously and voted in record numbers. To ignore that fact pattern on a technicality would be a huge “fuck you” to the notion of democracy
"In terms of the referendum being binding legally it is not."
Then we are agreed. 0 -
Mr. Jessop, that's quite interesting, thanks for that post.
Although it seems even more bizarre that apparently the only firm ready is also the dodgiest one.0 -
The tempering of ghastly by religion didn’t work terribly well in places like Salem. Magnified if anything.Casino_Royale said:
Danny Boyle exemplified that in his opening to the 2012 Olympics.Sean_F said:
I think too, there's a kind of romanticised view of what life was like in the pre-industrial world.JosiasJessop said:
That's a fair comment.Pulpstar said:
America's energy use is going up and up. Because news on climate related activity is so globalised, and in globalised news the actions of the US are first, 2nd fresh air with China and the EU in a photo for third... And if the US isn't doing much the rest of the west, particularly us, gets tarred with the ''nothing' brush.JosiasJessop said:
Firstly, a 'moderate amount' is not nothing.Nigelb said:
No, we (and everyone else) need to be doing a massive amount. We’re doing a moderate amount.
A reminder:
https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2019/04/16/1904242116
"The finalised official statistics show Britain’s GHG in 2017 were 2.7% lower than in 2016 - and 42.1% lower than in 1990." (1)
Secondly, I'd argue the UK is doing far more than a moderate amount; especially if you take the other consequences of action into account. We could get zero emissions (more or less) by killing everyone in the country off. The consequences of that are (ahem) somewhat severe. So it comes down to what we can do and how much we are willing to change our lifestyles and risk things like employment that, for some reason, also matter to people.
Thirdly, our effects on the climate are relatively small compared to that of the other major countries. We could get to zero emissions and it would have little effect on the Greenland icesheets. We could perform a massively useful leadership role, though.
(1): https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-47121399
Which is why it's important for these protesters to congratulate/commend countries and organisations that are doing the right thing, even whilst encouraging them to do more.
Although I'd say there's a certain naive hatred of 'big industry/business' going on with many of these protesters as well. Witness an ex-colleague who cries about the evils of big business whilst working for a company whose sole income comes from some big-name big businesses. But those businesses are different because, well, reasons ...
For the majority of the population it was pretty ghastly, tempered only by very strong religious belief.0 -
People will live with the deal. It’s the optimal way forward for the Tories and the country.IanB2 said:
But those are just mirrors of the implications for the Tories if they either end up revoking without a referendum, create chaos by crashing out without a deal, or somehow thrust their deal through against the wishes of the ultra Brexiters and many of their members.Charles said:
If Remain wins the Tories will be blamed for failing to deliver Brexit and be destroyededmundintokyo said:
There's no need to run that argument because it's nothing to do with the point at issue, which is whether letting parliamentary remainers force a referendum on the government as the price for letting brexit through is a trap for the government.Charles said:
No point in running the old argumentedmundintokyo said:
What's the trap?Charles said:
That will be the obvious only way out with the big flashing arrow above it that reads “it’s a trap”?
The party is now pretty united in favour of Leave, and if they win the referendum it's a victory for TMay, the Conservatives and Brexit, and a devastating slap in the face for remoaners.
If they lose there will be an irreconcilable bunch of anti-EU people who will never forgive them, but those people have mostly been voting UKIP for years, and they were definitely never going to stick around after all the inevitable concessions in the negotiations to come. They'd have the wind taken out of their sails and the Tories could get back to doing Tory things like cutting taxes and promoting business investment and screwing over people on benefits. That's not an ideal place to be but it's way better than where they are now, no?
A second referendum with a Remain option is an affront to democracy IMV. I assume you disagree.
If Brexit wins the Tories will be blamed for a divisive campaign
Either way the Tories will have abandoned a fundamental point of principal
As I said, any way forward needs to be assessed against the likely others; taking any single way forward and concluding that it is damaging doesn't help much, since they all are.
At least with a vote it would be down to the voters, not the politicians.0 -
Unity Rees Mogg broke me.Charles said:Although this was funny
https://mobile.twitter.com/GladysSteptoe/status/11209333347696517130 -
Life will be similarly ghastly for many of our descendants if we refuse to adapt our means of production so as to stop destroying the environment that supports us.Casino_Royale said:
Danny Boyle exemplified that in his opening to the 2012 Olympics.Sean_F said:
I think too, there's a kind of romanticised view of what life was like in the pre-industrial world.JosiasJessop said:
That's a fair comment.Pulpstar said:
America's energy use is going up and up. Because news on climate related activity is so globalised, and in globalised news the actions of the US are first, 2nd fresh air with China and the EU in a photo for third... And if the US isn't doing much the rest of the west, particularly us, gets tarred with the ''nothing' brush.JosiasJessop said:
Firstly, a 'moderate amount' is not nothing.Nigelb said:
No, we (and everyone else) need to be doing a massive amount. We’re doing a moderate amount.
A reminder:
https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2019/04/16/1904242116
"The finalised official statistics show Britain’s GHG in 2017 were 2.7% lower than in 2016 - and 42.1% lower than in 1990." (1)
Secondly, I'd argue the UK is doing far more than a moderate amount; especially if you take the other consequences of action into account. We could get zero emissions (more or less) by killing everyone in the country off. The consequences of that are (ahem) somewhat severe. So it comes down to what we can do and how much we are willing to change our lifestyles and risk things like employment that, for some reason, also matter to people.
Thirdly, our effects on the climate are relatively small compared to that of the other major countries. We could get to zero emissions and it would have little effect on the Greenland icesheets. We could perform a massively useful leadership role, though.
(1): https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-47121399
Which is why it's important for these protesters to congratulate/commend countries and organisations that are doing the right thing, even whilst encouraging them to do more.
Although I'd say there's a certain naive hatred of 'big industry/business' going on with many of these protesters as well. Witness an ex-colleague who cries about the evils of big business whilst working for a company whose sole income comes from some big-name big businesses. But those businesses are different because, well, reasons ...
For the majority of the population it was pretty ghastly, tempered only by very strong religious belief.0
This discussion has been closed.