You have no idea what he was reacting to. The media has been full of milkshaking (!) and other attacks on politicians. How and why on earth is anyone supposed to know what to expect and what is or is not a potential threat. Haven't seen Sir Norfolk's comment but no one is able to determine what went through Field's head as a protester sought to pass him on the way to the top table at a private event that he was attending.
Well I cannot know for a fact that anger rather than fear was driving him - only he can know that - but to say I "have no idea" is unfair. I have seen the video and read the eye witness reports and from this evidence I draw my conclusion. He was well pissed off and he lost it a bit. I think if you're honest you'll agree that this is the most likely explanation.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think it's utterly thuggish, but it was not great. I think people are only defending him because they think the reaction is OTT not because they truly view him as a 'have a go' hero prepared to lay down his life to protect Philip Hammond. I hope that's why they are defending him anyway.
But the government has cut incentives since 2017 and shelved projects. Declaring a Climate Emergency is easy but they should be doing more. There's free energy there that can be had with some effort - and it will keep giving for years.
The rational thing is to direct the incentives at the right targets. Solar has come down in price so much that it no longer needs direct subsidies.
(Although I think you misunderstood me - I meant the commercial incentives to find new technologies, not subsidies to install existing ones).
The fact no10 is now a fortress is a bad thing. We would be better off if there were serious discussions about climate change behind that black door.
Of course it's a bad thing, but there are serious discussions about climate change there, as is witnessed by the remarkable progress the UK has made on this issue. The protestors aren't interested in serious discussions, unfortunately.
For all the bile spat at them by naysayers, Greta Thurnberg, Extinction Rebellion and now Greenpeace have forced environmentalism up the political agenda.
Increasingly politicions desiring avoiding extinction themselves will need to take these considerations very seriously.
Except technological solutions is exactly what has happened in this case.
Sorry, I wasn't being specific enough - I was referring to the 'geo-engineering' type nonsense, like squirting reflective particles into the upper atmosphere.
I agree that technology is facilitating the reduction of CO2 emissions, but we've done the relatively easy bit, and to do the rest needs more than just a different type of power generation technology.
I wouldn’t dismiss nebulous technical solutions out of hand - for example we may well need direct CO2 capture from the atmosphere - a nascent technology which is quite feasible, but for now hopelessly uneconomic at scale.
Not fecking air capture! Given the choice of capturing the CO2 at a concentration of 15% from a power station's flue gas or 400 ppm from the air, which might be an easier proposition?
BTW, we already have very efficient air capture devices. They are called trees.
Elon Musk has said CO2 capture is difficult and he's far more capable of thinking out the box than most. Rory wanted another 1m trees planted. Seemed a more straightforward solution to me.
CO2 capture is an integral part of many existing industrial processes. Except after the CO2 is captured it is then vented into the atmosphere as there is no incentive or requirement to do anything else with it. Something like 10 to 20 million tonnes per annum of 'captured' CO2 is vented from the Sasol synfuels plants in South Africa, for example.
Carbon capture and storage is a commercial challenge, more than a technical challenge.
The fact no10 is now a fortress is a bad thing. We would be better off if there were serious discussions about climate change behind that black door.
Of course it's a bad thing, but there are serious discussions about climate change there, as is witnessed by the remarkable progress the UK has made on this issue. The protestors aren't interested in serious discussions, unfortunately.
For all the bile spat at them by naysayers, Greta Thurnberg, Extinction Rebellion and now Greenpeace have forced environmentalism up the political agenda.
Increasingly politicions desiring avoiding extinction themselves will need to take these considerations very seriously.
Except technological solutions is exactly what has happened in this case.
Sorry, I wasn't being specific enough - I was referring to the 'geo-engineering' type nonsense, like squirting reflective particles into the upper atmosphere.
I agree that technology is facilitating the reduction of CO2 emissions, but we've done the relatively easy bit, and to do the rest needs more than just a different type of power generation technology.
I wouldn’t dismiss nebulous technical solutions out of hand - for example we may well need direct CO2 capture from the atmosphere - a nascent technology which is quite feasible, but for now hopelessly uneconomic at scale.
Not fecking air capture! Given the choice of capturing the CO2 at a concentration of 15% from a power station's flue gas or 400 ppm from the air, which might be an easier proposition?
BTW, we already have very efficient air capture devices. They are called trees.
Elon Musk has said CO2 capture is difficult and he's far more capable of thinking out the box than most. Rory wanted another 1m trees planted. Seemed a more straightforward solution to me.
CO2 capture is an integral part of many existing industrial processes. Except after the CO2 is captured it is then vented into the atmosphere as there is no incentive or requirement to do anything else with it. Something like 10 to 20 million tonnes per annum of 'captured' CO2 is vented from the Sasol synfuels plants in South Africa, for example.
Carbon capture and storage is a commercial challenge, more than a technical challenge.
And I certainly agree with the tree planting.
Didn't know that. That sort of thing really should be in the easy win pile.
Talking of matters environmental, I've been wondering whether we've got it all wrong on recycling plastics. If we recycle them, then eventually they are going to break down and debris is going to end up in the sea or elsewhere in the environment, and the carbon locked up in them is going to be released eventually. Wouldn't it make more sense to compress them and stick them in deep landfill in geologically stable sites without water leech-out?
I don't think any of the ex-Labour Independents would support a Boris Govt in a VNOC - none voted for May in January. Doubtful too that Lady Hermon will remain on board .
Hence why I think its fair to say we don't know where we really are at the moment.
Today, right now, there is a Conservative led government. They have only 312 MPs supporting them on all legislative matters. There are (potentially) up to 337 MPs who might oppose. On the same basis, we have a government who can count on the Confidence of 322 MPs, with potentially 327MPs who might oppose such Confidence.
On the raw numbers, the Conservatives are deep in the red, running a minority administration day to day by luck and prayer.
After that, we get into all sorts of 'what about?' 'what if?' territory.
What if Nick Boles rejoins? What if Sinn Fein rock up? What if Johnny Mercer won't support the Cons after all? Which independents might be tempted to support the government? How many are there? What if Mark Field does resign as an MP? What if the Brecon by-election is lost to the Lib Dems? What other skeletons does any Con MP have in the closet that might come out at any point in time? What if Grieve, Lee and Greening leave and join the Lib Dems if the PM goes for No Deal? What if the ERG leave and join the BXP if the PM goes for revoke?
Some of the above are more or less likely to happen. I can't really see Sinn Fein attending, but can you guarantee they won't?
It's not a way to run a government. We can't go on like this for much longer. Either:
A) We need a General Election to try to clarify the mess; or B.) The Conservatives need to approach another party with sufficient MPs for a formal coalition mid-parliament (like the Lib-Lab pact) to get through.
A) may produce chaos (probably will) B.) isn't a bad idea, but who?
At present, I'd suggest the government has a majority of 10 - 20 on a confidence motion.
Well four Tory MPs have crossed the floor since the January vote and Labour has two new MPs. Now we have a vacancy in a Tory held seat. Those changes alone could knock 11 off the Government's 19 majority in January. Lady Hermon much less likely to support Boris than May. Woodcock and Lewis probably less likely to abstain too.
If Labour had the numbers for a VONC, I think they'd go for it.
They are still likely to be short currently - but the majority could be down well into single figures. A further three or four defections could make things critical for the Government. We have already reached the point where the active support of the DUP in the lobbies is needed - abstention would not suffice.
Talking of matters environmental, I've been wondering whether we've got it all wrong on recycling plastics. If we recycle them, then eventually they are going to break down and debris is going to end up in the sea or elsewhere in the environment, and the carbon locked up in them is going to be released eventually. Wouldn't it make more sense to compress them and stick them in deep landfill in geologically stable sites without water leech-out?
The trick is to reduce usage of wrappings etc. that aren't biodegradable. I assume when plastic is recycled it is melted down and repurposed into something else. I don't think it would lose integrity as you described.
The fact no10 is now a fortress is a bad thing. We would be better off if there were serious discussions about climate change behind that black door.
Of course it's a bad thing, but there are serious discussions about climate change there, as is witnessed by the remarkable progress the UK has made on this issue. The protestors aren't interested in serious discussions, unfortunately.
For all the bile spat at them by naysayers, Greta Thurnberg, Extinction Rebellion and now Greenpeace have forced environmentalism up the political agenda.
Increasingly politicions desiring avoiding extinction themselves will need to take these considerations very seriously.
Except technological solutions is exactly what has happened in this case.
snip
I wouldn’t dismiss nebulous technical solutions out of hand - for example we may well need direct CO2 capture from the atmosphere - a nascent technology which is quite feasible, but for now hopelessly uneconomic at scale.
Not fecking air capture! Given the choice of capturing the CO2 at a concentration of 15% from a power station's flue gas or 400 ppm from the air, which might be an easier proposition?
BTW, we already have very efficient air capture devices. They are called trees.
Elon Musk has said CO2 capture is difficult and he's far more capable of thinking out the box than most. Rory wanted another 1m trees planted. Seemed a more straightforward solution to me.
CO2 capture is an integral part of many existing industrial processes. Except after the CO2 is captured it is then vented into the atmosphere as there is no incentive or requirement to do anything else with it. Something like 10 to 20 million tonnes per annum of 'captured' CO2 is vented from the Sasol synfuels plants in South Africa, for example.
Carbon capture and storage is a commercial challenge, more than a technical challenge.
And I certainly agree with the tree planting.
Klaus Lackner has been working on the problem for two decades.
" “I’m the first to admit that air capture isn’t proven—and it certainly isn’t proven at scale,” Lackner says. “But we’re in deep trouble if we can’t figure it out.” "
Yes I appreciate the rhetoric (cf La Toynbee); he knows how to rouse the rabble and present a position. Trouble is that it is very often based on a false premise and hence relies on preaching to the converted. If he had thought about the Field issue he might have written a more balanced article. But to dismiss any possibility of red dress woman being a threat is facile, if we're talking threat assessment for example and hence Jones almost forfeits the indulgence you afford him.
But it's clear that Field was not acting due to a perceived threat - he was acting in fury at the disruption. So whether or not one considers that she was a potential threat is not at the heart of the matter.
For me, the 'Sir Norfolk Passmore' construct got it down well in his summary on the thread just gone.
You have no idea what he was reacting to. The media has been full of milkshaking (!) and other attacks on politicians. How and why on earth is anyone supposed to know what to expect and what is or is not a potential threat. Haven't seen Sir Norfolk's comment but no one is able to determine what went through Field's head as a protester sought to pass him on the way to the top table at a private event that he was attending.
I have casually listened to a few Field critics of the sort who are expert at evasion when being interviewed. The common ground has been their unwillingness to (1) say that they would have done nothing (2) say what they would have done instead (3) say what Field should have done instead. There has been a lamentable failure from Field's critics to address what you might call the Jo Cox or Stephen Timms question. The gap between being rubbished by the Guardianista and being recommended for a George Medal by the very same people is a very fine one and seems to depend a bit on party loyalty.
I don't like the paranoia surrounding security and public figures but it's a fact of our mental makeup now when prominent people are present. BTW at its worst this is hardly Jean Charles de Menezes is it. Now whatever happened to that Cressida Dick who was right in the frame for that one?
1) There were plenty of people on the table who thought nothing was the right answer. 2) Nothing was fine 3) If he was going to do something, he could simply have stood between his chair and the pillar and she would not be able to get past
No need for medals or rubbishing. MP acted rudely and badly, knew he did and apologised. Move on, but lets not pretend he thought anyone was in danger of their lives, he was annoyed that the dinner was being interrupted.
I suggest that if the four way split in polling becomes well-established, we are going to need far more in the way of regional polls or polling of seats by classification type to make sensible seat predictions.
I think that's right. I think that (at present) the Lib Dems would pull off some enormous swings in some London and Home Counties constituencies, but make not a lot of progress in Devon, Cornwall, and Dorset.
The Lib Dems might well do well in the South West simply by standing still if the Brexit party splits the Conservative vote, as it looks set to.
If the opinion polls don't already have such a thing, they need a 'lumpiness' factor to be applied to regions or even small groups of constituencies. If TBP got say 15% at a GE they could come away with nothing, as happened to UKIP with 13%, unless their support is uneven across the country. The LibDems on 15% would do moderately well.
On 15%, I expect TBP would win Thurrock and maybe Boston and Thanet South. But above 20%, the number of gains rises swiftly.
We need to see some data from other pollsters - though their best pollster - Yougov - is showing some signs of slippage with their rating at 23%. Others will likely have them well below 20%.
Yes I appreciate the rhetoric (cf La Toynbee); he knows how to rouse the rabble and present a position. Trouble is that it is very often based on a false premise and hence relies on preaching to the converted. If he had thought about the Field issue he might have written a more balanced article. But to dismiss any possibility of red dress woman being a threat is facile, if we're talking threat assessment for example and hence Jones almost forfeits the indulgence you afford him.
But it's clear that Field was not acting due to a perceived threat - he was acting in fury at the disruption. So whether or not one considers that she was a potential threat is not at the heart of the matter.
For me, the 'Sir Norfolk Passmore' construct got it down well in his summary on the thread just gone.
You have no idea what he was reacting to. The media has been full of milkshaking (!) and other attacks on politicians. How and why on earth is anyone supposed to know what to expect and what is or is not a potential threat. Haven't seen Sir Norfolk's comment but no one is able to determine what went through Field's head as a protester sought to pass him on the way to the top table at a private event that he was attending.
I have casually listened to a few Field critics of the sort who are expert at evasion when being interviewed. The common ground has been their unwillingness to (1) say that they would have done nothing (2) say what they would have done instead (3) say what Field should have done instead. There has been a lamentable failure from Field's critics to address what you might call the Jo Cox or Stephen Timms question. The gap between being rubbished by the Guardianista and being recommended for a George Medal by the very same people is a very fine one and seems to depend a bit on party loyalty.
I don't like the paranoia surrounding security and public figures but it's a fact of our mental makeup now when prominent people are present. BTW at its worst this is hardly Jean Charles de Menezes is it. Now whatever happened to that Cressida Dick who was right in the frame for that one?
he was annoyed that the dinner was being interrupted.
It's noteworthy that Theresa May sees the seriousness of Mark Field's actions. Perhaps she can afford to be more disengaged from the realpolitik and so more principled.
If a General Election is called then the by-election is cancelled even if the writ has been moved already right?
That's what happened with Gorton in 2017
Does the writ for the by election get moved immediately? Or can it be delayed a while until the leadership contest is over and potentially a General Election is called?
I seem to recall a by-election writ in late 2009 or early 2010 not being moved for about 6 months until it became moot.
I think that the writ is automatically triggered by the Speaker when is he is formally informed of the petition outcome.
I thought that, but the BBC article seems to suggest it would be up to the Tories. Which would be odd, since the nature of the procedure forcing someone out by petition would justify not letting the incumbent party from pissing about.
The HoC numbers looks more and more like the fag end of the last months of the Callaghan government. Lost by-election, and the government majority melting away as the Lib-Lab pact confidence and supply and unofficial Unionist and SNP support ceased. The opposition tabled a VONC and won by 311-310
Boris will seize the day before he's VONC and call a general election IMO.
That's my view.
Question I have, is that going to be prior to Oct 31st? Surely yes?
Well, TSE wanted the excitement of Boris v Gove but the build up to a General Election would be even more so.
I think he'll announce it on 5th September (first day back after summer recess) and hold it on 17th October.
This will also be enough to get the EU to push back our "departure" date to 31st December I'd have thought...
I think that makes sense. They don't want to be messed about endlessly, but if a GE is called that is reason for a short extension so the EU should play ball in that situation.
Talking of matters environmental, I've been wondering whether we've got it all wrong on recycling plastics. If we recycle them, then eventually they are going to break down and debris is going to end up in the sea or elsewhere in the environment, and the carbon locked up in them is going to be released eventually. Wouldn't it make more sense to compress them and stick them in deep landfill in geologically stable sites without water leech-out?
One reason to recycle them is to make more efficient use of the feedstock. I don't think it's recycling that is leading to the pervasiveness of plastic in the environment.
Talking of matters environmental, I've been wondering whether we've got it all wrong on recycling plastics. If we recycle them, then eventually they are going to break down and debris is going to end up in the sea or elsewhere in the environment, and the carbon locked up in them is going to be released eventually. Wouldn't it make more sense to compress them and stick them in deep landfill in geologically stable sites without water leech-out?
The trick is to reduce usage of wrappings etc. that aren't biodegradable. I assume when plastic is recycled it is melted down and repurposed into something else. I don't think it would lose integrity as you described.
Actually a depressingly small amount of plastic is recycled. Much is put in general waste, much is unrecyclable, more is contaminated and there is little demand for the low quality products made from recycled plastic. A lot is exported and dumped as seen in Fearnley-Whittingstalls excellent Programes "War on Plastic".
While generally not keen on burning waste and emitting CO2, high temerature incineration with scrubbers may well be better for the environment than recycling as we do at present.
I am all in favour of more green living, but there is a lot of greenwash in current policy. I would start by a packaging tax on plastic items so that the manufacturer pays, rather than the environment and tax payer.
Of course it's a bad thing, but there are serious discussions about climate change there, as is witnessed by the remarkable progress the UK has made on this issue. The protestors aren't interested in serious discussions, unfortunately.
For all the bile spat at them by naysayers, Greta Thurnberg, Extinction Rebellion and now Greenpeace have forced environmentalism up the political agenda.
Increasingly politicions desiring avoiding extinction themselves will need to take these considerations very seriously.
Not really. They've forced a naive and simplistic version of environmentalism up the political agenda, which means that politicians will have to pretend to take naive and simplistic measures, or do daft things like Ed Miliband's screw-up on smart meters.
Naivety is the head in the sand crowd who believe that some nebulous 'technological solutions' will come to the rescue, allowing them to carry on with business as usual.
The green-left has been so far ahead of the game on this, while the centre-right still hasn't completely woken up, and the neo-whatevers are still in denial.
Except technological solutions is exactly what has happened in this case.
Sorry, I wasn't being specific enough - I was referring to the 'geo-engineering' type nonsense, like squirting reflective particles into the upper atmosphere.
I agree that technology is facilitating the reduction of CO2 emissions, but we've done the relatively easy bit, and to do the rest needs more than just a different type of power generation technology.
I wouldn’t dismiss nebulous technical solutions out of hand - for example we may well need direct CO2 capture from the atmosphere - a nascent technology which is quite feasible, but for now hopelessly uneconomic at scale.
Not fecking air capture! Given the choice of capturing the CO2 at a concentration of 15% from a power station's flue gas or 400 ppm from the air, which might be an easier proposition?
I’m well aware of the above, and yes, it is low hanging fruit. I’m talking about after we’ve stopped venting CO2 to atmosphere; it is entirely possible we will still need capture from atmosphere on a very large scale, and trees won’t be anywhere near sufficient. If we have zero cost marginal power from renewables, then it is absolutely feasible, and a technology that should be developed.
Yes I appreciate the rhetoric (cf La Toynbee); he knows how to rouse the rabble and present a position. Trouble is that it is very often based on a false premise and hence relies on preaching to the converted. If he had thought about the Field issue he might have written a more balanced article. But to dismiss any possibility of red dress woman being a threat is facile, if we're talking threat assessment for example and hence Jones almost forfeits the indulgence you afford him.
But it's clear that Field was not acting due to a perceived threat - he was acting in fury at the disruption. So whether or not one considers that she was a potential threat is not at the heart of the matter.
For me, the 'Sir Norfolk Passmore' construct got it down well in his summary on the thread just gone.
You have no idea what he was reacting to. The media has been full of milkshaking (!) and other attacks on politicians. How and why on earth is anyone supposed to know what to expect and what is or is not a potential threat. Haven't seen Sir Norfolk's comment but no one is able to determine what went through Field's head as a protester sought to pass him on the way to the top table at a private event that he was attending.
I have casually listened to a few Field critics of the sort who are expert at evasion when being interviewed. The common ground has been their unwillingness to (1) say that they would have done nothing (2) say what they would have done instead (3) say what Field should have done instead. There has been a lamentable failure from Field's critics to address what you might call the Jo Cox or Stephen Timms question. The gap between being rubbished by the Guardianista and being recommended for a George Medal by the very same people is a very fine one and seems to depend a bit on party loyalty.
I don't like the paranoia surrounding security and public figures but it's a fact of our mental makeup now when prominent people are present. BTW at its worst this is hardly Jean Charles de Menezes is it. Now whatever happened to that Cressida Dick who was right in the frame for that one?
There is a decision that he needed to make. Maybe a protester saying 'Stop Climate Change' would be less threatening than one saying 'Britain First' or 'Allahu Ackbar'.
Until the first climate terrorist, er, freedom fighter.
It may prove to be the right one. This struck me as a highly technical offence for no personal gain. Trying to persuade the locals that this is an unnecessary election might just be the Tory's best chance. Its not much of a chance of course but it might be as good as it gets.
Yes, he might well have had a chance if his Party were not toiling so badly in the polls. There could be a New Party Leader Bounce of course but somehow I don't see Boris appealing much to the mid-Wales electorate so it probably wouldn't be anywhere near big enough to stop a LibDem win.
Shadsy's odds look about right.
Quite an astute move by the Tories. Their chances of winning the by election are pretty slim, and if they run the former MP they will get a bit slimmer, but they will have a ready-made scapegoat to deflect blame from the new leader. It will all be down to the candidate himself.
Yes I appreciate the rhetoric (cf La Toynbee); he knows how to rouse the rabble and present a position. Trouble is that it is very often based on a false premise and hence relies on preaching to the converted. If he had thought about the Field issue he might have written a more balanced article. But to dismiss any possibility of red dress woman being a threat is facile, if we're talking threat assessment for example and hence Jones almost forfeits the indulgence you afford him.
But it's clear that Field was not acting due to a perceived threat - he was acting in fury at the disruption. So whether or not one considers that she was a potential threat is not at the heart of the matter.
For me, the 'Sir Norfolk Passmore' construct got it down well in his summary on the thread just gone.
Haven't seen Sir Norfolk's comment but no one is able to determine what went through Field's head as a protester sought to pass him on the way to the top table at a private event that he was attending.
I have casually listened to a few Field critics of the sort who are expert at evasion when being interviewed. The common ground has been their unwillingness to (1) say that they would have done nothing (2) say what they would have done instead (3) say what Field should have done instead. There has been a lamentable failure from Field's critics to address what you might call the Jo Cox or Stephen Timms question. The gap between being rubbished by the Guardianista and being recommended for a George Medal by the very same people is a very fine one and seems to depend a bit on party loyalty.
I don't like the paranoia surrounding security and public figures but it's a fact of our mental makeup now when prominent people are present. BTW at its worst this is hardly Jean Charles de Menezes is it. Now whatever happened to that Cressida Dick who was right in the frame for that one?
he was annoyed that the dinner was being interrupted.
Another mind reader.
Look, if this was a court trial for assault I would find him innocent partly because of the burden of proof around intent. That is entirely correct.
This is a political and social commentary site, we do not need to certain of someone's intent to form a view, a reasonable view can be formed around his likely intent without mind reading. Unlike a jury trial, I do not need to be 99%+ certain of it to form my opinion, if we did we would have very little to comment on.
You have no idea what he was reacting to. The media has been full of milkshaking (!) and other attacks on politicians. How and why on earth is anyone supposed to know what to expect and what is or is not a potential threat. Haven't seen Sir Norfolk's comment but no one is able to determine what went through Field's head as a protester sought to pass him on the way to the top table at a private event that he was attending.
Well I cannot know for a fact that anger rather than fear was driving him - only he can know that - but to say I "have no idea" is unfair. I have seen the video and read the eye witness reports and from this evidence I draw my conclusion. He was well pissed off and he lost it a bit. I think if you're honest you'll agree that this is the most likely explanation.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think it's utterly thuggish, but it was not great. I think people are only defending him because they think the reaction is OTT not because they truly view him as a 'have a go' hero prepared to lay down his life to protect Philip Hammond. I hope that's why they are defending him anyway.
I think @algarkirk put it very neatly. These are split second decisions.
Of course it's a bad thing, but there are serious discussions about climate change there, as is witnessed by the remarkable progress the UK has made on this issue. The protestors aren't interested in serious discussions, unfortunately.
For all the bile spat at them by naysayers, Greta Thurnberg, Extinction Rebellion and now Greenpeace have forced environmentalism up the political agenda.
Increasingly politicions desiring avoiding extinction themselves will need to take these considerations very seriously.
Except technological solutions is exactly what has happened in this case.
Sorry, I wasn't being specific enough - I was referring to the 'geo-engineering' type nonsense, like squirting reflective particles into the upper atmosphere.
I agree that technology is facilitating the reduction of CO2 emissions, but we've done the relatively easy bit, and to do the rest needs more than just a different type of power generation technology.
I wouldn’t dismiss nebulous technical solutions out of hand - for example we may well need direct CO2 capture from the atmosphere - a nascent technology which is quite feasible, but for now hopelessly uneconomic at scale.
Not fecking air capture! Given the choice of capturing the CO2 at a concentration of 15% from a power station's flue gas or 400 ppm from the air, which might be an easier proposition?
BTW, we already have very efficient air capture devices. They are called trees.
Elon Musk has said CO2 capture is difficult and he's far more capable of thinking out the box than most. Rory wanted another 1m trees planted. Seemed a more straightforward solution to me.
CO2 capture is an integral part of many existing industrial processes. Except after the CO2 is captured it is then vented into the atmosphere as there is no incentive or requirement to do anything else with it. Something like 10 to 20 million tonnes per annum of 'captured' CO2 is vented from the Sasol synfuels plants in South Africa, for example.
Carbon capture and storage is a commercial challenge, more than a technical challenge.
And I certainly agree with the tree planting.
Didn't know that. That sort of thing really should be in the easy win pile.
Except that until there is worldwide carbon pricing, it won’t be.
It may prove to be the right one. This struck me as a highly technical offence for no personal gain. Trying to persuade the locals that this is an unnecessary election might just be the Tory's best chance. Its not much of a chance of course but it might be as good as it gets.
They'd surely have a better chance with a new candidate. 1.2 for lib dems doesn't look value. At the moment you can lay lib dems at 1.45. If that comes in a bit more I'd be tempted.
If a General Election is called then the by-election is cancelled even if the writ has been moved already right?
That's what happened with Gorton in 2017
Does the writ for the by election get moved immediately? Or can it be delayed a while until the leadership contest is over and potentially a General Election is called?
I seem to recall a by-election writ in late 2009 or early 2010 not being moved for about 6 months until it became moot.
I think that the writ is automatically triggered by the Speaker when is he is formally informed of the petition outcome.
I thought that, but the BBC article seems to suggest it would be up to the Tories. Which would be odd, since the nature of the procedure forcing someone out by petition would justify not letting the incumbent party from pissing about.
The HoC numbers looks more and more like the fag end of the last months of the Callaghan government. Lost by-election, and the government majority melting away as the Lib-Lab pact confidence and supply and unofficial Unionist and SNP support ceased. The opposition tabled a VONC and won by 311-310
Boris will seize the day before he's VONC and call a general election IMO.
That's my view.
Question I have, is that going to be prior to Oct 31st? Surely yes?
Well, TSE wanted the excitement of Boris v Gove but the build up to a General Election would be even more so.
I think he'll announce it on 5th September (first day back after summer recess) and hold it on 17th October.
This will also be enough to get the EU to push back our "departure" date to 31st December I'd have thought...
I think that makes sense. They don't want to be messed about endlessly, but if a GE is called that is reason for a short extension so the EU should play ball in that situation.
Nick Brown moved the writ for Peterborough - not the Speaker. If there is serious intent to have an Autumn GE, there is no reason for a by election at all!
It may prove to be the right one. This struck me as a highly technical offence for no personal gain. Trying to persuade the locals that this is an unnecessary election might just be the Tory's best chance. Its not much of a chance of course but it might be as good as it gets.
Yes, he might well have had a chance if his Party were not toiling so badly in the polls. There could be a New Party Leader Bounce of course but somehow I don't see Boris appealing much to the mid-Wales electorate so it probably wouldn't be anywhere near big enough to stop a LibDem win.
Shadsy's odds look about right.
Quite an astute move by the Tories. Their chances of winning the by election are pretty slim, and if they run the former MP they will get a bit slimmer, but they will have a ready-made scapegoat to deflect blame from the new leader. It will all be down to the candidate himself.
Yes, very astute. I suppose they could have chosen a worse candidate and have had an even better excuse.
It's noteworthy that Theresa May sees the seriousness of Mark Field's actions. Perhaps she can afford to be more disengaged from the realpolitik and so more principled.
'Suspension' isn't quite the 'firing and quitting as an MP by c.o.b. today' the Outrage Circle Jerk on here were predicting last night.
Yes I appreciate the rhetoric (cf La Toynbee); he knows how to rouse the rabble and present a position. Trouble is that it is very often based on a false premise and hence relies on preaching to the converted. If he had thought about the Field issue he might have written a more balanced article. But to dismiss any possibility of red dress woman being a threat is facile, if we're talking threat assessment for example and hence Jones almost forfeits the indulgence you afford him.
But it's clear that Field was not acting due to a perceived threat - he was acting in fury at the disruption. So whether or not one considers that she was a potential threat is not at the heart of the matter.
For me, the 'Sir Norfolk Passmore' construct got it down well in his summary on the thread just gone.
Haven't seen Sir Norfolk's comment but no one is able to determine what went through Field's head as a protester sought to pass him on the way to the top table at a private event that he was attending.
I have casually listened to a few Field critics of the sort who are expert at evasion when being interviewed. The common ground has been their unwillingness to (1) say that they would have done nothing (2) say what they would have done instead (3) say what Field should have done instead. There has been a lamentable failure from Field's critics to address what you might call the Jo Cox or Stephen Timms question. The gap between being rubbished by the Guardianista and being recommended for a George Medal by the very same people is a very fine one and seems to depend a bit on party loyalty.
I don't like the paranoia surrounding security and public figures but it's a fact of our mental makeup now when prominent people are present. BTW at its worst this is hardly Jean Charles de Menezes is it. Now whatever happened to that Cressida Dick who was right in the frame for that one?
he was annoyed that the dinner was being interrupted.
Another mind reader.
Look, if this was a court trial for assault I would find him innocent partly because of the burden of proof around intent. That is entirely correct.
Agreed. Though if it were civil action for assault, the burden of proof would be quite different.
Yes I appreciate the rhetoric (cf La Toynbee); he knows how to rouse the rabble and present a position. Trouble is that it is very often based on a false premise and hence relies on preaching to the converted. If he had thought about the Field issue he might have written a more balanced article. But to dismiss any possibility of red dress woman being a threat is facile, if we're talking threat assessment for example and hence Jones almost forfeits the indulgence you afford him.
But it's clear that Field was not acting due to a perceived threat - he was acting in fury at the disruption. So whether or not one considers that she was a potential threat is not at the heart of the matter.
For me, the 'Sir Norfolk Passmore' construct got it down well in his summary on the thread just gone.
You have no idea what he was reacting to. The media has been full of milkshaking (!) and other attacks on politicians. How and why on earth is anyone supposed to know what to expect and what is or is not a potential threat. Haven't seen Sir Norfolk's comment but no one is able to determine what went through Field's head as a protester sought to pass him on the way to the top table at a private event that he was attending.
I have casually listened to a few Field critics of the sort who are expert at evasion when being interviewed. The common ground has been their unwillingness to (1) say that they would have done nothing (2) say what they would have done instead (3) say what Field should have done instead. There has been a lamentable failure from Field's critics to address what you might call the Jo Cox or Stephen Timms question. The gap between being rubbished by the Guardianista and being recommended for a George Medal by the very same people is a very fine one and seems to depend a bit on party loyalty.
I don't like the paranoia surrounding security and public figures but it's a fact of our mental makeup now when prominent people are present. BTW at its worst this is hardly Jean Charles de Menezes is it. Now whatever happened to that Cressida Dick who was right in the frame for that one?
There is a decision that he needed to make. Maybe a protester saying 'Stop Climate Change' would be less threatening than one saying 'Britain First' or 'Allahu Ackbar'.
Until the first climate terrorist, er, freedom fighter.
I must admit that is a danger every campaign might have. Maybe the government should move faster to actually achieve more.
Mark Field MP completely in the right to remove this weirdo watermelon protestor. I am so fed up of people thinking they can disrupt democratic politics and nobody can lay a finger on them. From shouting down university talks, to disrupting the Chancellor like this. You're free to shout on the streets - but not at private events.
Also, considering a holiday to Uganda with a friend. Anyone have any advice or know anyone who has been? Would appreciate it. FCO says safe on their website.
Great debut article from Tom McTague in the Atlantic:
In Downing Street, an election has long been seen as the only way out of the crisis—if Parliament cannot bring itself to choose between deal or no-deal, a new parliament is needed. Yet for the Conservatives, even this escape hatch looks lethal. The party’s failure to deliver Brexit has seen its support in the polls collapse, sparking warnings from Hunt and others that should an election be called before Brexit, the party would be “annihilated.”
It means the one potential solution to the Brexit Catch-22—winning an electoral majority to take Britain out of the EU— might be its own such trap: Until the Conservatives manage to take Britain out of the EU, they will be punished at any general election for not having done so.
Mark Field MP completely in the right to remove this weirdo watermelon protestor. I am so fed up of people thinking they can disrupt democratic politics and nobody can lay a finger on them. From shouting down university talks, to disrupting the Chancellor like this. You're free to shout on the streets - but not at private events.
Also, considering a holiday to Uganda with a friend. Anyone have any advice or know anyone who has been? Would appreciate it. FCO says safe on their website.
If electric planes are on there way then Boris Island might be back on?
The majority of pollution created by large airports is a result of the many thousands of people (visitors, employees, taxis etc.) that travel there, not the plane. However clearly still an improvement, particularly noisewise.
Hmmm. So the theory must be that only existing or high likely LibDem voters actually signed the recall.
If so they've got 19% already.
Very much more than that as a percentage of those who will turn out, of course.
Assuming a by-election turnout of 50% and that all those who signed the petition will vote in the by-election than the LDs, who drove the recall campaign, look set to start on about 40% in a seat where they've a strong tradition and a good organisational structure.
Mark Field MP completely in the right to remove this weirdo watermelon protestor. I am so fed up of people thinking they can disrupt democratic politics and nobody can lay a finger on them. From shouting down university talks, to disrupting the Chancellor like this. You're free to shout on the streets - but not at private events.
Also, considering a holiday to Uganda with a friend. Anyone have any advice or know anyone who has been? Would appreciate it. FCO says safe on their website.
Lovely country and people, but rains frequently so take an umbrella.
Certain parts are unsafe due to guerillas, particularly on the Congo and South Sudan Borders, and of course there is a current ebola outbreak...
Great debut article from Tom McTague in the Atlantic:
In Downing Street, an election has long been seen as the only way out of the crisis—if Parliament cannot bring itself to choose between deal or no-deal, a new parliament is needed. Yet for the Conservatives, even this escape hatch looks lethal. The party’s failure to deliver Brexit has seen its support in the polls collapse, sparking warnings from Hunt and others that should an election be called before Brexit, the party would be “annihilated.”
It means the one potential solution to the Brexit Catch-22—winning an electoral majority to take Britain out of the EU— might be its own such trap: Until the Conservatives manage to take Britain out of the EU, they will be punished at any general election for not having done so.
If electric planes are on there way then Boris Island might be back on?
The majority of pollution created by large airports is a result of the many thousands of people (visitors, employees, taxis etc.) that travel there, not the plane. However clearly still an improvement, particularly noisewise.
But also, if electric planes really are viable within say 20 years, then any restraint on continued expansion of air travel for CO reasons probably goes out the window given human nature. So Heathrow and its third runway will not be enough.
Talking of matters environmental, I've been wondering whether we've got it all wrong on recycling plastics. If we recycle them, then eventually they are going to break down and debris is going to end up in the sea or elsewhere in the environment, and the carbon locked up in them is going to be released eventually. Wouldn't it make more sense to compress them and stick them in deep landfill in geologically stable sites without water leech-out?
Treat them like nuclear waste then? Still continue making new plastic items from oil? I would have thought that reduce, reuse and recycle as appropriate would still be best. The carbon will remain locked up in the plastic unless it was burnt or a special sort of bacteria was able to digest it.
Great debut article from Tom McTague in the Atlantic:
In Downing Street, an election has long been seen as the only way out of the crisis—if Parliament cannot bring itself to choose between deal or no-deal, a new parliament is needed. Yet for the Conservatives, even this escape hatch looks lethal. The party’s failure to deliver Brexit has seen its support in the polls collapse, sparking warnings from Hunt and others that should an election be called before Brexit, the party would be “annihilated.”
It means the one potential solution to the Brexit Catch-22—winning an electoral majority to take Britain out of the EU— might be its own such trap: Until the Conservatives manage to take Britain out of the EU, they will be punished at any general election for not having done so.
It summarises the Tories dilemma very well. Presumably Boris will not recognise this, expecting that his 'charisma' will sweep all before it.
He might expect that, or merely thing the gamble is the best chance they have. He won't get a new deal, he won't be able to pass the current deal, and parliament will do its level best to stop no deal, and he has no majority. A GE might well occur even if he does not want one, and he is for some reason liked by a lot of Tories - from that perspective, I can understand why some MPs who would disagree with him a lot have backed him as their best chance.
He might limit the damage from an early GE even if he would, in my view, struggle to win one.
If electric planes are on there way then Boris Island might be back on?
The majority of pollution created by large airports is a result of the many thousands of people (visitors, employees, taxis etc.) that travel there, not the plane. However clearly still an improvement, particularly noisewise.
But also, if electric planes really are viable within say 20 years, then any restraint on continued expansion of air travel for CO reasons probably goes out the window given human nature. So Heathrow and its third runway will not be enough.
Long haul electric isn’t going to be feasible . On the other hand, VTOL taxis are.
Great debut article from Tom McTague in the Atlantic:
In Downing Street, an election has long been seen as the only way out of the crisis—if Parliament cannot bring itself to choose between deal or no-deal, a new parliament is needed. Yet for the Conservatives, even this escape hatch looks lethal. The party’s failure to deliver Brexit has seen its support in the polls collapse, sparking warnings from Hunt and others that should an election be called before Brexit, the party would be “annihilated.”
It means the one potential solution to the Brexit Catch-22—winning an electoral majority to take Britain out of the EU— might be its own such trap: Until the Conservatives manage to take Britain out of the EU, they will be punished at any general election for not having done so.
It's noteworthy that Theresa May sees the seriousness of Mark Field's actions. Perhaps she can afford to be more disengaged from the realpolitik and so more principled.
'Suspension' isn't quite the 'firing and quitting as an MP by c.o.b. today' the Outrage Circle Jerk on here were predicting last night.
I'm surprised he has avoiding a sacking, but the expectation of it was not about being outraged, it was anticipation of whether it was worth the trouble of not sacking him, so your description of it is a tad over the top. That he won't be facing any legal consequences very much strengthens his position.
Talking of matters environmental, I've been wondering whether we've got it all wrong on recycling plastics. If we recycle them, then eventually they are going to break down and debris is going to end up in the sea or elsewhere in the environment, and the carbon locked up in them is going to be released eventually. Wouldn't it make more sense to compress them and stick them in deep landfill in geologically stable sites without water leech-out?
Treat them like nuclear waste then? Still continue making new plastic items from oil? I would have thought that reduce, reuse and recycle as appropriate would still be best. The carbon will remain locked up in the plastic unless it was burnt or a special sort of bacteria was able to digest it.
Hmmm. So the theory must be that only existing or high likely LibDem voters actually signed the recall.
If so they've got 19% already.
Very much more than that as a percentage of those who will turn out, of course.
Assuming a by-election turnout of 50% and that all those who signed the petition will vote in the by-election than the LDs, who drove the recall campaign, look set to start on about 40% in a seat where they've a strong tradition and a good organisational structure.
Mark Field MP completely in the right to remove this weirdo watermelon protestor. I am so fed up of people thinking they can disrupt democratic politics and nobody can lay a finger on them. From shouting down university talks, to disrupting the Chancellor like this. You're free to shout on the streets - but not at private events.
Also, considering a holiday to Uganda with a friend. Anyone have any advice or know anyone who has been? Would appreciate it. FCO says safe on their website.
Mr Field appears to disagree with you.
As I noted, any apology or criticism is undermined because supporters of the accused insist there was nothing wrong. It's like how Corbyn's staff explaind that mural incident by saying he had not noticed it was anti-semitic, rather than defend the mural as not being anti-semitic, but one wonders if they believed that, as many supporters, even ones like nickpalmer on here, came along and said it was not obviously anti-semitic, in effect contradicting the person at the heart of the incident.
Great debut article from Tom McTague in the Atlantic:
In Downing Street, an election has long been seen as the only way out of the crisis—if Parliament cannot bring itself to choose between deal or no-deal, a new parliament is needed. Yet for the Conservatives, even this escape hatch looks lethal. The party’s failure to deliver Brexit has seen its support in the polls collapse, sparking warnings from Hunt and others that should an election be called before Brexit, the party would be “annihilated.”
It means the one potential solution to the Brexit Catch-22—winning an electoral majority to take Britain out of the EU— might be its own such trap: Until the Conservatives manage to take Britain out of the EU, they will be punished at any general election for not having done so.
Great debut article from Tom McTague in the Atlantic:
In Downing Street, an election has long been seen as the only way out of the crisis—if Parliament cannot bring itself to choose between deal or no-deal, a new parliament is needed. Yet for the Conservatives, even this escape hatch looks lethal. The party’s failure to deliver Brexit has seen its support in the polls collapse, sparking warnings from Hunt and others that should an election be called before Brexit, the party would be “annihilated.”
It means the one potential solution to the Brexit Catch-22—winning an electoral majority to take Britain out of the EU— might be its own such trap: Until the Conservatives manage to take Britain out of the EU, they will be punished at any general election for not having done so.
It summarises the Tories dilemma very well. Presumably Boris will not recognise this, expecting that his 'charisma' will sweep all before it.
He might expect that, or merely thing the gamble is the best chance they have. He won't get a new deal, he won't be able to pass the current deal, and parliament will do its level best to stop no deal, and he has no majority. A GE might well occur even if he does not want one, and he is for some reason liked by a lot of Tories - from that perspective, I can understand why some MPs who would disagree with him a lot have backed him as their best chance.
He might limit the damage from an early GE even if he would, in my view, struggle to win one.
From Boris's perspective an early GE would also force Labour to make a choice Corbyn has been keen to avoid. If Labour's manifesto policy is for a 2nd Ref the GE becomes a proxy test run for that 2nd ref. If Labour contunue to sit on the fence - they will be rightly be rubbished as incoherent.
It may prove to be the right one. This struck me as a highly technical offence for no personal gain. Trying to persuade the locals that this is an unnecessary election might just be the Tory's best chance. Its not much of a chance of course but it might be as good as it gets.
Yes, he might well have had a chance if his Party were not toiling so badly in the polls. There could be a New Party Leader Bounce of course but somehow I don't see Boris appealing much to the mid-Wales electorate so it probably wouldn't be anywhere near big enough to stop a LibDem win.
Shadsy's odds look about right.
That also maybe one reason to let him fight it - when they lose, as seems likely with the polls, and the Lib Dems having a strong candidate and having built up their ground game working on the petition, can be blamed as a unique situation rather than indicative of a wider malaise.
Talking of matters environmental, I've been wondering whether we've got it all wrong on recycling plastics. If we recycle them, then eventually they are going to break down and debris is going to end up in the sea or elsewhere in the environment, and the carbon locked up in them is going to be released eventually. Wouldn't it make more sense to compress them and stick them in deep landfill in geologically stable sites without water leech-out?
Treat them like nuclear waste then? Still continue making new plastic items from oil? I would have thought that reduce, reuse and recycle as appropriate would still be best. The carbon will remain locked up in the plastic unless it was burnt or a special sort of bacteria was able to digest it.
I am not entirely convinced that it is a good Idea, but the concept of Ecobricks for construction is an interesting one!
Mark Field MP completely in the right to remove this weirdo watermelon protestor. I am so fed up of people thinking they can disrupt democratic politics and nobody can lay a finger on them. From shouting down university talks, to disrupting the Chancellor like this. You're free to shout on the streets - but not at private events.
Also, considering a holiday to Uganda with a friend. Anyone have any advice or know anyone who has been? Would appreciate it. FCO says safe on their website.
Mr Field appears to disagree with you.
As I noted, any apology or criticism is undermined because supporters of the accused insist there was nothing wrong. It's like how Corbyn's staff explaind that mural incident by saying he had not noticed it was anti-semitic, rather than defend the mural as not being anti-semitic, but one wonders if they believed that, as many supporters, even ones like nickpalmer on here, came along and said it was not obviously anti-semitic, in effect contradicting the person at the heart of the incident.
+1, indeed the denials that anything wrong is worse than the offence. He reacted badly, knows it and apologised. He is human, we all mistakes, it is not a serious enough matter for the police let alone the judiciary, and whether he gets demoted or not is not a matter of great public interest and up to those he reports to, so the rest of us could move on.
But instead it becomes an issue because some people are arguing that what he himself has apologised for and acknowledges was a mistake is a good thing.
Mark Field MP completely in the right to remove this weirdo watermelon protestor. I am so fed up of people thinking they can disrupt democratic politics and nobody can lay a finger on them. From shouting down university talks, to disrupting the Chancellor like this. You're free to shout on the streets - but not at private events.
Also, considering a holiday to Uganda with a friend. Anyone have any advice or know anyone who has been? Would appreciate it. FCO says safe on their website.
Mr Field appears to disagree with you.
When you are Tory, male, middle-aged, Oxford, ex Freshfields and MP for City and Westminster you begin every conversation by apologising for existing.
Talking of matters environmental, I've been wondering whether we've got it all wrong on recycling plastics. If we recycle them, then eventually they are going to break down and debris is going to end up in the sea or elsewhere in the environment, and the carbon locked up in them is going to be released eventually. Wouldn't it make more sense to compress them and stick them in deep landfill in geologically stable sites without water leech-out?
Treat them like nuclear waste then? Still continue making new plastic items from oil? I would have thought that reduce, reuse and recycle as appropriate would still be best. The carbon will remain locked up in the plastic unless it was burnt or a special sort of bacteria was able to digest it.
I am not entirely convinced that it is a good Idea, but the concept of Ecobricks for construction is an interesting one!
Great debut article from Tom McTague in the Atlantic:
In Downing Street, an election has long been seen as the only way out of the crisis—if Parliament cannot bring itself to choose between deal or no-deal, a new parliament is needed. Yet for the Conservatives, even this escape hatch looks lethal. The party’s failure to deliver Brexit has seen its support in the polls collapse, sparking warnings from Hunt and others that should an election be called before Brexit, the party would be “annihilated.”
It means the one potential solution to the Brexit Catch-22—winning an electoral majority to take Britain out of the EU— might be its own such trap: Until the Conservatives manage to take Britain out of the EU, they will be punished at any general election for not having done so.
It summarises the Tories dilemma very well. Presumably Boris will not recognise this, expecting that his 'charisma' will sweep all before it.
He might expect that, or merely thing the gamble is the best chance they have. He won't get a new deal, he won't be able to pass the current deal, and parliament will do its level best to stop no deal, and he has no majority. A GE might well occur even if he does not want one, and he is for some reason liked by a lot of Tories - from that perspective, I can understand why some MPs who would disagree with him a lot have backed him as their best chance.
He might limit the damage from an early GE even if he would, in my view, struggle to win one.
Realistically an election is likely, and a lot of people think that Boris has a better chance of winning it than any other Tory. It is hardly rocket science to discern that this is one of the several reasons why he is going to be leader despite the massive reservations so many feel about him. I have not noticed any great confidence that someone else can win one. Any offers?
It's noteworthy that Theresa May sees the seriousness of Mark Field's actions. Perhaps she can afford to be more disengaged from the realpolitik and so more principled.
Perhaps for once she meant what she said, or rather what her t shirt said.
Could Parliament set up indicative votes on potential Prime Ministers? It would help Theresa May immensely if she could have confidence in her recommendation to HM.
Was going to say the book is 'better' but that is not quite right. They found a way to make it into a film (upping the comedy aspect) and did a great job.
Both got the main point over very well - that the correct description for the activities of the US and UK investment banking sector in the years leading up to the crash was Grand Larceny.
Biggest financial scam of all time and almost entirely unpunished.
I think @algarkirk put it very neatly. These are split second decisions.
Yes - a visceral, immediate, totally unplanned action based on anger. The head bypassed.
That's exactly it.
A perfectly decent reason for taking a moderate view of his actions - it's the heat of the moment. He's human. Gosh. Actually I think he can be defended mucvh better than that. BTW what of the people who sat and did and said nothing?
Great debut article from Tom McTague in the Atlantic:
In Downing Street, an election has long been seen as the only way out of the crisis—if Parliament cannot bring itself to choose between deal or no-deal, a new parliament is needed. Yet for the Conservatives, even this escape hatch looks lethal. The party’s failure to deliver Brexit has seen its support in the polls collapse, sparking warnings from Hunt and others that should an election be called before Brexit, the party would be “annihilated.”
It means the one potential solution to the Brexit Catch-22—winning an electoral majority to take Britain out of the EU— might be its own such trap: Until the Conservatives manage to take Britain out of the EU, they will be punished at any general election for not having done so.
It summarises the Tories dilemma very well. Presumably Boris will not recognise this, expecting that his 'charisma' will sweep all before it.
He might expect that, or merely thing the gamble is the best chance they have. He won't get a new deal, he won't be able to pass the current deal, and parliament will do its level best to stop no deal, and he has no majority. A GE might well occur even if he does not want one, and he is for some reason liked by a lot of Tories - from that perspective, I can understand why some MPs who would disagree with him a lot have backed him as their best chance.
He might limit the damage from an early GE even if he would, in my view, struggle to win one.
Realistically an election is likely, and a lot of people think that Boris has a better chance of winning it than any other Tory. It is hardly rocket science to discern that this is one of the several reasons why he is going to be leader despite the massive reservations so many feel about him. I have not noticed any great confidence that someone else can win one. Any offers?
The Tories are up against Corbyn, all they need to do is speak to more than the third of the country happy with no deal. Stewart was the only one to do so in the campaign. There is some chance Boris pivots after his coronation, but it would be too late given the conflicting promises he has made to both sides.
Could Parliament set up indicative votes on potential Prime Ministers? It would help Theresa May immensely if she could have confidence in her recommendation to HM.
It would be worth it if only to see Mark Francois's reaction to the concept.
Need an election in order to deliver Brexit. Cannot have an election until Brexit is delivered.
Ergo no way out. Hell in aspic.
Yes, Yossarian would have recognized that immediately!
Incidentally, I am quite impressed by the Channel 4 series of "Catch 22", a very difficult book to film with its multiple characters and often non linear narrative. Mind you "Slaughterhouse 5" is tougher still. So it goes.
Interesting too, when war films tend to be more gung ho than anti war.
A perfectly decent reason for taking a moderate view of his actions - it's the heat of the moment. He's human. Gosh. Actually I think he can be defended mucvh better than that. BTW what of the people who sat and did and said nothing?
I am taking a moderate view. He was pissed off and lashed out. Poor behaviour (especially from a government minister) but not monstrous.
The immoderate (indeed verging on the ludicrous) view is that the most likely reason for his action was a genuine fear that the protester was dangerous. This flies in the face of the evidence.
The people who did nothing (i.e. everyone apart from him) chose the better and more reasonable course of (in)action. No doubt he would now agree.
Need an election in order to deliver Brexit. Cannot have an election until Brexit is delivered.
Ergo no way out. Hell in aspic.
Yes, Yossarian would have recognized that immediately!
Incidentally, I am quite impressed by the Channel 4 series of "Catch 22", a very difficult book to film with its multiple characters and often non linear narrative. Mind you "Slaughterhouse 5" is tougher still. So it goes.
Interesting too, when war films tend to be more gung ho than anti war.
I read Slaughterhouse 5 for the first time lately, really did not like it, but I could see why it would indeed be very hard to film. Might be interesting to see it tried though.
We saw the excuses coming in over the last few weeks. People looking for unity, waiting and seeing, etc etc. Some of it is not unreasonable, but there's also the ones just fooling themselves that it is going to go differently, even talking up how he will clearly be better than they thought. Partisanship works its insidious magic in subtler ways for some than others.
We saw the excuses coming in over the last few weeks. People looking for unity, waiting and seeing, etc etc. Some of it is not unreasonable, but there's also the ones just fooling themselves that it is going to go differently, even talking up how he will clearly be better than they thought. Partisanship works its insidious magic in subtler ways for some than others.
It's likely that for some of them it was always a threat they intended not to follow through with, and they were just hoping to apply pressure.
When you are Tory, male, middle-aged, Oxford, ex Freshfields and MP for City and Westminster you begin every conversation by apologising for existing.
But you would not mean it. Because you then proceed with every single conversation in the hard-coded belief that every single word you say is extremely important.
Mark Field MP completely in the right to remove this weirdo watermelon protestor. I am so fed up of people thinking they can disrupt democratic politics and nobody can lay a finger on them. From shouting down university talks, to disrupting the Chancellor like this. You're free to shout on the streets - but not at private events.
Also, considering a holiday to Uganda with a friend. Anyone have any advice or know anyone who has been? Would appreciate it. FCO says safe on their website.
I don't think anyone* doubts that protestors should be removed.
The question is merely about the proportionality of his behaviour.
If he had punched her in the face, and dragged her out the room by the hair, we'd all agree that he had acted with excessive force (I hope).
Likewise, if he'd politiely escorted her, perhaps by holding her arm and marching her to the door, we'd all agree he had not.
The question, then, is where the force applied was on the scale. And (personally), I think he used excessive force. Not wildly disproportionate. Not resigning as an MP (or even a minister). But a level of force that would - for a policeman - result in a talking to from a superior, or would in all of our day-to-day lives necessitate an apology.
The "whataboutery" where we ask "yeah, but those damn climate protestors" is incredibly dangerous to civil society. It's creating this false dichotomy where someone has to be right and someone has to be wrong.
He's already won, he has nothing to fear from a few people being annoyed if he doesn't pretend this is still a contest.
If his plan is a GE in the next couple of months with the Tories currently around 20% he should be taking every opportunity to talk to the public now.
That he is not doing so suggests either he does not want to get tied down to leaving on Oct 31st because he knows we wont, or that he is not planning on an early election, and therefore will accept parliaments will.
We are not leaving on October 31st (barring surprising events).
Comments
Don't get me wrong, I don't think it's utterly thuggish, but it was not great. I think people are only defending him because they think the reaction is OTT not because they truly view him as a 'have a go' hero prepared to lay down his life to protect Philip Hammond. I hope that's why they are defending him anyway.
(Although I think you misunderstood me - I meant the commercial incentives to find new technologies, not subsidies to install existing ones).
Carbon capture and storage is a commercial challenge, more than a technical challenge.
And I certainly agree with the tree planting.
And the book really did nail the madness - both the technicals and the culture. I woz there and I can 100% vouch for that.
" “I’m the first to admit that air capture isn’t proven—and it certainly isn’t proven at scale,” Lackner says. “But we’re in deep trouble if we can’t figure it out.” "
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/612928/one-mans-two-decade-quest-to-suck-greenhouse-gas-out-of-the-sky/
2) Nothing was fine
3) If he was going to do something, he could simply have stood between his chair and the pillar and she would not be able to get past
No need for medals or rubbishing. MP acted rudely and badly, knew he did and apologised. Move on, but lets not pretend he thought anyone was in danger of their lives, he was annoyed that the dinner was being interrupted.
While generally not keen on burning waste and emitting CO2, high temerature incineration with scrubbers may well be better for the environment than recycling as we do at present.
I am all in favour of more green living, but there is a lot of greenwash in current policy. I would start by a packaging tax on plastic items so that the manufacturer pays, rather than the environment and tax payer.
I’m talking about after we’ve stopped venting CO2 to atmosphere; it is entirely possible we will still need capture from atmosphere on a very large scale, and trees won’t be anywhere near sufficient.
If we have zero cost marginal power from renewables, then it is absolutely feasible, and a technology that should be developed.
This is a political and social commentary site, we do not need to certain of someone's intent to form a view, a reasonable view can be formed around his likely intent without mind reading. Unlike a jury trial, I do not need to be 99%+ certain of it to form my opinion, if we did we would have very little to comment on.
England in a spot of bother.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2019/06/21/worlds-first-electric-plane-can-travel-650-miles-battery-power/
Mark Field MP completely in the right to remove this weirdo watermelon protestor. I am so fed up of people thinking they can disrupt democratic politics and nobody can lay a finger on them. From shouting down university talks, to disrupting the Chancellor like this. You're free to shout on the streets - but not at private events.
Also, considering a holiday to Uganda with a friend. Anyone have any advice or know anyone who has been? Would appreciate it. FCO says safe on their website.
In Downing Street, an election has long been seen as the only way out of the crisis—if Parliament cannot bring itself to choose between deal or no-deal, a new parliament is needed. Yet for the Conservatives, even this escape hatch looks lethal. The party’s failure to deliver Brexit has seen its support in the polls collapse, sparking warnings from Hunt and others that should an election be called before Brexit, the party would be “annihilated.”
It means the one potential solution to the Brexit Catch-22—winning an electoral majority to take Britain out of the EU— might be its own such trap: Until the Conservatives manage to take Britain out of the EU, they will be punished at any general election for not having done so.
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2019/06/boris-johnson-jeremy-hunt-brexit-catch-22/592258/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=share
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/market/1.159853905
Certain parts are unsafe due to guerillas, particularly on the Congo and South Sudan Borders, and of course there is a current ebola outbreak...
He might limit the damage from an early GE even if he would, in my view, struggle to win one.
On the other hand, VTOL taxis are.
http://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/AJ201906210037.html
That's exactly it.
https://medium.com/@ianjohnwarren/the-conservatives-dilemma-equally-shite-e871191a7fd4
This is another excellent article and the two together are essential reading.
Nominations closed today
4 candidates
Georgina Emma Rowley HILL - Independent
Cara Kim MCGUINNESS - Labour
Robbie MOORE - Conservative and Unionist Party
Jonathan WALLACE - Liberal Democrats
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-6292189/Is-solution-ending-plastic-waste.html
"150 people, sir, was the answer from a General."
"So, just 10 minutes before the strike, I stopped it."
WHAT A GUY !!! (Martin Sheen, eat your heart out)
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1142055388965212161
But instead it becomes an issue because some people are arguing that what he himself has apologised for and acknowledges was a mistake is a good thing.
https://twitter.com/womensmarchlon/status/824553363023007744
Both got the main point over very well - that the correct description for the activities of the US and UK investment banking sector in the years leading up to the crash was Grand Larceny.
Biggest financial scam of all time and almost entirely unpunished.
Ergo no way out. Hell in aspic.
Yes, Yossarian would have recognized that immediately!
Interesting too, when war films tend to be more gung ho than anti war.
The immoderate (indeed verging on the ludicrous) view is that the most likely reason for his action was a genuine fear that the protester was dangerous. This flies in the face of the evidence.
The people who did nothing (i.e. everyone apart from him) chose the better and more reasonable course of (in)action. No doubt he would now agree.
He has no need to do any of theses debates really, he's going to win anyway.
The question is merely about the proportionality of his behaviour.
If he had punched her in the face, and dragged her out the room by the hair, we'd all agree that he had acted with excessive force (I hope).
Likewise, if he'd politiely escorted her, perhaps by holding her arm and marching her to the door, we'd all agree he had not.
The question, then, is where the force applied was on the scale. And (personally), I think he used excessive force. Not wildly disproportionate. Not resigning as an MP (or even a minister). But a level of force that would - for a policeman - result in a talking to from a superior, or would in all of our day-to-day lives necessitate an apology.
The "whataboutery" where we ask "yeah, but those damn climate protestors" is incredibly dangerous to civil society. It's creating this false dichotomy where someone has to be right and someone has to be wrong.
* OK. Excluding Sandy
Which Kurt Vonnegut book should I start with?
That he is not doing so suggests either he does not want to get tied down to leaving on Oct 31st because he knows we wont, or that he is not planning on an early election, and therefore will accept parliaments will.
We are not leaving on October 31st (barring surprising events).
19% supported the petition. I'm going to go with that 19% breaking 80% for the LDs.
Assume 50% turnout. That means the LDs start on 32%.
That's probably not enough. For the LDs to win this either:
a) turnout has to be more like 40%
or
b) the Brexit Party has to split the Leave vote